Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Joseph Mackay

Members
  • Content Count

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About Joseph Mackay

  • Rank
    Protector
  • Birthday 04/22/1992

Recent Profile Visitors

203 profile views
  1. I feel it’s worth pointing out that gw have separate allocations of stock for their own retail stores, their website and 3rd party retailers. Stock levels of one have nothing to do with stock levels of the other edit: I also think it’s unfair for people to expect them to shift stock around so the 3rd parties have ‘enough’ at the expense of their own stores. If a 3rd party doesn’t have stock? Well they’ve still got all the other games and products they sell. If a gw store doesn’t have stock? They go out of business for failing to meet sales targets. This is a tough pill to sallow for some, but gw should be prioritising their own stores over 3rd parties
  2. Hrothgorn is not a replacement for the Icebrow Hunter unless gw rewrite the Hunters warscroll. The Hunter has a spear/javelin which Hrothgorn does not, and the crossbow in the Hunters warsroll is an optional weapon not included by default (which I also believe the current Hunter model doesn’t actually have)
  3. As long as gw still sell physical books? I have become used to expecting them to do nothing about imbalances, because heavily faq/errata your brand new book is something they refuse to do and they’d rather wait until the next edition to fix it (some minor issues have been fixed, but usually it’s a case of too little too late. The change to Petrifex Elite for example, had that occurred in the 2-week post-release faq/errata then the complaints and backlash would have been huge). In some countries, I imagine a major errata within a few weeks of release could be justification for refunds and/or lawsuits which they obviously don’t want to deal with either. I have two very strong opinions on how to somewhat fix balance issues, neither of which gw will do because shareholders say money is more important. Firstly, all books for an edition should be written at the same time. This stops the ‘accidental’ powercreep created when the writers come up with a new rule mechanic halfway through an edition meaning the earlier books get left behind (eg the first Sylvaneth battletome which introduced Allegiance Abilities, Flesh-Eaters 2019 and Battleline If monsters etc). Second, is moving the rules to digital only. It allows them to fix any issues that come up instantly and not having to worry about invalidating your $83nz battletome. It also removes the print time issues (such as how the GHB is written so far in advance of when it gets released)
  4. The thing is though, that a units rules are at least partially factored into the price gw charge, and so you can’t really just ignore the rules when talking about pricing. example, ‘elite’ units. Gw expects to sell less of them vs a Battleline* unit, and so they charge more for the elite unit so that they effectively make the same profit regardless of how many individual boxes are sold *this doesn’t apply to fantasy units that were elite but are now Battleline in AoS (ie Witch Aelves, Ironbreakers etc) because they don’t adjust prices down (Magmadroth being an extremely rare situation)
  5. It’s because for some people, that xenophobia is reflected in the rules too, with imperium armies generally getting better rules than the xenos armies even when the lore supports it being the other way around. That probably has something to do with it
  6. Not necessarily. The Fyreslayers and Sylvaneth Warbands both have weapons that don’t exist in the books
  7. When I first got into the hobby back in 2001 with Middle-earth, I used to be able to stick to one army, I’d get enough stuff for an army over time that I could play 500pts, 750pts, 1000pts and 1500pts lists. After which I’d then change up and get a new army. This became a little bit blurred in the later years of Middle-earth as I started combining armies together (eg Isengard and Mordor as one), but for the most part I was able to collect enough to play before moving on. This continued when I got into 40K around 2006 as well, however my lists started to stop at 1000pts rather than 1500pts in the early 2010s. Then came AoS. With the fantasy model range, there were tons of individual models I liked but not necessarily the army they belonged to (eg Frost Sabres, Bullgors, Demigryphs etc). When AoS came out with the whole Grand Alliance thing, that issue went away, and so did my self control to stick to one army at a time. Fast forward to now, and it’s not uncommon for me to a buy a box of Stormcast one week but then next week buy a box of orruks. Because of this, I actually have very few ‘complete’ armies these days
  8. Warcry is a great system. It has some flaws with the randomly generated objectives that can result in a non-game or instant victory for one side but in those cases you can just draw a new card. I think the campaign system is a bit light in regards to gaining xp, upgrades, injuries and fighters dying, but they can always add that later. The instructions for building the terrain was botched in the starter box, in that if you followed the instruction book then the terrain cards were useless. Where I think Warcry falls apart, is the AoS Warbands. The game was initially announced as just the chaos Warbands, and people complained. I don’t know what actually went down in gw HQ, but in my opinion, the chaos Warbands were all playtested and balanced against each other, but the AoS Warbands feel like they were rushed out to kill the complaints. The AoS Warbands generally have more choices and a lot of things are at a much higher ‘power level’ for their points vs the original chaos Warbands and it feels unfair. The Stormcast shooting models are the worst offenders. I also feel like they could have used Warcry to buff certain models (while paying appropriate points for it) so they actually matched their lore a bit better than they do in