Orbei

Warcry spider guy is cool as heck. Huge missed opportunity that he's not one of Malerion's shadow aelves. Just as Morathi has her snekgals and wingladies this would be an amazing design for a shadow aelf hybrid. It doesn't look like a good fit for Chaos to me but I suppose that's what it is?

It's easy to imagine Khorne having something very similar to Taurox's rampage and momentum mechanics.

Like this post if you agree that posts with likes should receive bans.

Definitely agree here. The new models themselves are fantastically detailed and high quality, but I find the design choices themselves to be largely terrible. All of the WHFB factions had a certain charm to them that is lost with many of the AoS factions. It's easy to mock Lumineth as perhaps the worst offenders but I find about half of the factions in the game to be very unappealing. It's a weird design choice. The factions are so out there and 'love it or hate it' that it's probably easy for most people to pick something they really like, but equally easy to find the opposing army goofy. I can appreciate a good paint job across the table and get that the other person loves their army but they often just don't look cool to me, which detracts from the experience. It's a big change from WHFB when I genuinely would have loved to own almost every single army.

No one should ever play using grand strategies. Nice in concept but when SoB have access to beast master and Lumineth/Tzeench can pick prized sorcery the whole thing can be tossed in the bin. Prayers and magic should be the same thing with the same mechanics. When you pray to Khorne and he answers that's magic. He's a magical god and just doesn't like other people's magic. There's no need for two systems. The +1 cap to saves is an issue and should be removed. If a unit starts at 5+ and gets +3 somehow, and no rend is applied, it should save on 2+. The current system makes base 3+ save way too good and units aren't pointed appropriately for the difference between save values. Sub-faction allegiance abilities should go away and be replaced with a "battle force trait" or something that you pick for each battle. It sucks having rules tied to paint schemes, even if many people ignore that anyway. If I want my army to always be the same sub-faction but also experiment with different allegiance abilities that should be encouraged. Picking your sub-faction should be purely narrative/aesthetic with no impact to the tabletop.

I think I agree, I just hope we're on the same page as to which half of the models are beautiful and which are crimes against aelvemanity. I adore the wardens, sentinels, dawnriders, bladelords.. basically things sticking with the high elf aesthetic. All of the earth and wind stuff keeps me from buying into the faction. Oh, and Teclis is hideous. And yes, Malerion is the rightful aelf overlord. I am eager to see his new faction eventually and want to start it as my next army, but am also fearful they'll Lumineth it up and I'll hate it.

Bringing existing factions up to date should be prioritized over fancy new factions. Sorry, no new spooky ghost pirates, chorfs, or edgelord aelves until skaven and seraphon get modernized kits. Further, all of the factions should be updated at somewhat the same frequency. We won't be needing any new Stormcast models until 2027, please and thank you.

Here's my suggestion of an Idoneth list for a new player interested in the wettest aelves around. Allegiance: Idoneth Deepkin - Enclave: Fuethan - Mortal Realm: Ghur - Grand Strategy: Predator's Domain - Triumphs: LEADERS Isharann Soulscryer (140) - General - Command Trait: High Priest - Artefact: Arcane Tome - Lore of the Deeps: Pressure of the Deep - Universal Prayer Scripture: Curse UNITS 10 x Namarti Reavers (115) 10 x Namarti Reavers (115) 1 x Akhelian Allopexes (125) - Razorshell Harpoon 1 x Akhelian Allopexes (125) - Razorshell Harpoon BEHEMOTHS Akhelian Leviadon (380) - Mount Trait: Ancient TOTAL: 1000/1000 WOUNDS: 57 CORE BATTALION: Battle Regiment I'm not sure if I'd recommend IDK in general to an imagined new player who is open to any faction. Not easy to paint and requires some finesse. But, this seems like a good 3.0 starting point for someone who is interested in neat fish. It's decently mobile with the option to deep strike and the sharks/turtle zooming around. Gorgeous models to paint and a decent mix of namarti/akhelian. Lots of chip shooting that can become extremely deadly if a target is cursed. Some hard hitting melee, but you really need to pick your fights well. The arcane tome, while not super great on the soulscryer, let's you experience the magic phase and maybe get lucky with a cheeky pressure of the deep cast deleting an enemy hero. None of the grand strategies are especially reliable here, so try predator's domain for some tactical late game decision making. All in all it does a bit of everything, which seems like a good way to start. Unfortunately this is a pricey 1000 point list. No start collecting boxes here. 😞

