The Rumour Thread

[Jagged Red Lines]

2 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

I can confirm it isn't through personal experience. Often, "I don't know, I'll have to look into it for you" is equally as damaging.

Politicians do this all the time. The answer is phrased as 'there are no plans as far as I'm aware' or 'no one has told me anything like that.'

Never - this is 100% false, they are definitely staying around.

Edited April 5 by Jagged Red Lines

[Sarouan]

6 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Pretty sure the normal person response if you don't know would be 'I don't know'. 

You understand how this looks like a cynical attempt to deliberately keep people in the dark, in order to inflate sales.

Never attribute mere inability to say "I don't know" and thinking your own feelings are facts as pure malice. Conspiracies exist, but most of the time, it's just flawed humans doing dumb mistakes.

I'm working in the administration. You'd be surprised to know how often people working in other services don't follow procedures just because they want "to do good" and end up saying something dumb to the external people - making us look like evil clowns doing it on purpose.

Edited April 5 by Sarouan

[AquaRegis]

5 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

A point for consideration by everyone:
Has anyone whos mulling over the statement from LVO ever been in a situation in a corporate environment where you are literally told you aren't allowed to discuss something and act like the other thing is or isn't true until publically stated otherwise by higher up, or the correct team? I have. A lot. It really sucks to be in that position too.
 

Thats a great point. I work for a large organistaion (Not GW) and the lack of communication between differnet departments is nuts, to the point where things will be planned and in development and another department comes in late to either change things, cancel it give new intel that said department was complety in the dark of. 

Either that or they told nobody to mention it at all, so when the panelsists got pushed in a Q&A they paniced and gave a poor answer, because if they leaked it then the community would go wild and it would force GW's hand. 

[GloomkingWortwazi]

6 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Politicians do this all the time. The answer is phrased as 'there are no plans as far as I'm aware' or 'no one has told me anything like that.'

Never - this is 100% false, they are definitely staying around.

You're thinking with your customer hat on though. I am offering the alternative perspective.
Depending on the thing and industry, it is damaging. It shows disorganisation and can also scare consumers off before the intended comms on the topic.

It's OK to disagree, but it is unfortunately most definitely how it operates out there in corporate product land. I know my source is "trust me bro" but I am not exactly going to tell everyone what it is I do where and at what role here ;).
I am just saying I have relevant real world experience with just this kind of thing.

It sucks, but it is true.

Edited April 5 by GloomkingWortwazi

[Gaz Taylor]

Just now, Jagged Red Lines said:

You understand how this looks like a cynical attempt to deliberately keep people in the dark, in order to inflate sales.

100% but again, I doubt that somebody in a public role would make a fool of themselves like that if they knew. I imagine they were told that everything would be supported as it would be a question you would ask in that role due to it having an impact on how you organise events. 

 

7 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

A point for consideration by everyone:
Has anyone whos mulling over the statement from LVO ever been in a situation in a corporate environment where you are literally told you aren't allowed to discuss something and act like the other thing is or isn't true until publically stated otherwise by higher up, or the correct team? I have. A lot. It really sucks to be in that position too.
I think it's wholly possible they either didn't know themselves, or more likely were told that it's not up for discussion and the truth stands as what is current is current.

Not intending to defend them, it blows chunks. But objectively speaking this kind of thing happens in business comms all the time across every industry.

Yes I have, however I have still tried to phrase things in a way that stops me looking an idiot in the future. I learnt long ago, always tell the truth for work stuff as it will come back and get you if you don't! Might explain why I see things slightly differently, plus I have worked in enough UK companies to understand the politics and teams not talking to each other!

[Grungnisson]

9 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

(...)

So I get the pain people are feeling, but what GW have done is miles better than what they have done in the past in similar situations. 

Just a little reminder that the first Cities of Sigmar book culled 30+ kits from the Grand Alliance Order. We got an article about them beind discontinued in terms of sales, but even that hasn't mentioned them being cut from the game, if I remember correctly. The article came out in July 2019, I think, and the book then dropped in October.

And even that was already a massive improvement on what happened during the switchover from WHFB over to AoS. We all remember the Compendium armies, I should hope, yes? Do we? Tomb Kings? High Elfs? Wood Elfs? The full range of the Dispossessed? How many of those just got discontinued on the quiet?

So yeah, we need a clear distinction here, between the decision GW made and the announcement. Let's be honet, there was no good way of saying this, people were going to get upset. That was simply inevitable. But getting a more than a year of heads up? Promising rules support for that period and beyond? Come on now, isn't that fair? Are they not actually trying to make it easier for people?

And as to the actual decision on what to cut, again, I keep seeing so much vitriol since yesterday, but think for a moment. We've all seen them struggle for the past few years with their production capacity, storage, orders fulfilment etc. People keep mentioning Stormcast, but I think it's those Warcry warbands that are most telling here. These are all still new kits, they must have invested a lot of money into creating. For a hugely popular game, that is still supported. And yet they're going. Which, I'm guessing, is down to the fact that they have their Warcry run, but are not popular in AoS enough to keep selling in meaningful numbers, but still occupying slots in the production process and taking up space in warehouses. So, if THESE are unsustainable, then very likely, BoC and BS were even less so. 

