Hollow Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 2 minutes ago, Chikout said: Maybe the answer is to keep the old models playable for much longer. They promised to balance the older factions for a year. Why not the whole edition or indeed forever? I think the solution is staring the player base right in the face. To recalibrate the rigid adherence to how units are represented on the tabletop. If you have Bonesplitterz, use them as IronJaws, If you have BoC, use them Darkoath. I would rather a situation where 10% of the existing line was "cut" annually to make room for new stuff, than the range to stagnate and only receive 1 to 1 updates and eternal support for the entire existing range. I really do not think that is healthy for the game big picture. Not at all. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novakai Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Kragnos Beastmen Army incoming? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EonChao Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Hollow said: We are fundamentally different in how we see miniature purchases and what GW as a company should be expected to do in regard to "support". You have approached super niche esoteric armies and are acting "surprised Pikachu face" that they aren't getting full support? Also, how are any of these projects "dead"? you are clearly motivated by the lore, background and modelling opportunities for these projects. You can easily convert, model, paint and proxy any of those aforementioned projects and would be actively encouraged to do so by all. What's the problem? For some people what is "officially" supported is the only thing that's valid. It's a limiting view but one that can be hard to shake. 27 minutes ago, Pizzaprez said: Bad news: I like them a lot and already own two boxes. I'd keep an eye out for the worst version of the "duardin soup" lol Ogor players getting a new hot pot type weapon would be a win though 14 minutes ago, Flippy said: I generally agree, but please take into consideration that for many people (especially new players) the distinction between "core" and "niche" is not that obvious and certainly not communicated clearly by GW. Bonesplitterz were niche, sure - but BoC were hardly niche. Are Ogor Mawtribes niche now? Were Aeldari Harlequins niche? Maybe it would help if GW openly stated that some armies are here to stay forever and some are temporary only with guaranteed 10-years support. The problem is that's potentially a promise they can't keep. Companies don't like to make commitments beyond a year or two out. I collect Transformers figures and we know most of the main Transformers figures being released in 2025 due to leaks but Hasbro won't confirm or deny that on any level because it can effect spending on, but also because things change at short notice. According to the leaks for this year we should have G1 Sureshot on preorder now, but for some reason behind the scenes he's slipped off the release schedule to a future date. If Hasbro had confirmed the leaked list with him on that we got last year and then whatever happened to push him into 2025 still happened it would make them look bad and erode confidence. That's the result of the collision of the cutthroat world of late stage capitalism and the chasing views approach on the content creator size. GW likely know what every planned release for 4th ed is and what factions will be in the 5th launch box already but to start to talk about will both draw attention away from what they're currently promoting as well as potentially frustrate fans when a promised update is further away than they think it is. 18 minutes ago, The Lost Sigmarite said: Be mad and post insults at GW on TGA about it ? Very uncool, you shouldn't do that. Companies don't deserve our unquestioned support. People should never lash out at employees but the company itself should be completely fair game for anger and frustration. I'm on the side of people should keep cooler heads over this but if they can't help but be frustrated then the faceless company is exactly where the should be directed at. Edited April 4 by EonChao 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draznak Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 17 minutes ago, Hollow said: 11 Warcry Warbands removed from Slaves To Darkness It's 10 Warcry warbands + 1 Underworlds warband (Khagra's ravagers) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcm6495 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, novakai said: ¿Se acerca el ejército de hombres bestia de Kragnos? For my part, I would very much like to see a faction belonging to the Kragnon race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarff Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Just now, Hollow said: I think the solution is staring the player base right in the face. To recalibrate the rigid adherence to how units are represented on the tabletop. If you have Bonesplitterz, use them as IronJaws, If you have BoC, use them Darkoath. I would rather a situation where 10% of the existing line was "cut" annually to make room for new stuff, than the range to stagnate and only receive 1 to 1 updates and eternal support for the entire existing range. I really do not think that is healthy for the game big picture. Not at all. That's not a full solution though. Armies are not just models, they have a distinct playstyle and feel to them. And the game is nowhere near close to stagnating. We had huge releases in 3rd. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarrWolves Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 The game can't extend indefinitely, you need cuts at some points, especially if they are introducing new factions. It sucks for people who get their army axed but it's a necessary evil for the game to last. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollow Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Just now, Snarff said: We had huge releases in 3rd. Exactly. As @Chikout said, if the system continues to receive "huge releases" (and all rumours are pointing to AoS having a lot) then there needs to be some space made in the range. I'm saying the game would stagnate if there was never any room made. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarff Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Chikout said: Maybe the answer is to keep the old models playable for much longer. They promised to balance the older factions for a year. Why not the whole edition or indeed forever? They can definitely afford to hire a couple more people to the rules team. Doing balance updates for the legacy factions could be part of the training. They already do this for Underworlds. Older warbands aren't always the best, but they're playable and even very occasionally updated. Even if the models are not in production currently, you can play everything from launch to current edition. I don't think there's any reason to have to cut entire factions, especially if they have the ability to keep everything playable. Edited April 4 by Snarff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EonChao Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, Snarff said: That's not a full solution though. Armies are not just models, they have a distinct playstyle and feel to them. And the game is nowhere near close to stagnating. We had huge releases in 3rd. And all of these models being removed will have support in 4th ed through online battletomes so they can continue to be played with their distinct style and feel, and if that changes in the future there's nothing stopping people from writing their own fan tomes to keep them functioning in future editions too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomkingWortwazi Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 4 minutes ago, novakai said: Kragnos Beastmen Army incoming? It would be a nice opportunity to bring a new flavour of Destruction while giving a centaur/satyr/etc. aesthetic a fresh coat of paint and a whole new lore runway. Especially with that design space now essentially opened. