Sleboda

Maybe I haven't seen the right models, but so far not a single print I've seen didn't have striations, and that's a deal breaker for me.

Interesting. I either own or have seen most of those. I disagree that their quality is the same as GW, but that's an opinion I suppose. As to 3D stuff ... meh. It's got decades to go before it can offer what is available in injection today.

Genuinely curious - who? I get that on a personal opinion level, we might lie this or that model from Random Company better than X model from GW, but I get the vibe from your comment that you believe there are many ("ample") companies making ranges of models of equal quality for much cheaper ("far less") than GW. Who are these companies? I would like to check them out to see if they can offer the full hobby experience, at scale, that GW does at a fraction of the cost.

Interesting side note from my days in GW trade sales. Our mantra (one of them) was "new customers are our life's blood." It's not unique to them, of course, and it's the most sensible thing to do - always be recruiting the next customer. New ones are totally untapped. That's all new money, unlike most vet customers. I will say one little thing about your quote. It's not their model to "burn" out customers. They would be quite happy to keep veteran customers (as long as they stayed actual customers, not ppl who already have all the models they want and now just talk about games), I'm sure, but they are not going to, and should not, focus much on them. There's no real worry of them ever running out of new customers, by the way. Have you seen all those annoying child-things people keep popping out at every increasing rates?

I'm not skipping the rest of your thoughts as a slight. Much of what you said I think has merit, even if I don't agree with it personally. So, no offense meant for not going through the rest. If there's anything in there you would like to go into and talk about, I'm happy to revisit. That said, I do want to examine the above thought. While I understand that we all place value on things differently, and may not find personal value in a given thing, I do have a hard time not seeing the objective value of W+. I mean, sure, I may never have any interest in a Harley Davidson motorcycle customized with an official Man U paint job, but I can still acknowledge that for people who like motorcycles and soccer, that's a nice bike that's probably well made and painted. If a person doesn't place personal value in old White Dawrfs and other content, doesn't get into the well-produced (or at least produced in GW's style) battle report and painting video content, isn't a fan of animation, etc., then W+ may not appeal personally, but it doesn't make it a bad value. To me, it's a great value. Then again, I subscribe to WD, Hulu, Tidal, Netflix, Amazon Prime/video, Disney+, Audible, and more. W+ gives me several things that none of the others do, and at a cost I consider trivial. For me it is subjectively a good value, and I assert that it is objectively one as well. But that's wandering from the main point. If folks want to be evaluate the new AoS app (the subject at the top) that's great! Sharing opinions here is great, as well. What flummoxed me, as I've said, is anyone coming here and saying "new app is good!" only to immediately follow that with "but it's not good 'cuz I'd have to pay someone for the good thing they are offering to me." It just. I mean. I. I don't get that seeming duality.

Fair point, and one that's been around for over 30 years. The number of times I've heard a variation on "THIS is the time it costs them" or "THIS is the game that takes out 40K" or the like is uncountable. Yet somehow GW and their "bad" business decisions (that we all just know for sure we could do better than) fends off the challengers, makes better and better stuff, and keeps bringing in the cash. Soooo, really you just don't want it. That's fine. That's a you thing, and I certainly won't tell you you are wrong to not want a product. I'm just surprised by the simultaneous praise/condemnation by the same person or peoplefor a thing that they acknowledge is good. I mean, if the Times reviews a book and says it's great, then my friend says that book is great, and then I am offered a free chapter to try the book myself ... and I think the book is great from what I can tell, wouldn't it be weird of me to go to the bookstore to get it only to say that the book is now trash because it's not free?

