The Rumour Thread

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Stay on Target  

Back to rumours please

 

[michu]

Does someone remember for how long Skulltaker is OOP, because if it's recent change then the battletome could be near?

Edited March 1, 2019 by michu

[Overread]

I thought someone (GW) said a new plastic Skulltaker was coming? 

[EMMachine]

15 minutes ago, Overread said:

I thought someone (GW) said a new plastic Skulltaker was coming? 

Yeah, the skulltaker was shown together with the Battletome and the Endless Spells, Endless Prayers (or what ever it is in case of Khorne, after not having any Wizards), with the Las Vegas Open Post on Warhammer Community. But there wasn't a releasedate yet.  The earliest pre-order date would be March, 9th. But we will see on Sunday what will be in the preorder for that date.

[Overread]

Models vanishing from sale tends to happen near to a release launch - GW likely is cutting sales now rather than doing another production batch and being left sitting on a load of resin models that will be hard to shift. 

[robinlvalentine]

Interesting tidbit from the new White Dwarf that illustrates just how model-led GW's releases are:

The original Shadespire warbands were sculpted and completed before anyone had even thought of making the game. They were supposed to be "expansion sets for existing units" (???). Someone saw them and said 'we should use these to make a new spin-off game'.

I do think it seems pretty nuts just how in control the minis guys are of everything. Obviously GW sees the minis as the most important part of their business, but the idea of someone just making all 8 Shadespire warbands, dumping them on someone's desk, and saying 'do something with these' is pretty out there. You've got to imagine the lore and rules side of things suffer from being quite as secondary as that. But then Underworlds is a fantastic game so what do I know!

Little off-topic I know but I think it's helpful to keep stuff like this in mind when looking at what might be upcoming. 

[Overread]

@robinlvalentine the "being made" might mean the 3D designs were done but not made into actual models yet. If you look at any company that has full time design staff then they will likely work on quite a few projects at once as well as personal and fringe projects. They will typically design way more than you can ever use (heck if you ever followed the old Spartan Games they were bursting with new ideas that they couldn't keep up with themselves). It basically means there's an element of picking and choosing going on from the design to model crafting and then product use. 

It wouldn't shock me if there were designs for a lot of things we will never see or which are clear future products that are just not making it into product. I'd say whilst the designers control the designs the production schedule is likely where the real power is - fitting things in 

[robinlvalentine]

3 minutes ago, Overread said:

@robinlvalentine the "being made" might mean the 3D designs were done but not made into actual models yet. If you look at any company that has full time design staff then they will likely work on quite a few projects at once as well as personal and fringe projects. They will typically design way more than you can ever use (heck if you ever followed the old Spartan Games they were bursting with new ideas that they couldn't keep up with themselves). It basically means there's an element of picking and choosing going on from the design to model crafting and then product use. 

It wouldn't shock me if there were designs for a lot of things we will never see or which are clear future products that are just not making it into product. I'd say whilst the designers control the designs the production schedule is likely where the real power is - fitting things in 

Yeah I'm sure you're right about there being loads of designs we don't see. But the way the article is written it doesn't sound like they were just 3D designs, it really does sound like they were handed over to the design studio already finished. 

I think sometimes you can even see it in the way rules or lore is written - like all the weirdness around the rules for the Soul Wars box, and some of the Nighthaunt lore (the 'ironic punishment' lore makes sense for some units, and feels really forced for others) 

Edited March 1, 2019 by robinlvalentine

[JPjr]

You read interviews with the background writers, like Graeme Davis, going right back to the 80s and the story is the same. They'd get a model dumped on their desk and often told to come up with a story and background for it to go in an advert in the next WD or on the back of the box. Sometimes they'd get a steer from the designer, but sometimes maybe just a name for the model if that.

In fact if I recall correctly, no guarantee, I think it was GD who actually at one point made an effort to go through the existing catalogue and create back stories and rules for loads of them as a large percentage didn't have any at all.

[Mortarch]

The new FAQ released today has confirmed that Zombie Dragons and Terrorgheists when taken as battle lines are NOT behemoths... meaning more than four FLAPPIES in an army.

Could this mean something similar to BCR in their hopefully new book?

[Skabnoze]

16 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Speaking of zero idea about a thing -

Comparing units in one army to units in another has never been a good idea, and it's still not.

True, but that sounds like what is going on if there is a one-size-fits-all formula that is used.  Even if they tweak the values after getting them from the formula it sounds like the formula is agnostic of the intangible uniquenesses of an army.  I'm not saying that a general formula for baseline  points based on things such as warscroll unit & weapon stats is a bad idea.  But if they do indeed use such a thing then it makes the concept of cross army comparisons more useful than our general wisdom says - and bear in mind that I am generally in the camp that says cross-army comparisons of individual units is not very useful.

