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.

How about we just all write to ask them to FAQ it to allow, instead of pretending to be legal experts and kidding ourselves that anyone will attempt to sue?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
How about we just all write to ask them to FAQ it to allow, instead of pretending to be legal experts and kidding ourselves that anyone will attempt to sue?

Not a matter for courts for anyone here - no one is out of pocket or subject to any material loss, just pointing out that advertising standards exist and anyone can raise a claim to ASA at any point if they so much as feel they or anyone else are being mislead by marketing claims. In reality everyone spamming FAQ requests is the best and most reasonable course of action as there are bound to be plenty of honest mistakes in the rest of the codex (for example clowns seem to have a few like the lack of core on anything but bikes and the weird unit sizes required for wargear options to kick in).

If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

Most of the time it's not about buying new products, but being able to use the ones you've already purchased.
For example, I have a Jetbike Autarch equipped with Lance AND Fusion gun, which was perfectly fieldable prior to 8th ed.
But now it's an either/or. So I'll either have to continue using the LEGENDS (which now has inferior stats) or rip parts off my 10+ year old model.

Even if I don't buy the Codex, the expectation is that I still use it's rules. It's frustrating.
On the bright side, at least they didn't Squat the Autarch Skyrunner like I thought they were going do, since it's a Finecast rider on a SUPER outdated plastic bike.

-

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

You know false advertising is a crime, aye?

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

And your next line is:"Just buy a 3d printer !"

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

And your next line is:"Just buy a 3d printer !"

And then instead of "overpriced models" you can battle with incorrect sales; holes; resin traps; strange thicknesses; poor supports; pock marks; resin printer woes; spotty resin supplies and rising resin prices (resin I use was £35 a bottle last year and now its £45 a bottle)

I've seen several conversions with people using a mix of the old and new Autarch models so I'm not sure where this crack about them not being compatible is coming from?

 Olthannon wrote:
I've seen several conversions with people using a mix of the old and new Autarch models so I'm not sure where this crack about them not being compatible is coming from?

The codex. The rules do not allow for mixing and matching the wargear.

Basically the codex is written from the extreme angle of "no models no rules" so each kit is built around the idea of what you can get exactly from the model kit itself.

Meanwhlie the autarch models were designed from the idea of swapping parts between the two kits.


Basically the designers went one way and the rules writers went another way (or the manages strong armed them to go that way).



Whlist I like GW's "no models no rules" practice as a general principle*; its extreme angle is somewhat limiting and leads to some very odd choices in how GW approaches army design in the rules.

Eg in AoS there's a push toward having all the muscians and banners out of every box being used - which means you end up with more command models than actual troops in infantry blocks.


*At one stage it was getting silly as GW were adding more and more models into codex and more weapons but not actually giving gamers the models. Tyranids had several codex with termagaunts having weapons that there was no model for; and "hero" style models which, again, had no model. And they kept adding to them.

No models no rules at least put a stop to enforced conversions/proxies being part of the game. Which I think is a good thing - conversoins/proxies should always be optional or only required in the short term (a few months)

What is illogical is it hurts their own sales.

If you advertise based on the two Autarch kits having interchangeable parts, you might induce customers to buy both kits to play around with mixing and matching.

Instead, what they are doing is basically forcing people to buy either old Autarch kit with its rigid wargear selection or the newer Autarch kit that has rules legal gear selection only within that kit itself. Instead of potentially getting customers to buy both kits, you've just forced them to buy only 1.

Waste of designer time to make sure the Autarch kits are interchangeable if this feature is then explicitly barred from being used. Expending resources to develop a feature, only to then shoot down your own product feature and forbid it is what is so dumb and the commercial equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

So if I'm getting it right it's this last sentence in the Omens Autarch list, that if they don't have a mask or the spider pack they can take the wings and mandiblasters?

Is it not that the 'and' should just be an or?

Why would they make it so if you have the wings you have to have the blade and blasters and fusion pistol as a single loadout?

EDIT: I see because that's the old model.

EDIT2: hey that really is fething stupid fair play.

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

Did you seriously just unironically write that as a response to the Autarch thing?

Simple solution: just buy 300 dollars worth of itty bitty magnets and magnetize every weapon option for every model so that no matter what GW does, you'll always be able to have a legal squad. Even if they remove the entire unit from the codex and their product page, you can still use those models to count as something else by popping on weapons from other, still relevant models!

Just make sure that every single polarity is the same, which will likely take literally days to do across a whole range of models and double your workload across your entire army. No big deal.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

Did you seriously just unironically write that as a response to the Autarch thing?

Seriously. Did you like. Omg.

You guys complain so much about GW rules and products. No one is forcing you to buy them. And it details from the topic of the thread which is rumors and news.

drbored wrote:
Simple solution: just buy 300 dollars worth of itty bitty magnets and magnetize every weapon option for every model so that no matter what GW does, you'll always be able to have a legal squad. Even if they remove the entire unit from the codex and their product page, you can still use those models to count as something else by popping on weapons from other, still relevant models!

Just make sure that every single polarity is the same, which will likely take literally days to do across a whole range of models and double your workload across your entire army. No big deal.

Wait ! I think know what you are talking about !

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:

Wait ! I think know what you are talking about !

Spoiler:

I really appreciate this cackle first thing in the morning. My boys LOVE those damn things.

warpedpig wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

Did you seriously just unironically write that as a response to the Autarch thing?

Seriously. Did you like. Omg.

You guys complain so much about GW rules and products. No one is forcing you to buy them. And it details from the topic of the thread which is rumors and news.

The news is: GW advertised the product falsely and the rules are in a direct contradiction to how the kit was designed and how it was advertised.

