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.

On the packaging there's a bolt pistol but it's not on the sprues. This doesn't seem to me like it would require a destruction order tbh, they could just redo the packaging and that would save them the valuable machine time. If it's released with new packaging sans bp that would confirm it as the reason (doubt it).

 modelhunter wrote:
Did anyone find out the real reason GW held back the Enforcer's Weapons Sprue release?

It seem to be only speculation at the moment.

Lots of speculation indeed. Until GW announce on one of their official channels the reason why then I guess speculation is all we have.

If GW were going to tell us then I think they would have told us by now. It'll just have to remain a mystery.

 modelhunter wrote:
Did anyone find out the real reason GW held back the Enforcer's Weapons Sprue release?

It seem to be only speculation at the moment.

Does it matter?

It’s an odd reaction, and so fascinating in itself. Of all the things to complain about on the internet, mild interest about an out of the ordinary, but entirely inconsequential event seems low on the list

I have seen the sprue on ebay, so they do exist...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Destroying could be a tax write off thing? I know that applies to books (rip the cover off overstock, it counts as destroyed and can be reported as such in tax stuff).

No idea if that extends to other products though.

It's not to do with tax specifically, but 'destruction' is used to avoid the cost of shipping back defective or unsold goods, which usually isn't worth it. The most widespread use of the practice, as you say (though, again, not in regards to tax per se – as there's no VAT on books), is in the book and magazine trades, where stores almost never actually return unsold copies, but instead rip off the front cover, or even just cut-off the barcode, and send those back (or nowadays even just send a photo of the 'destroyed' copies) and are refunded for the unsold copies by the distributor. GW's instruction to stores to 'destroy' be simply that – leave the boxes in an unsaleable condition, and GW will refund the price paid. You will, of course, find many products up for sale via outlets like eBay with torn-off covers, or cut-out barcodes, or 'destroyed' boxes. Almost certainly a lot of these sprues will leak out the same way in due course.

Destruction on safety grounds would require a whole raft of other measures so I don't think it can possibly be that. Likewise if GW had wanted people to never see these, they'd have given the instruction to return the boxes at GW's cost, so it's unlikely this is anything particularly dramatic. If the product doesn't match the images or description on the packaging, they'll have weighed up the cost and difficulty of dealing with individual complaints (and any potential liabilities under consumer laws about production descriptions), versus the cost of just writing off this initial batch, and they've opted for the latter.

 lasgunpacker wrote:
I have seen the sprue on ebay, so they do exist...

We know that stock was sent out and the retailers who received them were told to dispose of them. So if some have ended up on Ebay that just means that they didn't follow GW's instructions.

Seems a bit foolhardy, GW won't be happy that someone is selling them anyway.

I haven't seen any on Ebay myself but it's not necessarily a retailer who is selling them. The stock could have been sent to recycling in good faith and they were picked up somewhere along the chain.

Can’t “destroyed” stock be claimed on insurance? Would explain a few things. Including how some “written off” vehicles end up back on the road.
But yeah, if they have some sort of cover for stock being unsalable then “destroying” it might even be a condition of the insurance terms so they can’t claim it then turn around and sell it anyway.

To be sure, GW is not in the business of tax or insurance scams. If the product was recalled or destroyed, it was legitimately faulty.

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Can’t “destroyed” stock be claimed on insurance? Would explain a few things. Including how some “written off” vehicles end up back on the road.
But yeah, if they have some sort of cover for stock being unsalable then “destroying” it might even be a condition of the insurance terms so they can’t claim it then turn around and sell it anyway.

Fairly sure that wouldn’t be legal as an insurance claim. Factory or warehouse fire? Or container washing off a ship? That’s something they could claim (depending on their insurance), but not deliberately instructing people to destroy the product. It may still count as a tax write-off, same as a “normal” loss making product.

GW made the 31st book now. Pity they didn't take the oppurtunity to fix the same old mistakes they introduced 6 years ago. Funny some effort were made to fix it in faq/errata, but technically it only applies to the old book because it's addressed by Judgement book haha.

What is the chances at this coming 7 November Reveal Show (ie World Championships) that we might get new gangs revealed like Mutants or Ratskins (or what ever their PC names are now)?

I don't think we're going to see Ratskins. Nomads pretty much fill their niche now.
Could be Scavvies, could be another starter box set.
How about Aranthian Succession II: Even more Successioner?

Well without ratskins I've got no gang to play. The niche isn't the same as the faction.

 Hellebore wrote:
Well without ratskins I've got no gang to play. The niche isn't the same as the faction.

If they re-did Ratskins, they'd bear almost no relation to the original gang anyway.