regular AoS, but it is what it is. My regular group didn’t get into it because they watched a few of us playing the game and got put off by the apparent imbalance between the chaos Warbands and the AoS ones. My Stormcast friend has no interest in the game because his Stormcast felt op and he didn’t enjoy the experience. Back on the subject of pricing though, what’s the justification for Warhammer Underworlds Warbands vs regular AoS models. Eg Beastclaw Raiders, Icebrow Hunter (resin) is $73nz whereas the Underworlds warband consisting of an Icebrow Hunter, a Frost Sabre and 3 Gnoblers (all plastic + cards for the game) for $67nz. This kinda proves the whole “price is determined by how many you’d buy” is false because someone might want more than one Icebrow Hunter, but theoretically you’d only want one warband, unless you were buying multiples because they’re better models than the existing resin ones
  9. Certain new releases are even being delayed here. The last 2 or 3 White Dwarfs were almost a month late, the Space Marine Chaplain on bike is m.i.a and the necron Hexmark destroyer isn’t coming until later November. I don’t understand. Are gw shipping crates full of an individual kit or something? I would have thought that all releases would be shipped together
  10. At the time, they explicitly said that Finecast was cheaper than metal and yet every metal kit redone in finecast immediately went up in price by about 20%. in the case of Middle-earth, they tried to hide this by changing the blister packs from 3 models to 4, and bundling the foot and mounted heroes together so at least it looked like a better deal. That didn’t happen with 40K or fantasy though
  11. Gw implemented this rule a few years ago now to stop people from buying directly from the UK, because gw are obviously aware that whatever they’re charging in international markets is more than it should be. now I’ve already mentioned earlier some of the components that go into the New Zealand pricing for gw products. I wasn’t trying to justify their prices as I agree they’re too much, but rather just explaining why comparing UK price against the exchange rate isn’t accurate or a fair representation of gw costs in the international markets
  12. I wanted to have a serious discussion about fixing the Destiny Points to Matched Play Points conversion rate gw used. I’ve made a few characters now (mostly big monsters) and I feel like the points are way off what they should be and my monsters are overpriced. I’ve also done a few tests of trying to recreate existing heroes to check the costs and they all work out nearly double the actual points for the existing warscrolls. the conversion rate in the Anvil Of Apotheosis is Destiny Points x10. I feel it should probably be x5 or x7, somewhere around there. However, I also think that maybe the conversion rate needs to vary based on weather the hero is mounted or not as some of my previous Seraphon/Bonesplitterz 600pts+ monsters would feel op at ~300pts. Note that I ignore the recommended 40dp limit as I feel you can’t do enough with it. As an example, here is a Tyrant on Mournfang that I made, he comes out to 660pts. This is more than a Frostlord on Stonehorn and is definitely not worth 660pts, nor is he worth more than a Stonehorn. At x5 he costs 330pts which is more reasonable, at x7 or x7.5 he’s about 450-500pts (rounding up) which also feels too high. a few notes about this guy, firstly the model. the model for this guy, I don’t have any pictures at the moment as he’s not finished yet, but it’s a spare Mournfang and rider with a Chaintrap and Pistol, and I plan on giving him a cape. now the rules: -the Chaintrap. I wanted this to be a ranged weapon that also has a melee profile. To accomplish this, the missile weapon is a Bow with the required upgrades to match the Huskards Chaintrap. The melee weapon is a Flail that I upgraded to match the regular Tyrants Thundermace, however I gave it an extra attack to account for the tyrants Beastskewer Glaive that this model doesn’t get. -the Ogor Pistols. Following the Anvil Of Apotheosis rules, this is actually illegal as you can’t give models 3 weapons but anyway. It’s a Handbow upgraded to match the tyrants Ogor Pistols, however to account for the lower range, I increased the to hit by 1 and it has 2 damage as you can’t give it D3. -Punches and Kicks is the Mounted Beast Claws upgraded to match the Frostlord/Huskards Punches and Kicks. -Tusks is the Mounted Beast Maw upgraded to match the Mournfangs Tusks. The D3 damage accounts for the lost of the extra damage Mournfangs are supposed to get when they charge, additionally there’s no way to modify D3 damage into 1 damage. -Decapitating Strike represents the Tyrants Thundermace rule, except that it triggers off wound rolls rather than hit rolls. My group is pretty open, but I’m the only player who’s really interested in using this so they’ve all basically said ‘do what you want, we trust you not to be a ****** about it’ so I’m just looking for some ideas and sort of a consensus on what would be a more accurate conversion rate
  13. My gw manager for 20+ years has always asserted quite strongly that price is (at least partially) dictated by how many an individual person is likely to buy for that army. Ie you would buy less elites than you would Battleline, so the elites are priced higher to make up for less sales
  14. Well they’re $380nz, $248nz for the 2 giants (which by the way is more expensive than buying 2 seperate giants as they were $98nz)
  15. Too many armies have ways to ignore battleshock, and too many units/armies are pointed based on their modifiers to bravery and/or abilities that trigger off battleshock tests or bravery. remove immunity to battleshock. I really don’t care if Death *should* never run away, it ruins the game when stuff is pointed to factor in abilities that are then just ignored by half the armies in the game. There are a lot of things in the game that *should* do this or that but don’t
×
×
  • Create New...