But of course, that's somehow subjective.

This was my first Codex for any army since 7th edition so I thought I might as well go with Collector's edition.

In additon to Codex I got box of Guardians, Warlocks and the Yncarne for now. I will get more Guardians and maybe Dark Reapers and Avatar once they hit my FLGS shelves. I have zero interest in Shining Spears and Shroudrunners and the last time I player Eldar, Autarch didn't even exist.

Bring it on!

jullevi wrote:
This was my first Codex for any army since 7th edition so I thought I might as well go with Collector's edition.

Well, with any hope it will be valid for a year, day-one errata and quarterly points changes notwithstanding, of course.

Hilarious thing about the Autarch mess is that (as usual) GW has overtuned the bike option, making the ancient and terrible Autarch Skyrunner the obviously most competitive choice over either the new or the newish plastic Autarch model.

 Insularum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
How about we just all write to ask them to FAQ it to allow, instead of pretending to be legal experts and kidding ourselves that anyone will attempt to sue?

Not a matter for courts for anyone here - no one is out of pocket or subject to any material loss, just pointing out that advertising standards exist and anyone can raise a claim to ASA at any point if they so much as feel they or anyone else are being mislead by marketing claims. In reality everyone spamming FAQ requests is the best and most reasonable course of action as there are bound to be plenty of honest mistakes in the rest of the codex (for example clowns seem to have a few like the lack of core on anything but bikes and the weird unit sizes required for wargear options to kick in).

The Aeldari Discord is carrying out a coordinated email campaign asking GW to errata that datasheet. At the end of the day a revision is in everyone's best interest including their own, so hopefully common sense will prevail.

Definitely seems like a more constructive course of action than amateur legal 'experts' googling advertising laws at least.

 xttz wrote:

 Insularum wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
How about we just all write to ask them to FAQ it to allow, instead of pretending to be legal experts and kidding ourselves that anyone will attempt to sue?

Not a matter for courts for anyone here - no one is out of pocket or subject to any material loss, just pointing out that advertising standards exist and anyone can raise a claim to ASA at any point if they so much as feel they or anyone else are being mislead by marketing claims. In reality everyone spamming FAQ requests is the best and most reasonable course of action as there are bound to be plenty of honest mistakes in the rest of the codex (for example clowns seem to have a few like the lack of core on anything but bikes and the weird unit sizes required for wargear options to kick in).

The Aeldari Discord is carrying out a coordinated email campaign asking GW to errata that datasheet. At the end of the day a revision is in everyone's best interest including their own, so hopefully common sense will prevail.

Definitely seems like a more constructive course of action than amateur legal 'experts' googling advertising laws at least.

I think what Insularum was suggesting was the same but making it even more apparent how everyone's best interest would be served as the negative outcome is even more negative:

1. Errata the datasheet and potentially increase sales of both kits. It would definitely increase customer goodwill. It's a win win situation for all parties.

vs.

2. Refuse to errata the datasheet. Find out someone made a complaint to the UK ASA and have to waste time and money dealing with paperwork and the case, regardless of the outcome. Everybody loses even if GW wins the case.

Now one would think a rational company would choose option 1. Of course a rational company would never have been caught with this problem in the first place as the designers, rulers writers, and artists should all have been on the same page. The rules writers shooting down the work of the designers and artists and their own advertising is comically funny in the sad sort of "laugh instead of crying" way that incompetence is funny.

So while I may hope for option 1, I would not put it past GW to do the equivalent of option 2 and refuse to errata anything and claim everything is as intended and just as planned.

warpedpig wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
If you guys don’t like their product don’t buy it.

Did you seriously just unironically write that as a response to the Autarch thing?

Seriously. Did you like. Omg.

You guys complain so much about GW rules and products. No one is forcing you to buy them. And it details from the topic of the thread which is rumors and news.

That GW isn't "forcing you to buy" a particular product makes no difference to if there are problems with that product or not. Saying that people aren't allowed to be unhappy with and complain about something is just absurd.

Good luck with the emails I hope all goes the way you guys want.

But if it comes to the worse case scenario and these are not amended then its only a case of waiting couple years or so and new rules will come in.

Maybe people should draw in the dotted lines for GW by actually writing in with stuff like:

"I thought I would buy both Autarchs if I could mix and match. But I guess now I won't buy that old Autarch kit."

Maybe GW really is that dense that it needs to be explicitly laid out how they are losing potential extra sales.

The two Autarchs are potentially to be released together as a boxed set later.

They called it "Craftworld Command" in one of the articles.

Iracundus wrote:
Maybe people should draw in the dotted lines for GW by actually writing in with stuff like:

"I thought I would buy both Autarchs if I could mix and match. But I guess now I won't buy that old Autarch kit."

Maybe GW really is that dense that it needs to be explicitly laid out how they are losing potential extra sales.

This is me. I would much prefer a winged autarch for theme reasons and would have bought one. I’d prefer to have him flitting around the backfield with the more shooty options. If I wanted one to get close and stab things, I’d go with the bike.

I got the one in the omens box, and he’ll kinda fit the role. Jump pack is not quite as good for my army, but will work.

Lost sale.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The two Autarchs are potentially to be released together as a boxed set later.

They called it "Craftworld Command" in one of the articles.

Now that's absolute peak hilarity.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The two Autarchs are potentially to be released together as a boxed set later.

They called it "Craftworld Command" in one of the articles.

Now that's absolute peak hilarity.

Such a release would only make sense if there were cross-kit customizability. If that had been the original case, and they changed the rules to remove that, then it is incompetence as it destroys the reason for the set. Way to go to crater your sales of that set.