Sarouan

I too don't feel like the new GW miniatures are more detailed than the old ones. I personnally find the previous plastic Chaos Knights actually more detailed than the last ones. However, and that is to me the real difference, the new miniatures are definitely more thought to be painted in sub-assemblies in comparison to the older ones. Dynamic poses don't mean they're more detailed, but they certainly can make areas more difficult to reach with the good old brush. Sometimes, I even feel the way they designed the miniatures on sprues to be painted specifically with an airbrush. Me, I'm an old school painter...I like to paint the miniature fully built and glued on its base. I don't like to paint sub-assemblies while thinking I'll have to glue them after and - more often than not - ruin a small part of my paint by doing so or leaving a small space because I obviously can't file afterwards or fill it with green stuff properly. When I work on newer models, I often try to build them in a way I can still paint the whole miniature in one piece, meaning I slightly move the shield so that the body is more accessible or remove a loincloth that makes other parts a pain in the ass to get with a brush. New sisters of battle are a nightmare to me because of that (damn loincloths always getting in the way of my brush !). I understand miniatures are designed with more "new ways of painting" nowadays and that I'm kinda a dinosaur in that field, but that's what I really miss with new GW miniatures : they're not designed to be painted in one piece like they had to do before. A good example to me is the topic of loincloths and robes. In older models, the area that was supposed to be the part between the cloth and the body was often filled. So you didn't have to mind having to paint this part underneath since it didn't exist. But new models now have a space, sometimes showing the detail and sometimes (having a big gap, like the infamous sacro-sanct Stormcast Eternals). Problem is that if you don't paint that area, it shows under a specific angle...and it's not completely avoidable in some cases. So you have to fill that space with paint (even if it's just dark). More often than not, if you do it with a brush, it can be difficult to reach these areas. The difficulty is not the same with an airbrush. Sure, it's good to see techniques have evolved with the years, but that big loincloth sticked to the body like old metal sisters of battle ? Sometimes, I miss it.

Yes, but with some specific conditions. While if you subscribed, you're automatically in, nothing to do. As for the benefit...same for everything you subscribe to access content. Indeed, if you wait for more to be there before subscribing one month to see it all to that point, you paid for one month for that. Find whatever method suiting you, my friend. Oh, be sure that GW will sell it to an outrageous price that will make subscribing to one year of Warhammer + actually being the "free stuff" included in the deal. As for myself, I basically took one year for testing. One or two months isn't enough for that kind of long term content, anyway. With the "gifts" and all, I'm pretty sure I will lose nothing anyway in the end. For those who wait before subscribing...can't say the same. So far, can't say I really have a lot I do care about. Too much 40k related content in comparison to AoS. Battle reports don't have a "wow" effect so far, and the painting videos aren't what I'm looking for. But the voucher makes the first two months basically free and I gain two months as well for the yearly subscription. With some luck, maybe I'll won the lottery and completely cover more than the basic cost. And if not...I'm sure GW will do more of similar things to tempt more people subscribing. Pretty sure they're aware the content isn't that awesome as advertised in their social media and struggle to convince so far, so that's why they'll keep using those kinds of event in the future IMHO.

Or the voucher. Or the current lottery for winning the full painting collection. Or whatever other event GW will advertise to incite people to subscribe.

Is it ok if I'm focusing more on the narrative ? I mean, sure, I'm ok with the rules, but what really attracts me in the 3.0 so far is the story clearly focusing on Dawnbringer Crusades - building new settlements and potentially new realms on the now clearer maps of the Mortal Realms. It's really giving you a big reason to fight : defending / attacking key places. That is depicted with the new Path to Glory : even if it's basic so far, it's really about building your own realm and inviting you to dig a bit deeper into the story of your armies and what they are standing for. I also like the new campaigns written on the White Dwarf : linked games with choices to take until the final battle, that can be used in multiple ways (most obvious is Path to Glory). I can totally see a supplement book written the same way. I'd love to see campaign books for AoS for that reason. The background is more consistent in 3.0, IMHO. More maps, more notes on it, more glimpses on what life is in the Mortal Realms...makes the world more living and worth fighting for.