The sentinel spam list is an interesting addition to the topic. It goes to show that before suggesting a list, or even a faction, it's important to understand what the new player wants to get out of the game. Lumineth are currently at the top of the meta and sentinel spam is the strongest sort of build. 40 sentinels is pretty gross and is going to be a very negative play experience if they play anything but another very strong list. They should buy into this only with a full understanding of what it is. Not suitable for a friendly game, very good for prepping for the bleeding edge tournament scene.

She got sick of those silly bats tugging at her hair and shaved it all off. Can't say I blame her!

This thread has been a discussion about the NDA. There have been several recent threads discussing other things some people are unhappy with regarding GW, such as WH+ and the new app. A call to community action as you're suggesting might be better off as its own topic. It's possible more information specific to the NDA comes out and this thread would remain a place for that continued discussion. So yes, it literally is all talk. Personally I am not interested in spouting pro/anti capitalist ideas or telling others what to do. I value this discussion and others like it for the knowledge. If GW is doing something shady I appreciate knowing about it and can use that knowledge to inform my own purchases. I haven't reached a point of boycott, but I also don't want my head buried in the sand.

I understand where you're coming from. My view is pretty much the same as The Red King's. Personally, I don't believe an email to GW will accomplish anything. Nor will a personal boycott. The voice of a single consumer is of very little concern to most companies. It's generally when there is widespread outrage and bad press that positive action is taken to remedy things. The conversation helps though. Raising awareness and spreading a topic to others, so they can in turn be informed and broaden the conversation. Like a snowball, as the conversation grows it will be easier for others to find and perhaps reach the level where GW takes action. Perhaps not, but at least we will all be better informed from it. Yeah, I get this. There are certainly some models that I know I want simply at a glance. Here's what I enjoy learning about from content creators. What do they think about the rules after a new army book is released? The pros and cons of a faction? How does it actually play on the table? What are the potential issues of new models? How do the models assemble, what bits are there to use? New start collecting ork boyz are a good example of this. You can't tell just by looking at the box, but the models are monopose and you only get 3 shootas, so to field a unit of 30 shootas you need to buy 90 Boyz. This would be pretty annoying to learn about after making the purchase, believing the kit can be assembled to field a unit option allowed by the codex. Regardless, even if I didn't value any reviews I would still disapprove of an NDA that is unusually restrictive like this. Clearly some people value the content this effectively aims to muzzle, evidenced by the thousands of views they receive. And yes, I realize that creators who don't get the early release models by signing the NDA could still make such content. That does not validate the shady NDA aimed at reducing critical content, in my eyes.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. No one is saying that people should not buy GW products, are they? Of course consumers can make their own decisions. As a consumer this influences me negatively towards GW. Not by itself enough to cause me to boycott them, because I don't look at things as absolutes. But it seems clearly designed to restrict objective information that consumers have available, and I've yet to hear any compelling alternative explanation. I'm not happy about that! If GW's business practices aren't relevant to you... Okay? This is a discussion forum for a GW game. This is a discussion about their business practices that directly impact us as hobbiests. Are you saying that people should never say they aren't happy with something GW is doing here? This should be a 100% positivity GW rally? That seems weird to me. And... Cool! I painted some IDK tonight. Who is trying to dictate your hobby enjoyment? I am confused as to what or who you seem to be defending yourself against.

You probably need to close it and reopen. I've gotten this error consistently since launch but that has fixed it.

For now you can download the app for free and see everything you need for demons. Warscrolls, allegiance abilities, core rules, FAQs, etc. No one knows what this will look like once the beta period is over. My advice is to use the free resource for now and otherwise wait on any purchases. See what the new rules distribution model is once the beta ends. There's a high likelihood that you'll need the battletome in some capacity, but there's also a good chance a new chaos battletome is coming soon and it could very well be Nurgle. Warhammer plus doesn't get you anything for now as far as rules, so unless you want it for the other features you're best off waiting so the subscription lasts longer, if in fact it becomes necessary.