And as for the SCE, I wish they went a different route, by officially combining warscrolls but seriously, who's to stop me from using my Sequitors as Liberators or the Retributors as Annihilators? We all knew the range was overblown. We all kept saying it needed streamlining. And there simply wasn't a way of doing it, without cutting stuff. And no, this is not about making you all buy new models with another starter box. So far we have not seen any indication of new units being introduced, all we'd seen is resculpts of existing ones. So if you have your Liberators and your Prosecutors already, you're good to go.

But this was necessary. SCE were in this completely absurd situation, where they were supposed to be a starter, introduction army, while at the same time they were far too complex bot rule and model-wise for any newcomer to AoS. 

So yeah, right now it's a traumatic shake up and peple are entitled to be upset, but going forward, in the long run, the game will be probably better for it. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

24 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

This is very ironic when multiple people on this forum (so, generally, very involved in the hobby news cycle) where pushing back against the very idea. For reference, here's also a reddit thread after The Honest Wargamer started talking about the possibility of BoC going away with like 100% of initial reactions saying he was wrong (or worse): https://www.reddit.com/r/ageofsigmar/comments/195jk3n/where_does_the_rumor_that_beasts_of_chaos_are/

and I quote from the most upvoted comment:

"It pretty much exclusively comes from the YouTube/twitch personality theHonestWargamer's opinion almost no one else thinks it's going to happen"

 

I didn't believe it when it was just Honest Wargamer Rob talking about it. Because he's not a reliable source, usually, and he's a bit of a Post Hoc Andy, always saying he called stuff when one of his wild theories turns out true.

But we pretty rapidly got confirmation from Whitefang and others. TGA internal, the writing was on the wall from that point. Of course, that's a pretty niche subset of people, so Redditors not being in the know is not surprising. If you only know about Honest Rob's prediction, then you would remember that he was pretty sure Beasts would be souped with S2D at the start of 3rd ed, as well.

[Gitzdee]

39 minutes ago, AquaRegis said:

SCE players have built armies and spent over £500 on these models. 

Bonesplitterz and BoC players didnt? There are people that might havd bought a BoC vanguard recently. I remember @KingBrodd starting a beasts army not that long ago. Its not like they havent sold the minis for 10 years and just dropped rules support.

I can understand the logic behind removing all whfb models from the AoS range. But i dont agree with how GW is handling things. Its just sticking as much bandages (legacy rules lol) as they can at this pojnt so people dont feel hurt. They are still the ones that cut the armies this late. People will have a strong opinion in this matter.

Edit: Also just tell us if ranges will be updated or reimagined if they already know. Its completely different from just removing armies.

Edited April 5 by Gitzdee

[EonChao]

1 minute ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Exactly. It's one thing to say 'the writing is on the wall' after rumour sources say they're going away. 

And then GW staff say that those rumours are ******. 

 

 

Employees will rarely admit to big things like that if they aren't public yet, if they even know at all. It sucks but they know they'd be at risk of losing their jobs. That's why some people leak things, to get an outlet for stuff their excited or concerned about. If a company is a bit more lax of rumours you might get the odd tease but it will almost entirely about something positive.

I've been fortunate enough to be friends with people working both in the studio and the community team over many years of gaming in the East Midlands and I think I've had at most... maybe 3 hints about upcoming releases in all that time at. And one of those was knowing a very believable rumour being passed around was wrong. The rule of thumb is you don't ask about these things, because if you learn about something big like a new game or army, or something being removed from sale, and it gets out, then you potentially cost your friend their dream job. And if you do find out something then you keep it to yourself. This is why you had so much radio silence about Cursed City, people knew what went wrong but because GW weren't saying anything as a company no one wanted to stick their head above the parapet and risk losing it all over a game that wasn't available anymore.

Something as big as ranges being removed from a flagship game... that's the sort of thing that they'd really crack down on due to how negative the PR impact is from it.

[GloomkingWortwazi]

Anyway, I personally don't want to keep banging on about that particular topic and like I said, I sympathise and can totally understand the perspective on it.
I'm still super bummed for everyone who is losing out here. I've been there a few times now across their systems and model ranges and I know how you feel. 💚

[Grungnisson]

12 minutes ago, Jagged Red Lines said:

Pretty sure the normal person response if you don't know would be 'I don't know'. 

You understand how this looks like a cynical attempt to deliberately keep people in the dark, in order to inflate sales.

Sales of what, exactly? BoC and BS? I'm not quite sure they were the sales behemoths you're suggesting they were.

[Jagged Red Lines]

3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

But we pretty rapidly got confirmation from Whitefang and other

Whitefang never confirmed this. The only indication we had was that SG Warhound cry reacted to someone asking if beasts were staying. 

[Ejecutor]

7 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

It's OK to disagree, but it is unfortunately most definitely how it operates out there in corporate product land. I know my source is "trust me bro" but I am not exactly going to tell everyone what it is I do where and at what role here ;).