I don't think so. There were only a few questionable tropes around them. Gw has been fine with Mongol and nordic marines, and aztec/Mayan lizards. Or the almost historical china...

They are the descendents of the original inhabitants who wear the skins of the giant monster rats. They live in closed communities and avoid hivers.

There are only a few tropes like badskins becoming drunks and hanging around as trackers for Gangers that could be argued to be unnecessary.

So long as they take less flippant approach then it would work like any other history based work they've done.

Rat skins could be reimagined by hinting that they are the scouts/spies/minions of the original (pre imperial) leaders of Necromunda. There are some hints in the lore that the descendants of those guys have a hidden underground city.

semajnollissor wrote:
Rat skins could be reimagined by hinting that they are the scouts/spies/minions of the original (pre imperial) leaders of Necromunda. There are some hints in the lore that the descendants of those guys have a hidden underground city.

I thought they were already, as this is part of the rumoured backstory of the Ash Wastes nomads. I think any reimagining of the Ratskins would have them very much more Underhive focused than wider Necromunda.

It would be fun if the “ratskins” whatever name they end up with, were part of the same original colonist population as the Nomads but a different faction or philosophy.
More so if they were originally the integrationists, who wanted Compliance and the advantages it brings, while the Nomads were originally the resistance.
Only now they’ve effectively swapped sides; they want the settler-colonists and the Imperium out now while the Nomads would be happy to merely re-establish their sovereignty over the planet and keep the settlers around.

There's a lot you can do with their wider background.

But I just liked them for their expert tracking and stalking schtick and the aesthetic. So long as their cultural aspects remain more or less the same (minus the more cringe stereotypes), their greater background an origins can really be anything.

But clans of techno barbarian hunter/trackers that sneak through the sump and underhive like ghosts are super cool. Especially when wearing furs.

I think it was partly because I had a space wolf army in the 90s when those excellent metal ratskins came out. They also had the coolest looking double barrel shotguns. No one's shotguns looked as good.

I've been at this a long time, rec.arts.games.miniatures long and I can't recall anyone ever claiming to being offended by the Ratlings.

The Pygmies, sure, turning the good people of South America into Frogs, yeah, turning African-hued Salamanders into grey skinned red-eyed mutants, yep. And let's not start on the Ork/Orc African stereotypes.

But I can't recall a single ill word about the Ratskins.

I have read a bit about it, but necromunda is a niche, so it’s not widely going to have discussions of its niche faction lore.

But most discussions have been “as long as Done right, and they can be done right. Then they would be cool to see done again.”

I think GW has been handling that sorta stuff fairly well last decade, so would probably end up being a good addition again. It probably depends where they want the setting to go as well.
But it may come after a big chaos update I am thinking.

Given their recent efforts, I'd suspect that the next release will be giving the Corpse Grinders the 'House of...' treatment in the same manner as the Squats and Enforcers. Possibly even a wider release that updated the Chaos Cults in general.

When's the last time any of the core gangs got anything new?

Delaque got the Servant of the Silent Ones at the start of the year alongside a big range of hangers-on for all the core gangs. Other than that, it was probably Van Saar with the Secundus boxed set last year.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
When's the last time any of the core gangs got anything new?

Time for a Delaque vehicle! Actually, nah, that's never gonna happen (sorry Delaque players :( )

I'm not sure if it's a good idea for the House gangs to be changed / revamped / expanded. For one thing they'd get a new book to go with it, which is the last thing we need.

Of course if GW think that House gangs version 2 will drive sales they'll go for it regardless.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I've been at this a long time, rec.arts.games.miniatures long and I can't recall anyone ever claiming to being offended by the Ratlings.

The Pygmies, sure, turning the good people of South America into Frogs, yeah, turning African-hued Salamanders into grey skinned red-eyed mutants, yep. And let's not start on the Ork/Orc African stereotypes.

But I can't recall a single ill word about the Ratskins.

I think it just comes down to the name mainly, with 'ratskin' just being a slight variation on 'redskin'.

There was one very unfortunate bit of the old Ratskin lore which does lean into contemporary stereotypes and actually got copy-and-pasted into N17 (Gangs of the Underhive, page 9, last paragraph). I can see why they might have preferred to let sleeping dogs lie lest someone surface it.

They do feel like a gap in the setting though, and I think they could probably reinvent the concept from the ground up at this point. New name, new aesthetic, etc.

As long as theres No scavvies and pit slave, this is not necromunda

Besides the Star Players rules on WarComm, there's also an article about The Bonehead Podcast making a Vampire themed pitch, and Bonehead has a video about it.