You've said that people are assuming this is real based on preconceived notions. I'm telling you this is not whats happening. People are weighing the proof and reaching logical, evidence based conclusions based on that. The reasons why this might be real and why not have been clearly laid out. It's insulting for you to insinuate that people who reach a different conclusion than you are doing so simply because they are assuming something without proof. People are free to research, weigh the evidence, and draw a conclusion. There are three conversations happening in this thread. Is it real or fake? Is it a normal contract or problematic? And if it is both real and problematic, is that unethical on GW's part? As I understand you, no one can discuss the second or third question unless they have "beyond the shadow of a doubt" proven this to be true. It is impossible to interpret the NDA unless you'd bet your life on its validity. This is what I find to be absurd. I'm sorry, that is not how this works. People are perfectly capable of examining the document with a critical eye in either case, as Hoeg Law's video and this very thread makes clear. Further, in life you often dont get "proof" like GW telling you it's real. If that's your standard... Okay! I'm not going to tell you you're wrong or should believe this to be real If this were a criminal trial in the US with the standard being "beyond a reasonable doubt" I would be a not guilty, or fake. If this were a civil trial with a lower burden of proof I'd say it's real. I believe that the proponderence of the evidence points to this being real and am making an interpretation based on that. I have also stated that I am open to it being proven fake. At this point if it truly is it would behoove GW to clear this up with the community. That would absolutely not invalidate the discussion of the NDA, though. It would remain an interesting topic of what is okay in the relationship between GW, influencers, and the community. If discussing the document without a satisfactory level of proof to you seems like a waste of time, I have to wonder why you are participating in this dialogue at all.

I think they really nailed it with the core rules this edition. I say this as someone who doesn't like how often editions change. 3.0 is a nice step forward from 2.0 though, and I'd love for this edition to have a long lifespan. I like how interactive it is. The command point system ensures that both players have command points throughout the game with plenty of opportunities to use them even during your opponents turn. They can also be very impactful, like a key redeploy. I have never been fond of you go I go but thanks to commands and hero phase abilities both players remain very engaged throughout the game. The battle tactics are a nice idea, and I like the scenarios in general. They seem designed to keep the sore as close as possible throughout the game. It's great when games come down to the wire, and a big plus when you can still score lots of points even if your army is falling apart. Really gives the chance for good generalship to shine even if the dice gods aren't entirely on your side.

It's like you didn't even read my post or your post that I was responding to. 😕

Except that isn't what most people are saying. I have seen people laying out what we know and drawing a conclusion, with the caviatt that we don't have (and may never have) definitive proof one way or the other. Of course some people believe that this is 100% true and others take it as 100% fake. Neither of those views should be taken very seriously. The irony. This statement holds true for those on both sides. I encourage you to watch this video if you want to see why the NDA is viewed as problematic by many. It is explained very well. I get that people may not care enough to watch the video above, so I'll do my best to summarize: Restricted customer is a term defined in the document. This is an incredibly broad definition and includes anyone who is a client, customer, or "in the habit of dealing with" GW in the past 12 months. This is a very ambiguous definition. 4.1.1 prohibits the signor from attempting to influence a restricted customer towards reducing the amount of business they do with GW. Do you know what has a high likelihood of reducing the business a customer does with a company? A critical review. Anything said negatively can be seen as violating this clause. If a video is 99% positive and 1% negative, that negative part would violate the broad language used here. 4.1.2 prohibits the signor from having any business dealings with a restricted customer. This is absolutely not a standard non-compete, as it is not specific to the products GW sells. What might be in violation of this? Is Patreon a business dealing? I think so. This clause is so broad that it seems almost impossible to reasonably comply with. Hoeg uses plumbing services as an example. GW does not (currently) offer plumbing to customers, but by signing this the signor can't either. 4.1.7 is, again, very broad. The recipient cannot say or do anything harmful to the reputation of GW. I believe that this is the clause people defend as being reasonably standard, as it is interpreted to mean baseless slander of their reputation. Hoeg notes that this is unlikely to be enforced in such a restrictive way, although the language is unusually broad. I tend to believe this and see this as less problematic than 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. Hoeg sums these up by saying "clause 4 is not great, and it is unusual." So, we have a (US) attorney's opinion that this is unusual for a NDA/non-compete contract. Further, consider the indemnity portion 6.1 and 6.2. If GW tries to enforce this the signee must pay all of their legal fees, regardless of if they are in the right or wrong. So GW has no incentive to err on the side of caution here and can seek to interpret the vague language as favorably to them as they wish. Anyway, those are the reasons this document is problematic. It's still left to you if you believe the proponderence of the evidence points to this being likely real or fake. I believe it is likely real based on the whistleblower going to NQA and her subsequent doxxing of them. It is also left to you to decide if you think it is a positive or negative on GW's side, if true. I see this as overtly anti-consumer, aimed at the influencer's audience and GW's customers more than the signors themselves. It goes against something I value - critical product review to inform my purchases - and so I am very disappointed by it. It's ridiculous that I have to add this but apparently I do: I still don't believe GW is evil and should go out of business blah blah. I love Warhammer. Also, just to add. Even if it is true, it could very possibly have an innocent explanation. It may be an old template that was sent out by mistake, or a snafu with a new legal aid. Maybe they had to write a new NDA and copy/pasted some language from a vendor contract without realizing the issue caused. My own job involves reviewing legal documents and working with an in house attorney for documentation of customer contracts. I've seen plenty of mistakes with signed legal documents I'm the past. That wouldn't be surprising at all as GW still employs error-prone humans rather than superior aelves. It would be nice to learn this is a simple mix-up.