So... were you the one deciding that BoC were moved to ToW? 🙃

[bethebee]

1 minute ago, Ejecutor said:

So... were you the one deciding that BoC were moved to ToW? 🙃

 

[Jagged Red Lines]

1 minute ago, Grungnisson said:

Sales of what, exactly? BoC and BS? I'm not quite sure they were the sales behemoths you're suggesting they were.

I don't care about how GW looks at sales figures. Quarter of a million dollars may look inconsequential to them.

But to the people who spent several hundred pounds on new armies since January (I'm one, and a mate recently started beasts), those numbers are not inconsequential.

Deliberately holding back the truth until a time it was convenient for them to communicate with their customers has left customers out of pocket. These aren't speculative assets, we didn't buy expecting to lose.

[AquaRegis]

2 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

Bonesplitterz and BoC players didnt? There are people that might havd bought a BoC vanguard recently. I remember @KingBrodd starting a beasts army not that long ago. Its not like they havent sold the minis for 10 years and just dropped rules support.

I can understand the logic behind removing all whfb models from the AoS range. But i dont agree with how GW is handling things. Its just sticking as much bandages (legacy rules lol) as they can at this pojnt so people dont feel hurt. They are still the ones that cut the armies this late. People will have a strong opinion in this matter.

Again, where did I say that? 

I agree with you that its a bad move from GW and that the players of these armies have a right to be angry. My point was that GW is a buinsess, they have done this in the past, doing it now and will do it again in the future, and BOC, Bonesplittaz and the older stromcast models were the obvious victims of the Cull. IMO the worst one is the Sacroscant because they were the big release in 2018 and a lot of players built armies around them and now that investment is worthless if you want to play 4th. Im not denying that it sucks for BOC or Bonesplittaz players. 

I quit the hobby in 2015 until late 2018 because of what happened to WHFB and my high elf army was binned. 

[Sathrut]

I've seen a number of BoC players frustrated with the number of people saying: "Play TOW/you get a free battletome and continued support for a year stop complaining/everyone knew this was coming, why are you surprised?", and frankly, who can blame them?

Many of them started BoC for AoS. They're not interested in TOW. They don't want to play another system. They don't want to proxy their army. When your army received a battletome and a new miniature -just over a year ago - would you really take that as 'the writing on the wall'?

 

 

[Sarges]

Nvm.

Edited April 5 by Sarges

[Ejecutor]

10 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I didn't believe it when it was just Honest Wargamer Rob talking about it. Because he's not a reliable source, usually, and he's a bit of a Post Hoc Andy, always saying he called stuff when one of his wild theories turns out true.

But we pretty rapidly got confirmation from Whitefang and others. TGA internal, the writing was on the wall from that point. Of course, that's a pretty niche subset of people, so Redditors not being in the know is not surprising. If you only know about Honest Rob's prediction, then you would remember that he was pretty sure Beasts would be souped with S2D at the start of 3rd ed, as well.

I think it was Whitefang Jr rather than the main Fang.

[Ejecutor]

1 minute ago, Sarges said:

But he did:

But that's Chorfs, not BoC.

[Sarges]

Just now, Ejecutor said:

But that's Chorfs, not BoC.

I've already understood my reading comprehension problem and deleted my post but you were faster😔

[Sarouan]

You know, rumorsmongers don't necessarily know anything from people working at GW and leaking some info. A lot of it is browsing through info put somewhere else and mere speculation mixed with logic, that sometimes hits true.

[Ejecutor]

12 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

Bonesplitterz and BoC players didnt? There are people that might havd bought a BoC vanguard recently. I remember @KingBrodd starting a beasts army not that long ago. Its not like they havent sold the minis for 10 years and just dropped rules support.

I can understand the logic behind removing all whfb models from the AoS range. But i dont agree with how GW is handling things. Its just sticking as much bandages (legacy rules lol) as they can at this pojnt so people dont feel hurt. They are still the ones that cut the armies this late. People will have a strong opinion in this matter.

Edit: Also just tell us if ranges will be updated or reimagined if they already know. Its completely different from just removing armies.

Ok. Let's think about a different start on AoS where everything which has and will be removed was removed from day one. How many armies would leave that on the game? Less than... 6? I don't know. I recently listened to a video that mentioned 3 full AoS armies at the beginning of the game and 6 by the end of the first edition.

You cannot start a game with 3 factions making the player base wait for another 3 years to get another 3 armies and so on. The game would have died, especially considering how it was born.

If it is a pretty poor decision? Yes. Was it also the lesser evil and the best for AoS as a game? Yes.

[EonChao]

Just now, Sarouan said:

You know, rumorsmongers don't necessarily know anything from people working at GW and leaking some info. A lot of it is browsing through info put somewhere else and mere speculation mixed with logic, that sometimes hits true.

Plenty of them start off that way but the biggest ones like Valrak and a few others do have genuine sources. The ones who don't quickly disappear as they start making incorrect guesses based on community hopium.

[Sarouan]

27 minutes ago, GloomkingWortwazi said:

I can confirm it isn't through personal experience. Often, "I don't know, I'll have to look into it for you" is equally as damaging.

Including for the ego. It's hard to say "I don't know" when you're in a certain position of power. At least when you're not sued for something you did.

Edited April 5 by Sarouan