The Red King

But the designers commentary says it doesnt count as being slain for the purposes of battleshock. Now those sentences dont contradict each other as it can both not count as being slain AND not count as being slain for battleshock purposes so idk if the commentary overrides the other sentence or not.

I want this to he how it works but I think weve seen time and time again that companies will not dedicate any resources towards something unless it impacts their bottom line (I mean makes sense for what they are in society whether I agree with it or not) and that loud public outcry is often the ONLY thing that effects change when it comes to companies and their products.

We need a FAQ FAQ that comes 2 weeks after the FAQ.

I don't think any of this is enough but the raiders buff is a nice surprise and makes them... I mean useable. I wouldnt build around them or anything but still.

So I want to clarify something that's confused me. Zombies warscroll ability specifies that it can take them over their starting size, but the spells and other effects of the gravelords that return dead models do not. And the FAQ specifically says the model returned has to have come from the starting unit. Does that mean that you have to keep track of which individual models actually came from killing units because they specifically cant be returned by other effects? That seems really complicated and unintended.

Double post but as of 11pm Central time the German language FAQ page has the generals handbook FAQ up. I translated it chunk by chunk on google and didn't see anything crazy except a definite nerf to sisters of the watch/freeguild gunner overwatch but I'm also very tired.

I think I like the double turn rule because if I'm reading this right it leaves it in play from turn 3 onward but doesnt allow for alpha striking twice before the enemy can respond. That said I'm surprised you didnt touch the most contentious point of 3.0, coherency.

Wait I'm not a GL player. How is this different than it already is? Also the bit on the claw about not being able to do anything else that turn, is that new?

I was literally typing that exact thing lol Yeah they either need to say "we may get some stuff wrong" or else put big flashing "THIS IS A NEW RULE!" warnings when they do show something off so theres no ambiguity about whether it was a mistake or an intentional errata. (Note I wouldnt want them doing FAQ style changes inside paid battle reports but it would be nice to head off that guy)

what·a·bout·ism /ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/ noun BRITISH the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

Man I get the mods wanting a little positivity but GW is not helping them huh lol. On the topics of rumors, this particular thread is 5 years old and I just wanna see if it's just me but it feels like back then we had actual rumors. Nowadays we're lucky to get a wishlist off 8chan (no offense to whitefang) or any rumors sooner than what feels like days before a proper announcement. Anyone in the know who can say if GW changed something in particular that's lead to much fewer drops leaking from the pipeline nowadays or am I just letting my memory play tricks on me?

Aged like milk lol

I'm no GW fanboy but these are pretty big claims. Do you have any proof? Edit to clarify. I'm asking if this is insider information in any capacity or just inference from what we're seeing.

The only way they could print a Grand Strategy that Sons would actually take over beastmaster is "you score 3 VP for buying the boxes". Seriously, beastmaster is "as long as you dont get tabled" just like lumineth with "prized sorcery" and I hate it. Even if those werent already 2 strong armies they also get a free 3 VP for not getting tabled and that's dumb.

"We know it's been a week since we said anything about AoS so... look at this photograph!"

I probably wouldn't shout out the store that let you buy something pre street date as that could hurt them with GW. (Assuming this isn't supposed to be available till saturday)

Reddit has a sub called miniswap. When I sold my eldar off it was so fast that paypal flagged my account for suspicious transactions lol

So there are going to be 12 more units in the new stormcast book (76 as opposed to current 64 on GW site) Are those all accounted for? I'm not a stormcast player.

I expected nothing and GW still managed to dissapoint me lol. I mean kudos if you like the model but it's just another primaris Lt to me and that's what really drove me put of 40k. I mean one armies subfactions get new releases as regularly as entire armies (I mean more regularly if we're honest but who's counting).

"At least it's not the holocaust" is an... interesting line of defense lol

Well yes but I was genuinely asking why. This wasn't a gotcha, I just cant empathize with the other side if I cant understand their stance so that's why I asked. When someone uses GW figures to play a game using GW rules and posts a video of it, in what way are they either A. Not building their house on the same table or B. Somehow more deserving of the use of the IP? I can say with utmost certainty that animations take more time, effort, and thus investment, to make than a painting tutorial or battle report and so I have to understand where and why defenders of the stricter stance draw their lines. Whether GW is or isnt currently stifling those kinds of channels (and I personally feel that an aggressive stance is a deterrent) would you or others defend their actions if they did choose to go after battle reports and lore videos and the like and why or why not? I know you feel they are different but can you tell me or yourself why they feel different if the crux of the issue is content creators making money off the GW IP?

No offense but "let me preface this with I am making assumptions" followed by a multiple paragraph character assault, really causes me to question the good faith intentions of the poster... Tldr is "I dont know if anything I'm saying is true but Afabusa is a terrible person because I assume as much." Edit: After reading the comments of the above reddit post I give no credence to the post at all. Anytime someone criticizes one of his points he deflects by saying that he made other points as well (and then does the same when someone criticizes the other points) and then devolves to ignoring them. The whole thing is a circle of people applauding how brave he is to say that about Afabusa in spite of his "ravenous fans" while simultaneously downvoting anyone who disagrees into oblivion. Side note I neither like nor dislike afabusa though I have enjoyed a TTS or two in the past.

I disagree with the stance you've come to but I also think you may have misunderstood what I was asking. I didn't say "they are attacking battle reports and paint channels" I said " If you feel they are in the right to 'defend' their IP from such things as TTS, then why do you not think they would be right to attack painting videos that include just as much if not more GW product (be it physical or IP) while being less transformative a work." As to your stated opinion I think of it this way, GW owns the table that people like TTS are building their entire house of cards on. Gw didn't tell him directly "hey we can take this table whenever we want" but instead have come over to stand by the table and grabbed the legs. Their stance is directly responsible for making his continued work an untenable position and I personally would rather have TTS and other great and creative fan works over more corporate control. Again I don't want to sound conspiratorial but the only person who benefits from this move is GW's effort to sell warhammer+ and that's scummy and detrimental to the community which are kind of the heart of the whole game.

With respect that we really have a difference of opinion of what constitutes fair use as far as parody, as a genuine unloaded question, how do supporters of these moves feel about people posting battle reports or painting videos with their miniatures and how do they personally feel it differs from TTS in the amount of GW intellectual property it uses. My personal take is that the writing and animation and such that went into TTS far exceeds the amount of fair use that goes into recording yourself using GW official minis to play a game following GW official rules, but I assume nobody here is advocating that it would be correct, or beneficial to the community/game/bottomline, to disallow those kinds of videos that drive players to the game.

I didn't know how to say that was the reason without sounding like it was some kind of conspiracy but yes. That is why and that's a very bad reason for the community.