Sleboda

Let's say I've played many games. I have learned to immediately identify strengths and weaknesses of the models I see. It's an event. It's turn 3, game 4. I see dwarves. I think "slow, hard to kill. I better do X." But darn. I do X and realize after the fact that Y would have been better against the faster, weaker troops they actually are. The appearance of the models in a miniature wargame matters.

Ah. Got it. When I say "repurposed" I mean, for example, that skeletons in the Legions of Nagash are usable as skeletons in Soulblight. What I don't mean is using dwarf Thunderers from the Warhammer Armies: Dwarfs book as handgunners in Cities of Sigmar. Make sense?

I'm happy to try to engage in honest discussion of that, but I'm a little unclear on your meaning and intent. Can you clarify?

Thanks, all. @novakai, your insight shows me something I feared might be the case. They clearly had the ability, with a pre-order window of two weeks, to pack up the orders of those who ordered early, and get them shipped ... somewhere. They are simply not handling orders like mine despite proving they are capable of doing so. Yes, I see the delay message, but this was two weeks out and they showed they were picking orders for the product and getting them shipped in time. For whatever reason, they just are not taking care of a segment of the population. From now on, if I order anything from them directly, it'll be limited edition stuff only. I'll be using Miniature Market for the rest. Good communication. Quick service. Real time inventory levels so you don't get lied to about what the have on hand (as opposed to several other popular Internet-only stores who have failed me and do nothing to promote ground-level recruitment). Loyalty program. Etc. I've spent just over $3200 with GW direct in 2021 so far, just over the half way point of the year. Going forward, most of that will be going elsewhere. Thanks again, all, for the info.

Just an informal survey of a sort. GW put up Dominion preorders two weeks ahead of release. That would give them plenty of time to pick and pack orders placed in that window so that they could ship the orders on release day. Currently my over $700 order, placed in under two minutes from the instant preorders went up, sits there, untouched. (I also, once again, don't have the current White Dwarf from my subscription, but that's pretty much normal.) So, the question(s)- Did you place your Dominion order from GW directly? Did you have it shipped to your home as opposed to a store? When did you order? Did you get yours yet? Thanks.

It sort of depends on how we define being squatted. I don't think any army has even been removed from any edition of any GW game. It's always been a matter of them not making the jump to a new edition or their game being cancelled. Assuming the latter: All Man O War fleets All the Epic armies Wood elves, Tomb Kings, a small Bretonnia force, Empire, O&G (including lots of forest goblins) as a straight up combo army,Chaos Dwarfs, Vampire Counts, Legions of Nagash ... The list goes on. Yes, several models from these armies can be repurposed in other armies, but those are not the same. I've had literally thousands of models get left behind.

And there we have the answer that all those who are disgruntled over this or that decision from GW should read, understand, and accept. Have they had a misstep here and there over the decades they've been the undisputed champion of miniature wargaming? Sure. But come on, they print money. Their stock rides an ever increasing wave of shareholder value, and every. single. challenger. that supporters claimed would "finally be the one to take 'em down" has been left bleeding, crying, and quivering like a broken baby that's been tossed on the trash heap of gaming history without its mommy and binkie. Love 'em or hate 'em, accept their plans or don't. They'll be here making great stuff that keeps uncountable hobbyists happy long after the doubters have either given them their bank account numbers or bitterly moved on to some other pursuit.