Have to say I agree this seems to be the case. I've found all of your posts to be very rational and well reasoned on this topic. I'm not familiar with whatever past topics are being referenced. But the assessment being made regarding you by Sarouan seems to be way off the mark. Being critical of things is healthy. Dialogue with fellow hobbiests about the things you like and don't like as a consumer is healthy. If someone thinks the NDA is good (or fake) and wants to explain their position that's also helpful as it offers perspective from "both sides". I disagree with that point of view but find it interesting to try to understand. There's no need to make things personal and roll around in the mud. I also don't understand the inference that people who criticize GW on something must blindly hate the company. I think this NDA sucks, but I also just bought 2 pots of citadel paint and a thing of green stuff from my FLGS for $25 today. Please take my money and also behave ethically GW. 🙂

Because I read it, found it to be very clear, and have seen legal analysis that confirms my reading of it. I hope so. That would mean people aren't signing it.

This is a very insightful post for me. Thank you. This is definitely my mindset. I don't have any interest in a content creator simply promoting a new thing without a critical eye as part of some hype train. When I watch unboxing videos or reviews I want unbiased criticism. The good and the bad. Currently I am able to get this from some content creators, and I interpret this new NDA as GW's best effort to limit criticism. Obviously they cannot prevent ALL unbiased reviews and criticism, only those who sign the NDA. But this is at least an effort by GW to lessen honest, critical content that consumers have access to. I value that content so I don't like it. There really is a lot of value that can come from unbiased, critical early access. How many boxes do I need to make a unit, meaning what are the options the sprue let's me build? Are the rules in a campaign book like Broken Realms worth it for my faction, or can I skip it? Is this new faction one that is good for a player with my mindset, or should I wait for an upcoming release? Hands on feedback from people with access to the product helps consumers make informed purchases. We'll be getting less of that moving forward, per this NDA.

It also looks like the type of equipment that breaks while I'm assembling my dude. 😞

That's a very un-khorn-like weapon to my eyes. It isn't even drawing blood/sap/syrup/whatever sylvaneth have.

The turtle, yeah, but not alone. You want to overcommit and make sure the job gets done, as him living on one wound is potentially disasterous. So maybe the turtle plus sharks, turtle some eels and volty.. depends on what you can get in there, but use more than you think you might need. If all you have available to charge is the turtle and a unit of eels, might be better to just send in the eels and bide your time with the turtle. Having a shark sitting idle because you overcommit and it's target is already dead, for example, isn't as bad as him smashing your turtle, healing, and then charging something else. He's comparatively squishy vs equivalent points of brutes or gore gruntas, but his damage output is tremendous. Dhom-hain is just a good default choice with bonuses that are generally useful. You have the speed and maneuverability to dictate charges in most cases so will make use of the rerolls to hit, and rerolling wounds (all wounds!) vs monsters is very useful as well. Those are often the priority target and killing them gives you bonus points. Other options aren't bad, but if you're not building for anything specific that's an easy go-to.