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcm6495 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Do you think that the new band of underworld flagellants could become a reference for flagellant miniatures in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Ragest said: I think they are showing just the cutoffs until 2025, that's why delves, dwarves, old ogors and such are missing Then what is going to happen to units like the CoS duardins that are going to be for sale in CoS and Dawis for TOW at the same time, presumably? Would they have different prices just because they have a different base? Edited April 4 by Ejecutor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasshpit Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 Psssh, y'all can keep the ponies and goats out destro for all I care. 😝 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 50 minutes ago, RyantheFett said: Think the only reason Cities is safe right now is just that the new range is too small for them to pull more out???? Or they knew the backlash and figured they just kick the can down the road? Think it is safe to say that Cities will lose all the old stuff. The only real question is when. Just like with 40k and 30k, they will want to keep the two games as far apart as possible. I think that's the case indeed. Both that and that the second wave is sooner than we initially thought. Just imagine the same article with twice the content they showed. They just kicked the can down the road as you said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red King Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 To those saying it had to happen due to production capacity, that is entirely untrue for BoC who are still being sold. Which is somehow worse because it's just a flat out middle finger from GW to AoS players. It may be true for the others but it feels like that isn't their reasoning when the biggest cull is based purely on their desire to... not print a battletome? Separate ToW and AoS but not when it comes to most of the StD and GSG and also cities dwarves? (Literally what is their reasoning cause that's 3 out of 9 armies that are in both but Beasts being in both is UNACCEPTABLE!) 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataphract Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 It definitely feels like some backroom politicking between the AOS and TOW teams ended up with the BOC going to the Old World. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollow Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 It could be interesting if "Beastmen" were approached more as a "race" in AoS, which could be seen across all of Grand Alliances in the same way as humans are. You could have Bestial units that fight on the side of Order (Sylvanneth wolf people, More Cow people for Lumineth, even a furry-CoS unit), Chaotic Beasts in the way of Slaangors, Tzaangors, Khorngors and Pestigors. Have Kragnos lead a Destruction Beast faction based around Centigors and explore Werewolves and bestial bone constructs more across death. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souleater Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 18 minutes ago, novakai said: Kragnos Beastmen Army incoming? I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 49 minutes ago, EonChao said: Yet, Sacrosanct is almost certainly going to be replaced in the future, just not in 4th edition. Would be weird if they released them because they were needed due to NH infestation. Now that's sorted, get back to the headquarters. Another ghost problem? Who you gonna call? Sacrosant Chamber! It would feel terrible. They are not the Ghost Busters. Also, if you put them back, you should put every option they had, at least, right? I have the feeling, after thinking about it calmly, that they are not coming back ever. They would just be the dudes that help with the reforge. Quote If Duardin were going and there was this whole beef between AoS and TOW studios, it'd be now. They're the next faction getting released for TOW and there will be crossover of kits. I think they get replaced by new kits in the next Cities update. I have the feeling BOC could take the next spot from TOW releases as a way to calm down the waters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EonChao Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 11 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said: It would be a nice opportunity to bring a new flavour of Destruction while giving a centaur/satyr/etc. aesthetic a fresh coat of paint and a whole new lore runway. Especially with that design space now essentially opened. Honestly Beasts fit Destruction as a faction better than Chaos. I'd be on board with them moving grand alliance narratively, breaking free from the yoke of Chaos to run wild across the realms tearing down everything and returning it back to the wilderness 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloomkingWortwazi Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, Ejecutor said: I have the feeling BOC could take the next spot from TOW releases as a way to calm down the waters. Possibly, rumblings were Wood Elves and Beastmen next (and we've got the paired armies thing + civil war): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejecutor Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 55 minutes ago, Ekrund Oath Splitters said: £47.50 for 30 Orc Boyz isn't exactly a discount compared to their old cost during 8th edition, they are still artificially inflated to match modern GW cost of their product (like how land raider is now £67.50). The discount is non consequential when the cost is already increased for sculpts designed in what 6th ed? I agree they are more expensive, but everything costs more. It is just how the economy works, sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EonChao Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 1 minute ago, Ejecutor said: Would be weird if they released them because they were needed due to NH infestation. Now that's sorted, get back to the headquarters. Another ghost problem? Who you gonna call? Sacrosant Chamber! It would feel terrible. They are not the Ghost Busters. Also, if you put them back, you should put every option they had, at least, right? I have the feeling, after thinking about it calmly, that they are not coming back ever. They would just be the dudes that help with the reforge. I have the feeling BOC could take the next spot from TOW releases as a way to calm down the waters. They're demon fighters as well, so plenty of reasons to bring them back. Heck we could get a completely new mystical focused destruction faction that also requires their attention. Or maybe the Sacrosanct chambers redeploy to capture new realmstone deposits that hold the key to partially stablising reforging. Or there's that big a push from the forces of Chaos that it requires every stormcast to be sent out to hold it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scáthborn Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 21 minutes ago, novakai said: Kragnos Beastmen Army incoming? 2 minutes ago, EonChao said: Honestly Beasts fit Destruction as a faction better than Chaos. I'd be on board with them moving grand alliance narratively, breaking free from the yoke of Chaos to run wild across the realms tearing down everything and returning it back to the wilderness Maybe some sort of Bug-like beastmen, they could be really quiet too... 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.