Exactly. I think this distinction is being overlooked here. It's not saying don't use a generic scheme with the rules of a subchapter (or AoS equivalent). It's saying that if your scheme matches one that gives players the cue that it's tied to an existing and specific set of rules, then use those rules. It's no different, at all, from saying that if you give a model a heavy bolter, then it has the rules for a heavy bolter and *not* the rules for a lascannon. It's a visual that directly connects to a rule. Why do we think so many people magnetize their options? The thing that makes this color stuff seem different is the inability to changen colors on the fly, but the effect is the same. You see a heavy bolter and you know both what it is and wish what it isn't. You see Ultramarines colors and symbols, and you know what it is and what it isn't. Someone earlier mentioned that this may oddly encourage people to never paint their army in one of the codified schemes, this keeping them flexible to be successors of any chapter (or AoS equivalent). Fair enough. That is indeed a likely unintended consequence, but that doesn't mean the premise is wrong. If I see a heavy bolter, I'll keep my infantry away from it and send in a tank. If that heavy bolter is "really" a lascannon, well, grrr. Color scheme is, effectively, just another visual cue that ties to a rule in exactly the same way as a weapon option. Thinking about it, it's like magic items. In oldhammer, you didn't have to model things like magic rings, magic amulets, and so on. You were free to swap to new items between games, just like now. There was also an item called the Crown of Command (effects not important here). I was free to give my little goblin general that item or not. One day painted "Follow Me!" on his helmet. From then on, whenever I used that model in my army, he had the Crown. Period. If I didn't want my general to have it, I used a different model. It was my choice to restrict that model's option. After I did it, I respected my opponents enough to not ask them to ignore what they saw in him and the lessons of several games against him. I chose to create the limitation. Myself. Edit: @whispersofbloodsaid it better as I was typing. Yep. Well said.

Indeed. It takes some reflection to come around to the thought, but it's actually the person asking for permission to do something uncomfortable or optional who is being the "bad" sport. Think about it. Player A plays the game by not only the actual rules of the game, but also by the game's strong recommendations. That player realized that the approach most likely to include others is the one that is regulated and recommended by the set of rules and guidelines that literally all players worldwide get at the entry point. Player A meets all sorts of fine folks who are on the same page (because every single one of them has the same rules) and many great games are played. Player B wants to step outside of either the standard rules or strong recommendations of the game's designer. The designer, not wanting to be accountable for negative feelings their rule might create (because of business reasons, design preferences, or whatever - the reason doesn't matter here), tells Player B that if they can convince Player A to let them step around the universal general experience, then they can. Player B asks Player A to let them do something Player A is uncomfortable with - something not included as the standard play experience. What is Player A to do? How can the player who has the designer and their rules on his side tell Player B that they would like to stick to the rules without risking being told they are being a cow biscuit? "Permission Only" rules are a cop out by designers. Yes, I know, all the rules are optional at a base level. You can ask to be allowed to hit on 2+ all the time, and your opponent can decide for or against it. Nobody does that because, I believe, things like mathematical systems in rules are taken as background, built-in, or whatever. They're just part of it. You could ask, though. But then the designer says "here is this thing that we really think you shouldn't do, but if you are willing to guilt your opponent into allowing it, have at it." It's just cowardly by the designer. Make a rule. Present it as equal to the rest. See how many players take it upon themselves to put their rules-abiding opponent in an uncomfortable situation. I hated Permission Only rules for Special Characters in Warhammer Fantasy old editions, and I hate it in this situation as well. It's lazy and allows designers to decide that they don't need to make balanced rules and it also leads to situations like this, where one player wants to stick to the rules, and another wants to break them, but the former player comes out looking like the bad guy. Just tell us that colors don't matter or that they do. Don't leave it to us to have to put each other in bad spots. Edit: BTW, an old standby just popped back into my brain. This is a topic that's been around for ages. My response to people who wonder what I find acceptable has always been: "If you can put your army on the table, and I can tell not only which army it is, but also what the units are and which upgrades (weapons, command options, etc.) they've been given, without you saying a word, then I'm good." I don't care which models you use, what colors you paint them, or how crazy your conversions are, just as long as I can tell what they are by looking at the models. If I can't, then why are we playing with representative models at all?

Imagine forcing people to model their troops with the correct weapons and armor when they would rather make them look like cotton balls on Q-tips because you're incapable of keeping track of which things are actually something else when the entire hobby experience of the game is intrinsically linked to the appearance of the models. The horror. Thor forbid that the person who knows he can't use a pogo stick in a 500 meter hurdle race speak up and asks the person wanting to use a pogo stick in said race to either leave the pogo stick at home or go find a pogo stick race. And that's what it boils down to. If you prefer to tell those who do follow the rules of the experience that they are wrong for wanting to follow those rules, it's just weird. Also, be prepared for them to expect you to allow them to just keep bringing on new units each turn or automatically hitting with every attack. Seriously, when you go to a restaurant with friends, do you expect to be allowed to bring in food from another restaurant, or to bring your own drinks or do you accept that they want you to buy the food from their food-selling business?