Of course I did. You do believe the leaked document is real. That's why all the points raised are seen as problematic, because they're real for you. But if the document appears to be fake, what does that say of all of this ? If you were wrong about believing the document is indeed one used by GW while you spent all that time saying all of those problematic points are really a deal...that means you lose time about debating about things that weren't real and thus, were never a deal or problematic at all. I mean, what if the 4.1.1 in the real legal document sent by GW to youtubers wasn't written at all like in the "leaked document" ? Or if the weird grammar errors weren't present ? Or if the clause about a non-competition agreement for 3 years wasn't there as well ? You are all debating about things from a source that is still unsure so far. That person may indeed have received something, but who can be sure that's actually coming from GW ? That's what I'm saying from the very beginning and you seem not to understand. But I'm not saying you're not reading my posts here as argument. Sure, you may ignore all I say and tell me I'm not reading your posts. That doesn't mean the points I'm raising in my own cease to exist and may not be questioning the very base on what you're trying to make it look like it's a big deal. And if the base is wrong...everything you're building your arguments on crumble as well. So far, I got confirmation from GW they're investigating about this but they still didn't say anything about it being real or not (obviously). I think it may be good to debate about the problematic points once we get a confirmation that it is indeed true...and not a fabrication from another side for whatever reason. I'd better stick to the facts, not feelings or beliefs. It's more healthy in these days and age, IMHO.

Wonder if the Stormcast Eternals dragons will go out of stock the day the pre-orders will be online. With all the delays with distribution in UK, it wouldn't surprise me if people rush on them like a pack of wolves on a lamb.

I know, people forget that FW are still selling Age of Sigmar products (well...most are old Warhammer Battle units, anyway). There's a price increase as well on them. Notice they suppressed the bundle for destruction night goblins and squigs...I meant gloomspite gitz.

When you debate about the pertinence of point 4.1.1 or more as problematic, you de facto assume that those were indeed the points raised by GW to (ab)use their position of power on the people who received that document, don't you ? So if the document is a fake (or even partially), that means the whole debate about this is pointless. What's the point of seeing that particular point as problematic / abusive from GW if it doesn't exist in reality in GW true legal documents ? And don't say you're debating about if GW does it in the future...that's totally not what is going on this thread or on the internet from the very beginning. That's why I keep reading them. And that's why I say it's pointless to debate about this as long as we're not sure about the source. There is a delicious irony to talk about nationalizing GW for returning Tomb Kings - Settra rules over all, all must serve Settra ! Joke aside, there are people who actually want to see GW go out of business. Some even go further than that, to say it politely.

This has been the problem with the recent multiples "buzz" reported not so long ago : a lot of dubious "proofs" stated as "truths / facts" and then debating while always assuming as base that they are indeed the truth / facts. Which is why it's nice to debate about this, but they are pointless since you're always debating on something unsure. It's not a hazard if people already having bad opinions of GW are tending into believing them as true and show it on this thread multiple times. That kind of buzz is clearly intended at them : "look at this ! GW did a bad thing again ! You're right to think they're bad ! Feel entitled and clever !" The sad truth is that you tend not to check your sources too much when you have that mindset already. After all, it's going the way you're thinking already, so it looks true right ? That's the reason it's good to listen to the other side's arguments, sometimes. Otherwise, I finally got an answer from GW customer service about the "leak" I have sent. They said they are investigating about this but can't say much more.

Yet, if his goal is to make GW better, his posts miss the point. Good for you, though.

That's what you're assuming, but how are you sure that will be the case ? We're still waiting for the apocalypse for content creators with the previous topic about "modders being censored by GW". There was a buzz, sure, and now we're just changing topics. Something tells me we'll soon forget about this "NDA leak" in a few weeks later. And that we'll keep having critical reviews nonetheless.

Oh I did see. I also saw the small stripes left by the 3D print. A cheap printer is cheap for a good reason. But I do agree you can have nice centerpieces for a fair price as well ! If you don't care looking too close to it or working a lot. To me, 3D printing is especially convenient for terrain and unique models. Yeah, making an army is....hmmm...close to GW prices, actually. I'm totally not trying right now, I swear. 😝

