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.
NZ has 'em up. No sprue pics for the Guardians, sadly. Nice pick of all the heavy weapons though:
And behold the sprue that gives you two minis, zero weapon options, and costs almost as much as a full box of new Guardians:
I guess it was so important that the feet be all different parts, not leaving enough room for a second spear/sword. Not that that would justify this box's criminal price band, but it would make you feel less dirty buying it.
What the hell, GW? ONE pistol on that Warlock sprue? Man, they are cheap as gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iracundus wrote: Well, there are flip through reviews of the new Codex already and the Autarch entry in there is the same as Eldritch Omens, as we feared:
In other words pants on head stupid, no backward customizability and interchangeability allowed with the old Autarch set, despite that being touted as a model design feature. So the Codex cover Autarch is illegal and the same goes for virtually all pre-existing Autarch artwork.
Maybe people should start asking GW innocently why their Codex cover portrays an illegal weapons combination as the main centrepiece?
So infuriating. They even broke out the points cost for each piece of wargear separately, meaning they could have made them cross-compatible, but didn't as a subtle feth you to the players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/26 13:25:46
Not that there isn’t a ton wrong with the autarch situation, but are we missing out on any good combinations from the lack of compatibility? Mandiblaster, swooping hawk wings, etc. Are those options worth mixing with the new autarch or would they be options most people would never take?
Iracundus wrote: Well, there are flip through reviews of the new Codex already and the Autarch entry in there is the same as Eldritch Omens, as we feared:
In other words pants on head stupid, no backward customizability and interchangeability allowed with the old Autarch set, despite that being touted as a model design feature. So the Codex cover Autarch is illegal and the same goes for virtually all pre-existing Autarch artwork.
Oh for feth's sake...
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/26 14:52:47
well hur-dur they do say "modeling choices" not actual usable in-game choices
I am personally still quite happy with a lot of the new releases but these little things GW does get so freaking irritating - they look so dang stupid and duplicitous
petrov27 wrote: well hur-dur they do say "modeling choices" not actual usable in-game choices
I am personally still quite happy with a lot of the new releases but these little things GW does get so freaking irritating - they look so dang stupid and duplicitous
I dont know but personally the high price on these kits is actually stopping me from getting some Eldar. So for me its actually a big thing to the point of no sale.
I wonder if enough people wrote in to GW about the Autarch situation and illegal cover depiction (and why have modelling options only to make it illegal to use them), whether GW would adjust it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/26 15:35:31
Iracundus wrote: I wonder if enough people wrote in to GW about the Autarch situation and illegal cover depiction (and why have modelling options only to make it illegal to use them), whether GW would adjust it.
I thought GW's recent art policy was only depict things that are possible in game. So could mention how artwork centrepiece for the new Codex is actually not possible/allowed. All other older existing artwork of the Autarch with glaive and wings is also rendered obsolete and illegal as well.
GaroRobe wrote: Not that there isn’t a ton wrong with the autarch situation, but are we missing out on any good combinations from the lack of compatibility? Mandiblaster, swooping hawk wings, etc. Are those options worth mixing with the new autarch or would they be options most people would never take?
The options are wings, fusion pistol, Banshee blade, and mandiblaster helmet. All those are currently hard locked to that specific combination of gear. The choices for the other Autarch are thus almost binary:
1. Glaive or chainsword.
2. Banshee helmet or Dire Avenger helmet (i.e. nothing)
3. Warp spider jump generator or banner (i.e. nothing)
4. Ranged weapon option is the only one that is a non-binary choices
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/02/26 15:53:33
I'm sure these massive pictures taking up 60% of the page are wholly and completely necessary and definitely aren't just a desperate effort to hide just how few artefacts the writers could be arsed putting in the book.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/02/26 16:13:53
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Iracundus wrote: I wonder if enough people wrote in to GW about the Autarch situation and illegal cover depiction (and why have modelling options only to make it illegal to use them), whether GW would adjust it.
Probably not, but it's worth trying.
What would be the best way to contact them about this? I think it would be worthwhile to send a note asking "I'd like to field an Autarch like the picture shows but the rules don't seem to allow that."
Iracundus wrote: I wonder if enough people wrote in to GW about the Autarch situation and illegal cover depiction (and why have modelling options only to make it illegal to use them), whether GW would adjust it.
Probably not, but it's worth trying.
What would be the best way to contact them about this? I think it would be worthwhile to send a note asking "I'd like to field an Autarch like the picture shows but the rules don't seem to allow that."
Maybe lie and mention buying the older autarch as well, because the community article said the kits were cross compatible. If they don’t think you’re using third party bits, maybe they’ll be more understanding
I mean I have the older Autarch, so making it incompatible with the newer bits is a put-off for me. I'd hope their sales and marketing department could understand that.
Iracundus wrote: I wonder if enough people wrote in to GW about the Autarch situation and illegal cover depiction (and why have modelling options only to make it illegal to use them), whether GW would adjust it.
Probably not, but it's worth trying.
What would be the best way to contact them about this? I think it would be worthwhile to send a note asking "I'd like to field an Autarch like the picture shows but the rules don't seem to allow that."
I would go with noting the pictures on the cover of the codex that is and illegal loadout because the rules don't allow you to mix options from the two kits. Options the Warhammer Community article about the new kit says are compatible with the Autarch with Swooping Hawk Wings but that the datasheet options don't allow you to use.