Well then I ask this in all sincerity and without any form of malice or intent to attack or try to exclude: Why are you involved in a game that is inherently reliant and developed on the idea that the 3D models on the table top are tied, inextricably, to the rules for which they stand? Again, no offense intended. It's just that we are playing with actual models that represent the units described in the rules. If players are disconnecting the models from the rules, I truly, genuinely, seriously have to wonder what the point of the game is. Why play a game where we the models look like masters of we opt to have the models look like something not tied to the rules? I want to say this again to be clear - I'm not having a go. I'm not criticizing you or others with your mindset. I'm actually confused as to why any person would play this kind of game when one of the defining characteristics of it is being rejected. To me it feels like wanting to play baseball (just as an example) but desiring to be allowed to score a run by shooting the ball into a hoop instead of having to run the bases. Not a perfect comparison, I'll grant you, but as a rough comparison, that's how it feels to me when someone says "I'd like to play a game where the appearance of the models is very important, but I don't care if my models match the rules." Can you help me understand the "other side" here? Note: You say "stick it in your face." Nobody is advocating the hostile stance that phrase implies. On the contrary, I'm saying that folks like me prefer that folks like you (nothing personal) respect our desire to play within the characters boundaries of what makes a miniature wargame different from a game that uses chits, tokens, graph paper, or other mechanisms for letting track of the action. I'm happy to play D&D, Scrabble, O.G.R.E, Star Warriors, or Go with folks, but if we opt to play a game where what a model looks like is a key factor in defining the type of game, then I'd prefer to operate within that stricture.

I don't need them to. I just appreciate that they did. In life in general, I'm a big believer in following the rules of the group. Sure, we can work to change those rules, but I would expect a society (or community) to do so from within the rules that govern it. Vigilantism is anarchy (in a society). Extrajudicial revenge is anarchy (in a society). Not following the the rules of a game is anarchy (in a gaming community). GW publishes a set of rules that we all buy (or read from a buddy's copy) and use as the basis of our games. It's why we know that if an attack hits on a 3+, a roll of 2 fails and we don't get to just tell the opponent that it hits. We agree to follow the set of rules presented to our entire group. Sure, we can suggest that we change it on a local level, but if there is disagreement, we should default to the base rules. If not, then I can simply declare that all my attacks hit on 2+ and you have to accept it. That would be silly (and anarchy! 😁). I like GW having a stance on proxies. It makes it as legit as needing a 3+ on a unit that says it needs a 3+ on its warscroll. It gives our entire group a base rule. I happen to be on the side of this rule even before it was published. So, to answer your question in a TL;DR fashion, I don't need them to publish the rule, but I'm glad they did because I agree with it and , more importantly, it brings consistency to the entire community.

Consider it from the opposite approach. They are saying that if you've painted green hats, you get access to certain bonuses. If not, you don't. The green hats, just like giving a hammer instead of a bow, tell your opponent "Aha! That unit can make silly faces at my army. I better watch out." So, you see green hats or hammers and play accordingly. It's important to remember that this is indeed a 3D miniatures game where the things you see on the table give you an instant cue as to what those things can do. All GW is saying is that it's not right to ask your opponent to have to ignore what they see and constantly remember what they are "supposed" to be seeing instead. It's a matter of putting your opponent's enjoyment and play-experience ahead of your own desires. I think that's actually a pretty good way to approach a social situation: don't assume your quirks trump the standard and your opponent's desire to stick to that standard.

I bought all four books in limited edition format because I'm a sucker for fancy books. I suspected going in that they would be like End Times - full of cool art and stories, but having rules that are essentially dumped almost immediately. My suspicions became certainties. So, if you care about the rules, skip 'em. If you care about the art and stories, get 'em.

I agree that Bonereapers got utterly shafted in this edition. Sons of Behemat maybe?