In that case, you should fact-check more before going on a rant like you did multiple times in previous topics showing GW on a bad light or something. You sure tend to be quick to attack GW first in case of doubt, which is kinda weird for someone saying they "like a company". Not saying that you're lieing here, but your actions don't really match your words, IMHO. Caring for behaving well, sure. Though to me, it's better to be certain they indeed behaved badly...and not being a tool for other interests like youtubers defending their respective point of view and trying to weaponize their base. Thing is, you lean to think that arguments not going your way are defending "the bad with the good". Because that's how you view it. Maybe there simply isn't any "bad and good", here, but just people with businesses who want to protect their respective interests their own way. It's easy to say "content creators are poor independants ! they're the victims here !"...but I'd be more cautious instead. Maybe it's because I'm older and have more experiences with similar things like this, and knowing that reality isn't black and white - and there are a lot of shades of grey. It's not a novel you're writing, here : you don't know who are the true villains and heroes because you don't have the writer's omniscient point of view. You just have your subjective human point of view, and you certainly don't have the full picture here. And if you say you do because of "morality"...I'll just reply that's how all dictators think as well. Making things better ? All right, indeed. But making sure it will make things better that way (ie attacking GW on dubious bases without checking the facts and seeing what the other side may gain for it) sounds a lot more healthy, to me. Anger never leads to good results on long term. Yes, indeed. But what you're doing here is expressing your dissatisfaction to others users of this forum that is, for sure, not owned by GW nor even sure to be seen by their employees. In fact, there are pretty good chances the people who want to target in this particular topic - meaning people from the legal branch of GW - will never read all your posts here at all. Thus meaning doing that here is utterly and completely pointless. Again. No, your intent here is just proving you're right and gather people behind your way of seeing things - maybe debating with people like me who don't agree with you on your very black and white vision of the world. But certainly not trying to make GW better. Because your way of doing it here has zero chances of having any effect at all. That's how I view it.

Totally this. I do like the wide variety brought by 3D printing, but saying it's automatically cheaper for the customer who doesn't have the time nor the space to use a 3D printer himself, it's far from being true. For those investing in one and having both the time and space, yes it's interesting...but really if you print a lot of miniatures. If it's just to print a dozen miniatures from time to time...it's absolutely overkill to invest in a 3D printer just for that. Also, it's good to remember that if you want details that can indeed rivalize with professionnal miniature producers, it's not with a cheap 3D printer and resin that you will have something worth competing. Quality is still expensive. We're still far from the huge revolution that will throw down GW's domination, honestly.

Hm. This chat about difference in prices makes me think about my own criteria. I'd be lying it has no influence on me, but it's not a major factor as well IMHO. For example, I'm looking at some 3D printed Lost Kingdom Miniatures in a very detailed "durable but flexible" resin from a professionnal that is 50 € for 20 infantry miniatures...I can easily find more expensive with GW, sure, but it's not the cheapest I can find as well. If "cheap" is my only criteria, I'd be buying PVC in hundreds. What I think is the best for me is fairly detailed miniatures with an appealing visual and coherent with my existing collection, that is enjoyable to build / work on (plastic HIPS is, for me, one of the best for that), all for a "reasonnable" price. Accessibility is also linked to this factor, especially when I'm ordering online. Since I'm in EU, former companies based in UK have fallen out of the "best" category to me because of the tax increase for import and...well, longer time to come at home. Sure, GW is a UK based company but I can still buy at my local shop with no price increase (since GW cover all import taxes "for free" in EU), so they didn't move much so far. Shifting a bit down recently because of the distribution troubles, though. I think the title of this thread should be more about "What are your criterias defining the best models for you ?"

Zero evidence ? The screenshots appear in the Arch video, don't they ? I think it's as much evidence as your "leaked" NDA contract here. And it's not up to me to judge if something is legitimate or not, like you seem to do with GW here. Besides...GW isn't forcing that guy to sign their allegedly NDA contract. Does it look one-sided ? Well...we don't know what the guy gets in return, if true. So yes, since we don't have that information, it sures looks one-sided. But to me, you're judging without having all the cards in your hand, IMHO. You're just too eager to blame GW and defend the poor "leaker" here. Morality has also nothing to do here. Especially because it's not the same depending on the culture, education and surroundings. What is moral in one country may be immoral in another. That's why right-wingers love to invoke that...always implying theirs is the only that matters, obviously.