Happy to respond. First, the one I genuinely don't understand, so I'm asking because I'm curious - What do you mean by paying more for a new Battletome? As to the rest, the only one that I think has legitimacy is paying for warscrolls when the info on them (slight modification to your point, as the warscrolls themselves were never free) used to be free. I can certainly understand, and even agree with, the frustration over losing that free access. But the other stuff? The stuff they are producing may echo what others make, but they are doing it with much better quality and (I understand this next may not matter to everyone, but there is actual, marketable value to it) from the official source. I did mention that Netflix has more video content. Did you see where I acknowledged that ... and showed the lack of relevance? Does Netflix deliver anything else? That brings me to the comment about a model. Thank you for your comment there, as it absolutely mirrors the commentary that prompted my original comment. I can illustrate my exasperated, open mouthed incredulity. There's a comical phrase used to show that complainers will never be happy: "Timmy is the negative sort of person who, when you have him a million dollars in quarters, he'd say 'Gee, great, now how am I supposed to carry all this home?'" Hey Timmy, you just got a million dollars. Maybe don't gripe. That's what I'm getting here. Most folks in this thread have said the app is quite good, and yet some of the same people (in some cases) then immediately complain that they have to pay the company for a seemingly well-made product. Say whu? It's good, you like it, but you hate it if you have to buy it? So, to the model. Yep, it's an incentive to join. So what? An Orruk warboss retails for $40 - two thirds the cost of the W+ sub. How is it remotely a negative that you get a $40 model for free? Or slice it differently. If you like one of the models, spend the $40 on it. Now, after that, you get the entirety of W+ for $20. And as a reminder, that includes previously published materials that have a dollar value (or at a minimum, did when published) that you now get included for your $20. Honestly, man, it really feels like the complaints here (other than removing access to the info on warscrolls) are being made just out of habit, not because they've been well reasoned.

Or, you know, you could do your research, avoid gross hyperbole, and maintain objectivity. I criticize GW a bunch. I'm just able to not let that taint everything I think about the company. But go on, keep saying things that are plainly false without bothering to check into them first. I would very much enjoy reading a reasoned counterpoint to my idea that it's more than a little entitled to complain that we should be getting free stuff ... 'cuz reasons. Got anything along those lines?

Let me get this straight. W+ comes with: Really nice, regular animated content. High quality battle reports. Next-level painting videos many have asked for for decades. A free model, with option to get another. Digital versions of out of print magazines and other material. The 40K app. All for $60/ year (or, just over the cost of a single physical Battletome). Then, today, they add what pretty much everyone here is saying looks to be a really well done AoS app. They add this for all to try for free, giving us all a chance to 'try before you buy.' And lots of you are moaning about it. Man, I love this community a ton, but I can't recall a more entitled-feeling group. Yes, Netflix and Disney+ have more video content, but they offer nothing else and cost more. It's not a valid comparison. W+ is its own thing, and for the price the offering is really good. I can't believe how much some here feel like they are entitled to free stuff - stuff that cost a business to create, but somehow they are supposed to just give away. Give me a break. To rephrase what I've read here: "Wow, this is really good! It better be free or that will negate its goodness completely." Sheesh.

I completely understand your question, and even figured it would come up as I typed that. The best I can say is just that for me, personally, the book thing feels like it crosses a line (which was essentially asked of me and generated that response). In one case, they were offering free warscrolls on their site. A nice thing to do, giving away rules for free. In the other case, it feels like a premeditated way to "take" from their elf and demon customers. A knowing, purposeful manipulation of the trust relationship. Absolutely legal and within their rights, but just a whole different level of shady and greedy. You need the Battletome to play, and always have (assuming we put aside breaking the law). Even if you got free warscrolls before, you still needed the book. So, they "required" you to buy the book once the whole time, then chose to make you pay double for it. That's different, in my view, from removing a free optional nice-to-have thing that never actually saved the customer money. To use a wonky comparison, think about dentists. When I was a kid, I would look forward to going to my required (by my mom) semi-annual visit because there was a treasure chest of free toys there and I got to pick out one to keep after each visit if I was good. One day, the treasure chest went away. I still had to go. They took away a nice thing, but ultimately I was going twice each year no matter what. Now, if the dentist started telling me that he would drill holes in my teeth during one visit, and then fill them a week later on a second paid visit, I'd have an issue with that, even if he could legally do it. Again, I understand your question, but all I can offer is my feeling on why it's different.

