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.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

No but seriously. You're complaining about the FULL AoS rules for free. Really??

 Mr. Grey wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

No but seriously. You're complaining about the FULL AoS rules for free. Really??

Seriously, I should your computer overtaxed where you just can’t fit 76MB onto it? They have it in multiple languages and free to download. I haven’t read it yet, but downloaded and printed it out for later. Plus full page Artwork that I’ll print and laminate for the wall.

GW may be terrible with some stuff (Pricing), but this is free .

 Mr. Grey wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

No but seriously. You're complaining about the FULL AoS rules for free. Really??

You don't really have to repeat what I already said if you're not even going to add some delirious justification for the bloated size tho

Is there any info on some sort of Get Everything! Bundle that they usually put up?

Like, the Dom Box, Terrain, and Map Box?

Voss wrote:
I'm sure the code of conduct will get some flak, but I'm mostly amused that technically speaking, according to the battlefield rules (section 2.0), only AoS brand terrain counts as terrain. Everything else (including 40k trees or ruins) is open ground.

Am I reading this right as to mean 3rd ed doesn't have real terrain rules and just specific rules for specific GW models?

Depends on how you define real terrain rules, I guess.

Picked up the core rules download, pretty cool to have the actual rules for free rather than the truncated version we got for 40k. I'm definitely liking what I am seeing and the new Path for Glory sounds really fun after watching a few reviews.

I'm kind of tempted to expand my Warcry set up with another ravaged lands set to have a table for small AoS games. I have probably 1000 points of Slaves to Darkness just hanging out. Not sure if I will go in on it though, as my LGS generally plays 2k and I have no real interest in playing that large of a game.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

This is the weirdest complaint ever. Not also sure how incompetence plays any part in this these are high detail pages that seem intended for user printing.

I am personally super happy that I am getting a high res copy of the rules.

Now I just need GHB and I am a happy camper.

I wonder how Bonereapers are going to interact with the new Battalions? As it is, they gain no benefit at all from fully half of them, as they cannot use command points or abilities. Though they are quite hero heavy army, so could certainly benefit from including the other ones for extra enhancements and the one drop.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

ALL of that is their high quality images.



Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?

 Geifer wrote:

Voss wrote:
I'm sure the code of conduct will get some flak, but I'm mostly amused that technically speaking, according to the battlefield rules (section 2.0), only AoS brand terrain counts as terrain. Everything else (including 40k trees or ruins) is open ground.

Am I reading this right as to mean 3rd ed doesn't have real terrain rules and just specific rules for specific GW models?

Nope. Haven't gotten that far yet. Just that the 'setting up the battlefield' section, states that terrain on the battlefield is represented by terrain from AoS range. Then it says 'These are terrain features, the rest of the battlefield is open ground.'

Also see 17.0 and 28.2.3, which I haven't gotten to yet. The upshot is, old editions used to be vague about terrain because they didn't know what dyi or other terrain players would be using. This edition is only concerned with AoS brand products. Though the battlefield can be a table or even the floor, no reference to mats or whatever yet. Though the 'battle packs' will dictate the size of the battlefield.

Rihgu wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

ALL of that is their high quality images.

Spoiler:

Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?

I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

ALL of that is their high quality images.

Spoiler:

Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?

I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.

It must be terrible the taxes you pay on MB usage where you live. I have seen the actual Gamma Wolves book and the artwork does not compete

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

ALL of that is their high quality images.

Spoiler:

Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?

I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.

What are you even arguing here? That GW is somehow purposefully inflating file sizes of images?

At this stage, I’m pretty sure he’ll whine about anything.

I mean, getting out the pram at a file size is pretty desperate whineposting.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
76MB for 44 pages is the sort of incompetence one should expect from GW I suppose.

(ib4 "shut up and be happy you got something for free GW can do no wrong")

ALL of that is their high quality images.

Spoiler:

Where's the incompetency? I guess they could've made it black & white and all text?

I have here Gamma Wolves, a 113 page full color print quality pdf with art and full page backgrounds that's 12 megs but okay, GW is never expected to meet the same standards as some dude writing a game in his basement.

Rihgu wrote:
What are you even arguing here? That GW is somehow purposefully inflating file sizes of images?

That maybe 1200dpi is unnecessary in a pdf. A couple of posts up the filesize was used as an excuse for the pdf to not be a direct download so if that's correct, maybe I'm arguing that the slovenliness of their layout guy is causing hassle to literally everyone wanting the pdf.

What are you arguing? That GW is above criticism?

It's big because these are high quality scans - heck they are higher quality than many digital comics! I've just blown the front cover up to 300% and it still looks darn good.



If anything I'm impressed that its only 78mb!

I'll be able to go over the rules once I'm off work. But so far I'm really happy I bought the Blasted Hallowheart boxed set last year. Seems I have a perfect sized game mat ready to go.

Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?

 ingtaer wrote:
Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?

Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.

 nels1031 wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?

Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.

Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.

 ingtaer wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?

Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.

Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.

In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.

 nels1031 wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:
Do we know if warscroll battalions from Tomes are going to be a thing of the past in matched play?

Yep. They specified that in the Facehammer stream. Those dudes are the tourney sort, so they went for that early in the stream.

Cheers, that is going to take alot of thinking about with how to run my IDK now.

In the same boat with my Fyreslayers. Losing Lords of the Lodge is a blow, but I'm not despairing until I see all options.

Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.

Only niggle I can throw at the download rules is that it would be nice to walk into a Warhammer store and pick up a printed copy.

 ingtaer wrote:


Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.

Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".

Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.

Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".

No special characters being able to take book spells is piss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:


Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.

Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".

Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.

Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".

Yeah, you if we can divide it up kn to 'good at the game' mayched play and 'people who whine about tryhards' matched play, that would probably be best.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:


Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.

Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".

Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.

Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".

Pretty much is isnt it (bar the tryhards bit), seems the default for pickups.
Play wise though I am most excited for the new campaign system, sounds like great fun with a like minded group and reminds me of the campaigns of old.

 ingtaer wrote:

Play wise though I am most excited for the new campaign system, sounds like great fun with a like minded group and reminds me of the campaigns of old.

I honestly am surprised by the new AoS narrative play, indeed they feel like improved Crusade mode from 40k. And I totally dig the "conquer territories and build your stronghold" mechanism.

 ingtaer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:


Aye, hopefully the GHB clears a lot of things up in conjunction with the new rulebook.

Frankly, what needs to happen is "Matched Play" gets defined as "Organized, Tournament Play".

Because that's what it's really talking about anyways.

Let the rest of us actually have fun and the tryhards can stay in "Matched Play".

Pretty much is isnt it (bar the tryhards bit), seems the default for pickups.

To be fair, it being the "default for pickups" is linked to the nonsensical trash that still gets perpetuated to this day that things like Open Play automatically mean hundreds of Nagashes or Archaons or that Power isn't a "real" balancing system, etc. GW's games have been the only spot where I've seen the "hottakes" from places like 4chan, FLG, or BoLS circulate in the communities in the real world.

One of the few reasons I would like to see GW open up an "official forum" again or start having an easily searchable reference for people via Warhammer Community is that it would be nice to see people get exposed to actual info before memetastic goons get to them.

Play wise though I am most excited for the new campaign system, sounds like great fun with a like minded group and reminds me of the campaigns of old.

I'm torn on Path to Glory personally. I like the concept but I'm concerned about the "territories" bit.

Hopefully the book versions of things will expand it further.