To be honest, if the leak is true and that Arch guy's screenshots appearing in his videos are legit as well...I think the intention of the leaker isn't really to warn the community about the "abusive NDA contract", but rather have the community weigh in so that the leaker (and other content creators as well) can have a better deal benefiting him. But it's not for the sake of "the benefit of the viewers", here...it's more simply using it to gain a better deal, because they know they can have more weigh negociating if they're not alone (especially if the community is behind them). In a few words : gaining the butter, the money and the butter seller's smile. Not the viewers, the content creator. If he has a better deal, he'll be more than happy to sign it, keep his free stuff and still do whatever he wants in his videos, including giving subjective opinion leaning more one way or the other than it should be objectively. Would make them sense he doesn't want to "ruin his relationship with GW" and would rather stay anonymous. But again, it's just assuming everything is true...and yeah, it's better not to think to deep into it in the end.

That's true. You also cannot be totally sure of a youtuber's own bias talking more than his real objective opinion. And the other way around : someone posting a positive review being automatically suspected of being a NDA / partnership with GW. Or someone posting a negative review being automatically a "honest person saying things as they are". Ash from Guerilla Miniature Wargames often get comments saying he's been paid by GW and his opinion isn't genuine because he gets free products from them in advance and so on. That's not necessarily true...see his reviews on Cursed City if you want to see more about this. It's also a problem, but if you look GW negatively, you tend to give less importance to it in comparison. And it's not that weird either...you look at what is comforting you in your beliefs first, after all. That will be the only way to be 100% sure if it suits yourself or not. A good thing you don't especially have to buy it first, though...most of my local shops allow me to flip some pages and see if the book suits me before buying it. Please. Free warscrolls weren't used for "trying things before you buy", it was just to see what are the aptitudes / characteristics of the unit. Moreover, without the cost in points and other rules from the Battletome, it wasn't enough to really "try things before you buy". Even with free warscrolls, people were still looking for reviews showing the battletome and go to the point of the video where points / army special rules and optimizations were. Free warscrolls were just a part that is sadly gone now...but true players willing to wait and see never relied on them only to make their informed opinion as if they wanted to buy the unit or not. Those were always waiting for the full battletome review (or consulting it at their local shop, which is still a favorite way to be sure 100% and make a honest opinion themselves ). I guess new players could be "fooled" by the warscroll to click on the "buy" button (if they came here first, chances are someone leads them here and took the time to explain how the game works previously), not having the full picture with battletome review...but then, in a way, having free warscrolls gone makes sure that mistake can't happen again. Even with independant reviews, the problem is still here. Because "independant" doesn't mean "honest" nor "objective" - or even you can't have any personnal interest influencing your own opinion one way or the other (for example, you simply hate GW and want them to disappear - you'll tend to be quite mean to say the least in your own reviews about their own products, even if you're technically "independant"). Not even talking about the subjective way a star system can be set by one independant and another may have a different view on it. Not all "5 stars" have the same values for everyone reviewing. But I agree having no ties with a company whose products you advertise certainly helps to be feel more free about what to say. Well...in a way again. The platform itself you're using doesn't especially allow you to say litterally anything you want as well, after all.

I vaguely watched it, but honestly I didn't really dig it too deep because well...as I said, it all goes down to "don't sign it if you don't agree with it". People aren't forced to sign a NDA to post youtubes videos talking about GW products. Or post on a forum. Or post on social medias in general. And purpose/value is indeed for content creators...but not especially the viewers, here. Because who is getting the products free / well in advance thanks to a partnership with GW ? The content creator who signed with GW...certainly not its viewers. So yeah, I totally get why some of these content creators try to make a noise about it and try to make it look like it matters for their viewers as well...I mean, yes in a way, but not really in another...they're likely to get a video from their favorite content creator, either way. After all, a dishonest youtuber will still be dishonest, abusive NDA signed or not.