Oh, sure, there are lines. It's not blind fandom. I've offered plenty of harsh criticism here and in other places over the years. I've even given one example of them cancelling Warhammer getting me so upset that I quit for a year. More recently, I've significantly reduced my advance purchases because of two factors - the product not meeting expectations once it's in my hands, and the unacceptable pace of Battletome/Codex obsolescence & replacement. I used to order every book and all wardcrolls automatically, and got limited editions of those I suspected would be favorites. Now I skip warscrolls for armies I don't intend to play, only get Battletomes for armies I will be collecting, and get the limited books very, very rarely. I just can't keep throwing cash at books that need errata day one and will likely be replaced entirely in just a few years. Don't even get me going on the Lumineth and Slaanesh books. I believe they deliberately cut them both in half in order to sell you the "same" book twice. That's some pretty awful behavior right there. Then there is the Cursed City fiasco. I don't care what theories are out there. I won't rehash the whole thing here, but their lack of communication and other issues surrounding that really ticked me off, and I said that on this very site at that time. The Black Library novels that are literally sold out before my market even has the chance to preorder them - despite their site showing them available and then waiting in a queue only to find out later that they were never actually available to me - upsets me greatly. That's some BS right there. I was also pretty upset when they canned me in an IT downsizing effort after nearly 12 years of happy and loyal service. That was not good and made me mad at them for a long time. So, plenty of what they do upsets me. Just not stuff like them, as is the right of any business, to determine which sales strategies make them the most money. Edit: Just thought of another thing that would put me off. If they moved to pre-painted models, even just as an option (which, btw, was on the table and experimented with when I worked for them), I'd probably stop being their customer.

I'm no more of an expert on their business than anyone else here, but if I had to guess, it's going to incentivize W+ subs, generating the sort of steady, predictable, recurring revenue stream that public businesses and their investors love. It's less about the free model "damaging" them as you suggest, and more about a regular, monitized model being desirable. To put it another way, which do you think a business owner (or it's investors if public) wants to hear: 1. "We THINK having free rules possibly increases sales by some amount." 2. "We have 20,000 monthly $5 subscribers, generating $X known monthly profit."

Oh no! Say it ain't so! A highly successful, multi-national, decades-lasting business that spends its resources (time, money, etc.) producing a product wants to exercise its rights to control how that product is obtained by others and to choose how it feels is the best way to recoup its investment in those products. Don't they know that they've only lasted this long due to luck, and that if they just did what some customers think they should do they would be able to stay in business? Grr. I get that people like free stuff, and I get that we may have ideas about what we think a business should and should not do, but man, somehow, some way, GW has managed to be insanely successful forging their own path despite not doing every little thing that complainers want them to do. I was one of those complainers when Warhammer was replaced by AoS. I even quit the hobby for about a year after having been in it for about 30 or so. But you know what? They made the right decision despite me being 100% convinced they were stupid at the time. I think I'll trust them to know what is best for their long term health and for the success of Warhammer. If nothing else, their stock value pretty much pays for my hobby purchases, so that's a strong indicator to me that they are doing what I, as an investor and hobbyist, want.

Believe me, I understand GW (or Mythic or AMG - the companies behind my current two "fave" games (Super Fantasy Brawl and Crisis Protocol)) is not perfect, but like any manufacturer/designer, they provide one enormous advantage that no other option (no matter how amazing the community might be) does: universality. No matter where you go or who you meet, you will find players with a default setting, so to speak. You need no negotiation. You, rightly, assume that the rules everyone got are in effect. Even if the rules are perceived to be flawed by some, at least every single player has them and you can get a game in based on the universal known rules. Just for me, personally, I can't bring myself to even try to impose what I think is the "correct" version of a rule on someone when we both already know what the rule is. I'm just not that self-important. Please note: I'm not accusing anyone here of being that. It's a personal feeling. I just don't think it's my place to try to get someone to, essentially, break the rules to satisfy me.

I totally hear you on that one. It's suuuuper frustrating to be building (after buying!) an army for an event only to find your idea is invalidated by a FAQ'd FAQ of FAQy correction. I'm not sure a community version would be any better, though. More cooks in the kitchen is not usually a good thing.