"GW I thought that new cover artwork was super cool and I was super excited to buy the new Autarch model to kitbash with my existing older model to recreate the cover art. But I was distrought to see that the cover art isn't a legal loadout and I won't be able to use this in game, is this an error? I'm ever so excited to get that as a model"
"Sucks to be you, it's artwork not rules, use Legends"
The Red Hobbit wrote: Sorry folks I meant what was the best way to contact them. Is there a preferred email to contact GW with these sorts of concerns?
Iracundus wrote: Well, there are flip through reviews of the new Codex already and the Autarch entry in there is the same as Eldritch Omens, as we feared:
In other words pants on head stupid, no backward customizability and interchangeability allowed with the old Autarch set, despite that being touted as a model design feature. So the Codex cover Autarch is illegal and the same goes for virtually all pre-existing Autarch artwork.
Oh for feth's sake...
Spoiler:
Rules illegal loadout is one thing, but false and misleading advertising is actual illegal activity under UK law - touting multiple times that you can do a thing to garner interest in customers purchasing goods that turn out to be bogus is stepping beyond the stupidity of no models no rules and into the realm of advertising standards.
"MoDeLLiNG CHoicES" would be insufficient defence here, as misleading alone is the standard to meet, not flat out lies.
Iracundus wrote: Well, there are flip through reviews of the new Codex already and the Autarch entry in there is the same as Eldritch Omens, as we feared:
In other words pants on head stupid, no backward customizability and interchangeability allowed with the old Autarch set, despite that being touted as a model design feature. So the Codex cover Autarch is illegal and the same goes for virtually all pre-existing Autarch artwork.
Oh for feth's sake...
Spoiler:
Rules illegal loadout is one thing, but false and misleading advertising is actual illegal activity under UK law - touting multiple times that you can do a thing to garner interest in customers purchasing goods that turn out to be bogus is stepping beyond the stupidity of no models no rules and into the realm of advertising standards.
"MoDeLLiNG CHoicES" would be insufficient defence here, as misleading alone is the standard to meet, not flat out lies.
Nah, GW is usually either very quick on deleting evidence once they're called out, or juuuust vague enough to not be sued under false advertising. I don't see them ever getting sued.
"Tabletop games are the only setting when a body is made more horrifying for NOT being chopped into smaller pieces."
- Jiado
I'm sure these massive pictures taking up 60% of the page are wholly and completely necessary and definitely aren't just a desperate effort to hide just how few artefacts the writers could be arsed putting in the book.
And who in their right mind puts an illustration right on the bookbinding ?! I bet even the illustrator is pissed !
I'm sure these massive pictures taking up 60% of the page are wholly and completely necessary and definitely aren't just a desperate effort to hide just how few artefacts the writers could be arsed putting in the book.
And who in their right mind puts an illustration right on the bookbinding ?! I bet even the illustrator is pissed !
Don't worry - there's another massive illustration taking up 60% of the space for the CWE artefacts as well, also right in the middle of the bookbinding.
Balance!
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
H.B.M.C. wrote: NZ has 'em up. No sprue pics for the Guardians, sadly. Nice pick of all the heavy weapons though:
And behold the sprue that gives you two minis, zero weapon options, and costs almost as much as a full box of new Guardians:
I guess it was so important that the feet be all different parts, not leaving enough room for a second spear/sword. Not that that would justify this box's criminal price band, but it would make you feel less dirty buying it.
Guardian kit looks really nice, the warlocks can suck it.
I'm still going to wait for a combat patrol before getting any more eldar.
Iracundus wrote: Well, there are flip through reviews of the new Codex already and the Autarch entry in there is the same as Eldritch Omens, as we feared:
In other words pants on head stupid, no backward customizability and interchangeability allowed with the old Autarch set, despite that being touted as a model design feature. So the Codex cover Autarch is illegal and the same goes for virtually all pre-existing Autarch artwork.
Oh for feth's sake...
Spoiler:
Rules illegal loadout is one thing, but false and misleading advertising is actual illegal activity under UK law - touting multiple times that you can do a thing to garner interest in customers purchasing goods that turn out to be bogus is stepping beyond the stupidity of no models no rules and into the realm of advertising standards.
"MoDeLLiNG CHoicES" would be insufficient defence here, as misleading alone is the standard to meet, not flat out lies.
Maybe since you seem to be in the UK, you could hint at their Codex cover and their WarCom article as being misleading (and take screenshots of the WarCom article as evidence). Although GW might claim just modelling choices, it might come down to what are "reasonable expectations" to have. How many other GW examples do we have where they tout modelling choices (and depict on their Codex cover) something that is completely illegal in their rules as written? It could be argued that a player would reasonably expect that a modelling choice would also be rules legal, especially if it appears right smack in the middle of the Codex cover.
That is the standard set I think in certain countries. Reasonable customer expectations of what to expect out of a product so a company cannot weasel out by saying for example, "I sold you a car I said you could sit in and take pictures with, but none of my advertising said the wheels could turn."
Maybe we can hope that if GW gets enough flak about it or enough hints of legal stuff that maybe they will quickly issue a FAQ modification. Would be cheaper for them than a legal case.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/02/26 22:54:07