Not sure where you get that. No. I support the idea. If I play a dozen games against a Salamanders army, I will learn to quickly identify threats based on the visual keys presented and I will get better against that army with experience. If, then, I am told they now "count as" Blood Angels, it will create confusion and small hesitations in my play, countering my experiences and giving my "Blood Angel" opponent an unearned advantage. So, yes, I still support having models look like what they represent within the rules, including their paint scheme. At this point I'd like to point out two important things: 1. I'm not upset with/arguing with anyone here. It's just opinion. This is a discussion forum. Its nature means discussing opinions. It's much better to have these conversations here rather than at a table top while holding up a game. 2. I'm discussing ideals. I have, like most, a set of what I, personally, believe the to the "best" (or at least preferred) parameters for creating the "perfect" hobby experience. That does not mean I'm going to show up at a house, store, or event and loudly proclaim that all present must do as I say. Heck, I am highly unlikely to refuse a game against anyone who doesn't fit my ideals. Sure, some things are deal breakers, but very few. Even the guy who has no money for models can get a game with me. I'll just provide the models! We all strive to create better experiences. For me, having models showing the equipment, colors, and any other visuals that match the thing in the rules to which they are tied is, frankly, a pretty basic concept for miniatures based gaming. That's a fundamental, essential element of these kinds of games. It's what makes them distinct from RPGs, Jenga, and so on. Again, no harm meant to anyone. Just trying to openly discuss a thing on a discussion forum.

Well, clearly, objectively, that's not the case at all. I think GW's explanation says it quite nicely and immediately disproves your assertion. Playing with models known to represent one thing and asking your opponent to disregard all their experience with those things, is, frankly, an unfair imposition on them. To put it sightly differently, consider the other player. Isn't it right to think that by using confusing models you might be putting them in a bad spot?

That's a very generous attitude, truly, but at that point is your opponent really in the hobby at all, or is he/she "just" a gamer in the level of a Monopoly player? I mean, the core of this wonderful experience of ours is the collecting, painting, and playing with models that look like the things they represent in the rules. If the only part a person is into is the pure tabletop tactics, that's fine, but it's hard to argue they are participating in a hobby. And even if they are, the are assuredly massively diminishing the experience for their opponents andn any onlookers. As to the financial piece, as harsh as this may sound, nearly all hobbies have equipment, fees, etc. that present financial barriers. You can't show up to an organized hockey tournament with a stick off a tree and tennis shoes instead of skates. You can't drive in a Formula 1 race with a bicycle. You can't have a game of chess, even, with 16 ball bearings as your pieces. You need the correct equipment. I certainly don't want to exclude people, but there is something to the reality that most activities like these do require you spend at least the minimal amount of money to make them functional and in keeping with what others have committed to doing.

I was both thrilled and annoyed with that FAQ comment. Thrilled because it was nice to see the "official" stance that this is a 3D model game where the toys on the table connect directly to the rules their visual appearances represent, and that matters. Proxies - boo! Annoyed because they once again made it a permission thing. If you rightly claim that you want the look of the models to matter and ask your opponents to play by that recommended guidance, you have to take the risk of the opponents besmirching you to others. Come on GW, take a firm stance, or at the very least give those players who agree with your official stance some stronger supporting language to use in defending their position as the correct one. On the whole, though, I loved that entry. Proxies, including using color schemes clearly tied to one set of rules as something other than those rules, are one of the Great Hobby Evils.

It's a subtle thing, but GW does not say you'll get your order on release day (unlike when you order music or a video game on Amazon). It's says your order will be sent out starting on that day. You'll likely be waiting at least another five days.

As we all know, Bonereapers are pretty much kicked in the jimmy with 3.0. That said, I won't be deterred. Many other toys have distracted me from them, but I just finished a few quick job models and wanted to share. I have no idea when, or if, I'll ever spend the time needed to make a truly nice looking model for this army, but at least I'm still churning. Here they are.

Good point.

Mark my words: 25mm bases will go away and be replaced by 28mm bases, specifically to "fix" this gap within the rules.

Implication is not ruling. So no duplication.

Yeah. From what I'm reading, the FAQ is pretty much a big insult on top of a huge injury. I know we're supposed to be positive here, but man, this is tough. Like they say "hope is the first step on the road to disappointment," and I had hope that the FAQ would fix the egregious wrongs visited upon this army by 3.0. Instead, it made things worse.