[robinlvalentine]

2 hours ago, JPjr said:

You read interviews with the background writers, like Graeme Davis, going right back to the 80s and the story is the same. They'd get a model dumped on their desk and often told to come up with a story and background for it to go in an advert in the next WD or on the back of the box. Sometimes they'd get a steer from the designer, but sometimes maybe just a name for the model if that.

In fact if I recall correctly, no guarantee, I think it was GD who actually at one point made an effort to go through the existing catalogue and create back stories and rules for loads of them as a large percentage didn't have any at all.

Interesting! As I say I understand why, but you've got to imagine the rules and lore would be a lot tighter if those departments had more input. But that's maybe the writer in me talking  Oh well. 

[Skabnoze]

3 hours ago, robinlvalentine said:

I do think it seems pretty nuts just how in control the minis guys are of everything. Obviously GW sees the minis as the most important part of their business, but the idea of someone just making all 8 Shadespire warbands, dumping them on someone's desk, and saying 'do something with these' is pretty out there. You've got to imagine the lore and rules side of things suffer from being quite as secondary as that. But then Underworlds is a fantastic game so what do I know!

Well, they are doing digital sculpting so it is not really that surprising to me.  It's not like the finished product for that from the design team is a physical model you can dump on someones desk.  It's just a bunch of digital assets that should be able to be reused and reposed.  I would not be surprised if they have a fair amount of stuff that has been worked on to some degree ahead of time for most armies.  It would make sense to use small units like the Shadespire units as a test concept for how to enhance or rework some of the model lines.

I'm not surprised to hear that the model team drives is the main driver for what is worked on also.  I don't know what the financials at the company looks like, but they appear to have always relied extremely heavily on model sales.  It is not hard to believe that it makes up the bulk of their revenue and if that is the case then it makes the model design teams one of the most important in the company in regards to revenue.  GW is no longer a small private company.  When they were their focus could be primarily on making fun games.  Now they are a public company and so their main focus is now on increasing revenue and driving profit for shareholders.  You can accomplish that by making fun games and great miniatures - but there is a subtle difference in focus that can effect how a company works depending upon who is in the leadership.  If your main goal is profit and most of your profit comes from the sale of models - then the rules can become secondary to the models.  We saw GW try to emphasize this quite a bit over the last decade or so when they claimed they were a model company and not a game company.  There is a subtle difference between having your end product be a game and the models are there to support it and the end product being models and the game existing primarily to enhance the sale of those models.  Thankfully they seem to have found a happy medium in regards to Age of Sigmar (jury is still out on 40k 8th as it is a bit of a mess).

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Mortarch said:

The new FAQ released today has confirmed that Zombie Dragons and Terrorgheists when taken as battle lines are NOT behemoths... meaning more than four FLAPPIES in an army.

Could this mean something similar to BCR in their hopefully new book?

Hmmmm, so my pipe-dream for an all-Giant army now has some precedent!  I know that GW just gave me my all-Troll army, but I am spoiled and really want my all Giant army now please!

[Retro]

2 hours ago, Mortarch said:

The new FAQ released today has confirmed that Zombie Dragons and Terrorgheists when taken as battle lines are NOT behemoths... meaning more than four FLAPPIES in an army.

Could this mean something similar to BCR in their hopefully new book?

At this point I feel like they should just get rid of the force organisation chart altogether.

[bsharitt]

1 minute ago, Retro said:

At this point I feel like they should just get rid of the force organisation chart altogether.

I'm a fan of basically playing open play and layering on matched play rules as needed, so basically requiring the selection of an allegiance(at least a grand alliance) or at least have a very good thematic reason to not(like Chaos orcs) and using point for basic balancing, but not for any of the force org.

[Skabnoze]

5 minutes ago, Retro said:

At this point I feel like they should just get rid of the force organisation chart altogether.

Please no...

As a game Fantasy has generally been in a better state than 40k for most editions due to having a more elegant and robust set of army creation restrictions.  The current mess that 40k is in can be traced almost completely to the army construction system (yet again).  I think the army composition guidelines in AoS are quite good and I don't see any issue with certain select armies bending those rules in certain ways.  It is ok, and even advantageous, to have specific exceptions.  The problems happen when exceptions become the norm.

[Captain Marius]

14 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

Well, they are doing digital sculpting so it is not really that surprising to me.  It's not like the finished product for that from the design team is a physical model you can dump on someones desk.  It's just a bunch of digital assets that should be able to be reused and reposed.  I would not be surprised if they have a fair amount of stuff that has been worked on to some degree ahead of time for most armies.  It would make sense to use small units like the Shadespire units as a test concept for how to enhance or rework some of the model lines.