It's still arguable they may not have made that video, though. It's not because you 'think' GW wouldn't allow it than they would actually do (we saw in the previous buzz about so called censorship on content-creators that it was more nuanced than that). But they indeed feel more "free" if they didn't sign such a NDA before. Yeah. And how do you think people make their opinion ? a) they see the product itself in the video, regardless of what the youtuber is saying b) they only listen to the youtuber not showing much (usually work only for the books, because well...if it is to preview miniatures and how new paints work, it makes more sense to show rather than tell) If a), they can make their own opinions from the product they can see themselves. The youtuber's opinion is just a bonus here. If b), that means they trust the youtuber and we all go towards the principles and personnality. If it's a dishonest youtuber ready to tell you anything that sells, it will show soon and to be honest, be it for GW or another random company, the problem will still be the same with this youtuber. If it's a more honest youtuber, his own review will show it too. Signing such a NDA doesn't mean you're hands and feet tied and you can't say anything but lies to your viewers. You're still in control of what you will say in your videos and how you present it. And there are ways to present something in a less positive way than if you were totally convinced yourself on it without breaking the NDA's conditions and with it still showing in the video. As for myself, I tend to look for youtubers following the a) pattern. And I believe most people really looking for information before (pre-)ordering would rather have that one than b). b) is more for people having a favorite youtuber they trust (or people clicking for the 1st result in the research, I guess ). Usually, informed people don't stop at just b), they'd be more fine if they can find a a) somewhere and fact-check the first video's opinion with what they can actually read. The hardcore customers wait for the release date (not the pre-order date ! ) and having more reviews from customers, thus not people who signed a NDA, and gathering all info from what they have before deciding if they buy or not. Limited content usually doesn't follow there rules, especially those who are sold out in 5 minutes...those who really want it just click on the button, regardless of any review, and it's usually tied to bundles of miniatures you can already see on GW's website... Anyway, a youtuber telling lies on GW products they advertise is quickly spot on by the community...not to say the customers themselves who bought it. It's not really a winning strategy on long term in this niche market...it's not like the size of mobile video games.

Well yes. Because that whole case is about how this "leaked" NDA is "such a big deal"...while the answer has always been "well...don't sign it if you don't agree with it". Because that's how contracts work. You're trying to bring the conversation to the point assuming people MUST sign it. Thankfully, they don't. True, they may have less benefits than having a deal with GW and, like, receiving free products in advance...but in the youtuber's market, there is nothing really free.

Thing is, you don't need to sign a NDA if you buy the products with your own money and at the same time than everyone else, then review once you have them in your hands and have time to make the video. That's how you're 100% sure to make a honest review. And those who have free products in advance (and thus signed something, obviously) usually can be noticed easily : they are the ones putting the videos online on the day on the pre-order. Even so...amongst those who sign it, there are those who are more honest than others. You also usually tell them apart with time, since it's usually tied to the youtuber's personnality and principles. Eventually you see them. Signing a NDA in itself doesn't mean you're manipulative. People who are didn't wait to sign it to be that way.

Don't be narrow-minded, of course you can do a honest review and say all the bad things on GW you want if you like it so. You simply have to buy the product at the same time than every other customer. People clicking on the pre-order button as soon as it's online don't look after review for "information before buying", anyway. And those who do...well, they are willing to wait so they can wait more for their favorite (and more honest !) youtuber to have time to do its review before buying, aren't they ? When I look one of Ash's reviews video, I know full well he has products well in advance before us common customers - and what I'm looking for in his videos isn't his opinion : it's the book's pages he's flipping during the review.

Ah, well I stand corrected, my bad for not reading well . So it all goes down to the youtuber's principles, like with placement product : there are those who do and those who don't. And like said by others in the beginning, it's only a problem for the people signing it. Which is why this case has been going crazy with this whole drama about "doxxing", and why the truth is mostly about the involved youtubers' respective behaviors now...certainly because it's actually more interesting than the contract itself.

Simple. If true, it actually only matters to those looking these so called "content-creators". I'll be honest : to me, it targets primarily "influencers", who were never objective and always have a subjective opinion on the products they advertise. Them having a NDA with GW or not doesn't mean to me they're "clean" or not in itself - really depends about the youtuber's personnality and principles...and nothing forbids them to warn they're in a NDA with GW to their viewers if they wish it so (at least, I didn't see anything in the "leaked" document clearly stipulating it). It doesn't really matter to me because I see the youtubers as what they are : people with their subjective opinions, and I take their content appropriately. NDA or not...even if I'm be more willing to follow those who are honest to say they may not be "free" to say everything they want because of contracts they signed. Like youtubers making placement products ; there are those who say they do it and those who don't. Moreover, not all GW customers are actually following youtubers to tell them if they must buy GW products or not - either they look for information like reviews of books, or they want to be entertained. And the content that could be "problematic" because of this NDA if true is quite specific and easy to spot, to be blunt. So yeah, the truth doesn't really matter here, IMHO. Especially when drama between youtubers is involved...the real "scandal" has less to do with GW and more with the youtubers' respective behaviors, in the end.