Which community? Who decides? How does every member of whichever community gets to decide get ahold of the mandates of said community? What happens when a player (who spent their cash of the official rules just like everyone else) decides he doesn't like the ruling of some Council of Basement Dudes and, rightly, expects the game to be played by, oh, the actual rules? Not meant to be harsh to you directly, but every time I hear anyone suggest that this multi-thousand member group of individuals can somehow act like it's a single body and replace the rules of the authors, expecting universal acceptance, it makes me both chuckle and shake my head. House rules for your group of six buddies? Sure! Go for it! Acting like "the community" is ever going to act like a cohesive, agreeable, insightful, intelligent whole? Never gonna happen. The best approach, in my view, is to continue to express concerns to the manufacturer and to cease purchasing and playing if the direction a game goes in is one you don't like. To put it differently, what makes any of us believe that our individual (or even small group) opinions on how the game should change to be more the way we want it entitles us to impose that on others? Comp, community or local, is one of the worst thing that can happen to a player base. It fractures it. Divides it. It's horrible. One of the Great Hobby Sins.

Not true always. I've had very pleasant and productive email conversations with them over issues I've had with them.

Just did a one year sub. Sign up was easy, as it knew me from my W40K app sub. Went to watch videos. Says to sign in. I sign in. It says welcome back. Went to watch videos. Says to sign in. I sign in. It says welcome back. Went to watch videos. Says to sign in. I sign in. It says welcome back. Went to watch videos. Says to sign in. I sign in. It says welcome back ... Also no info given on if I get the voucher, and if so, how to use it. Hmm.

Everyone can do as they choose, of course, but for us (that includes the totally amazing @TwiceIfILikeIt) it's worth it. - We are not just AoS players, so we're fine with it being heavily 40K at the moment. - Sure, you can get Battle Reports and painting videos elsewhere, but I'm rolling the dice on these being better. The number of YouTubers who can't communicate well or present games poorly (unpainted, dumb as heck 12" objective markers messing up the visuals, etc.) is astounding. If GW can 'show the way' so to speak, I'm in on that. - There actually are incentives for annual/early subscriptions, so holding off does have a small cost.

Not arguing, just exploring an interesting point of discussion - There seem to me to be three things here: 1. FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions - You, know, things that are not in need of correction but do need clarification. 2. Updates - Things like points updates and rules changes. The 3rd ed. stuff fits here. 3. Errata - As the root of word indicates, a correction of an error. The Sons update in WD is squarely in section 2 above. Now, would it be awesome for GW to, effectively, give away for free the content they sell us in WD? Sure, but that's never been the business model. We've been carrying around 3 books and 7 White Dwarfs for decades. Also, does GW even grasp the distinction in the three bits above? Do they break up docs by these types? Dunno. I'm just having a friendly discussion here.

I don't think that's the case. Errata docs fix actual errors, right? This is new rules stuff, not mistake fixes. WD makes sense to me.

Warhammer Underworlds: Skullblood Fireskull Slaughterpeak of Bloodbones

It's also worth remembering that "people" are not one thing. The "people" who complained about stuff getting killed too quickly before may very well not be the "people" who are now complaining that things don't die fast enough. It's really easy to think of people/gamers/fans as a unified entity. They are not. This means that tons of (most?) "people" are not failing to figure out what they want. It's just that different individuals within the group are speaking up now.

Way ahead of ya'!

I'm all for individual creativity. I'm also all for giving respect to those who have created for us. There is a very popular YouTube host who is a top content creator in the hobby community. What he has contributed can't be dismissed. I like him. I watch him. I look forward to each video he makes, even the ones where he has opinions with which I disagree. Disagreement is good! It exposes people to new ideas and views. Good stuff. The one thing he does that just seems insanely at odds with everything else about him is how casually he disrespects the works of others ... especially since he recently became a published author of gaming materials himself! To use an anonymized example: He often refers to one particular game as Bat Hankie Fast Face simply because he never bothered to learn the game's name. I strongly suspect it would bother him if another highly popular outlet referred to his work as Beat 'Em Up Power Punch when its real name was Warrior Lord Arena. It just baffles me that folks are so willing to look at something that they love, something that was the output of hard work by the person or team who made it, and then mock it, disrespect it, and minimize the efforts of those who made it. It's a real headscratcher for me. I mean, isn't that something we do to things we hate? I call the Baltimore Ravens the Bawlmer Raisins precisely because I want to publicly degenerate them, not because I think it's a cute name for something I love. When we call a Maw-krusha a cabbage, there is nothing about that that's endearing. It's pure mockery, and that just seems weird for us to do with something we enjoy.