I'm not surprised to hear that the model team drives is the main driver for what is worked on also.  I don't know what the financials at the company looks like, but they appear to have always relied extremely heavily on model sales.  It is not hard to believe that it makes up the bulk of their revenue and if that is the case then it makes the model design teams one of the most important in the company in regards to revenue.  GW is no longer a small private company.  When they were their focus could be primarily on making fun games.  Now they are a public company and so their main focus is now on increasing revenue and driving profit for shareholders.  You can accomplish that by making fun games and great miniatures - but there is a subtle difference in focus that can effect how a company works depending upon who is in the leadership.  If your main goal is profit and most of your profit comes from the sale of models - then the rules can become secondary to the models.  We saw GW try to emphasize this quite a bit over the last decade or so when they claimed they were a model company and not a game company.  There is a subtle difference between having your end product be a game and the models are there to support it and the end product being models and the game existing primarily to enhance the sale of those models.  Thankfully they seem to have found a happy medium in regards to Age of Sigmar (jury is still out on 40k 8th as it is a bit of a mess).

GW has been publically traded since 1994! This https://investor.games-workshop.com/our-history/ gives a good overview of what GW themselves say their priorities are. "Playing" and "rulebooks" are mentioned but only after collecting, modelling and painting.

I think selling models is absolutely GWs top priority, and having rules to play games with them is very much a secondary consideration. Same with the lore, its just their to create some emotional resonance with the models, and with AoS theyre going whole hog by advancing the narrative in tandem with the release schedule. An interesting approach, but seems to be working for them!

[Future]

I feel like on the us side seraphon battle tome has been out of stock for a week now.

[Overread]

Under Kirby they tried to take the whole "we are a model company first" to extreme lengths when they launched AoS since, at launch, it basically had no formal rules. There were jovial rules and no points. Basically they were hoping for a boutique line of models that would sell on its own. That did sort of work; it got a LOT of attention but the result was that whilst there was a market for that it was rather small compared to their gaming market; meanwhile their gaming market had a huge outcry - hence why AoS had a full head over heels change into 1.0 and further into the 2.0. If anything 2.0 is basically the 1.0 release GW should have done years ago when AoS launched and, whilst it still would have had the whole "you blew up the old world and changed bases" elements it would at least have still been more receptive to the wargame market.

 

 

The Seraphon book is in stock in the UK; the overseas units might have to wait for shipments form China to reach the UK and then be distributed out. Though it could also be that if GW are releasing a new tome "soon" they could be holding off on doing another print run of something that they are going to be dropping. It's hard to tell but certainly if there's a new book on the semi-near horizon they won't want to make big investments in stock that won't shift (remembering that as soon as they announce any formal hint of a release the old Battletome sales will dry up fast 

[Jetengine]

On 2/28/2019 at 2:28 PM, PJetski said:

If the Soul Grinder can make it into AOS then it stands to reason that any of these daemon engines could be brought over, too

Doubtful. The soul grinder is a fairly neutral design overall. The new engines are VERY clearly 40k.

[Nos]

Lot of people talking with certainty about what GW’s manifesto and strategy is, how it’s changed etc when no-one actually has any idea mind

[Chikout]

42 minutes ago, Nos said:

Lot of people talking with certainty about what GW’s manifesto and strategy is, how it’s changed etc when no-one actually has any idea mind

Actually there is a lot of info directly from the horses mouth about the changes to GW. The is a long interview with Laurie Goulding about the changes to black library which directly impacted aos as the original plan was fir black library to do all the fluff. 

There is also a long interview with James Hewitt about his time at GW.

Even the most recent storm 'cast' with Pete Foley talks about the development of the three ways to play and Gw's changing approach. 

The preamble in the financial report also tells you a lot about the changing priorities of the company. There is no more talk about being proud of not doing market research for example. 

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Folks, if you want to chat about the changes in GW, start another thread. Now back to Rumours!

 

[Nos]

3 hours ago, Chikout said:

Actually there is a lot of info directly from the horses mouth about the changes to GW. The is a long interview with Laurie Goulding about the changes to black library which directly impacted aos as the original plan was fir black library to do all the fluff. 

There is also a long interview with James Hewitt about his time at GW.

Even the most recent storm 'cast' with Pete Foley talks about the development of the three ways to play and Gw's changing approach. 

The preamble in the financial report also tells you a lot about the changing priorities of the company. There is no more talk about being proud of not doing market research for example. 

Sorry but those few anecdotal instances are far from sufficient to explain GW’s priorities and focus with anything like the level of certainty people routinley claim to know on here. Being able to recognise thst things are different or have changed is not the same as knowing definitively the direction of travel or mentality behind it.

Edit: Just saw Gaz’s post So deleted rest of my reply to avoid derailment 

Edited March 2, 2019 by Nos