Sarouan

Or we just come to the conclusion focusing only on competition as value of miniatures / games is meaningless in the great picture of life and it's better to just have fun with what you have.

And even so, in some battleplans where you need to move to win (mainly focused on objectives that aren't in your deployment zone), actually focusing too much on the cogs may become a weak point, since it really shines when you have multiple wizard units around it. If you try to optimize the cast and put it way too far from the places your army needs to be - and focus too much on the spell saturation - it may be actually the cause of your defeat because what you manage to kill in your opponent army may not be enough to catch up the difference in victory points for securing objectives. Especially in battleplans where objectives can be removed in later turns...or moved at all in any way (Sons of Behemat).

Not sure it will prove anything. I mean, I don't mind my opponent having a free cog, but one of them plays a Cities of Sigmar army with only dwarves (just a priest, no mages) and the other sure does play a verminarch but he has only one sorcerer (his other army being Kharadron Overlords, so no better). Thus I'm not sure the impact will be really meaningful, here. I'm not even sure the skaven player will bother to cast it, since he usually use his verminarch quite agressively (actually he needs to, since it's one of his most enduring assets ) and isn't really interested in staying in 6'' of one point of the battlefield for multiple turns. It's really specific to magic-heavy armies to be significent and, to be honest, it's indeed also applying to armies content with being quite static with his mages concentrated in a very small area (and, with Lumineth, I tend to think mostly about sentinels here...and I believe their shooting will be the most impactful, the second spell will just be a cherry on top here). It's definitely situationnal enough to be not that great in every battleplan. Sure, it's always nice to have one (especially for free) but the cogs in itself doesn't win the battle. It really needs to be used in a specific configuration. It also depends of the other spells casted (saturing the enemy dissipation is one thing, but having spells actually interesting to cast is also another - sure, you can always cast small things like doing a mortal wound here and there, but will it be really that impactful on the battle ? That said, I agree it should certainly be costed appropriately, but I don't think the effect in itself needs to be changed...nor that the price should be doubled, TBH.

Even more reasons not to be agressive here, IMHO. Yes, letting that frustration out. Which only brings misery to others users who really don't need to "receive" all that frustration / anger even though if they're not the original target. I totally understand, mind you...but explanations are never a justification. And it shouldn't be the others users who have no tie to GW to deal with that. The problem, in the end, is completely inside the people who are really angry about this. In fact, I'm not even sure the disparition of GW would relieve them of that...more likely, they would find another target for their accumulated anger. So I totally get the mods when they say they don't want that kind of things happening here because this forum isn't intended to become a "frustration dumpster". And I do tend to agree with them, I admit.

Well, if there are indeed GW employees who come here and if they are like the one working at my GW store, there's a good chance they don't actually go to threads like this one because that's not what they want to read in their free time. So really, if you're doing it in hope you get heard by GW here...you really shouldn't be expecting much.

It's not necessary if your purpose is to just let your frustration out. It is when you want to convince others of your cause being well-founded - which is pretty much what's this OT was aiming to, IMHO. Otherwise, Runebrush is right here : when you're angry and just let that anger take over, your arguments are usually not much coherent and that convincing to the others using that rationnal part of their brain. Of course, if the latter point that out to the former, there are good chances he'll still answer with the same agressivity, as I experienced before. Heh. They actually do. I know this because I went through one in my young days. Now do they invest enough money on that ? Question can always be asked, but let's not try to imply GW does nothing in that field, 'cause it's not the truth. Point is : you're not reaching GW as a corporate by getting angry on this forum or others like Dakkadakka, because that's not where GW hears your voice. There's no point in being agressive here because you only shout at people just like you and me, who don't work for GW and are just customers. And if you do, it's more a repellant than anything else if you're really expecting to be read / "heard". That's the problem, IMHO.

Well, it also matters to agree about the problem existing. Because when your point of view is to be sure there is a problem and someone else underlines other facts leaning towards the problem not actually been a problem...and your reaction is "they try to deny that this problem exist !" without even looking at the facts themselves and questioning your first point of view...it also leads to agressivity instead of being constructive. We saw that happening in the previous threads about fan animation and modders...a lot of people got carried away and didn't get the facts right while immediately being outraged at what they perceived GW was doing / "might be doing". And when I pointed some, I got attacked personnally by people who were absolutely sure GW was the enemy and thus anyone defending them was the enemy too. In short : your mindset and how you see the world / others also influences how you act on the internet. Because it's always easier to be agressive behind the safety of a keyboard rather than in front of a real person standing. Believing in something doesn't especially make it true for everyone...and people who don't agree with you aren't necessarily wrong in pointing some facts you don't want to see / aknowledge. The more adamant you are in a point of view, the more tunnel vision you get when judging on what you perceived where others stand. For example, it's easy to say someone defending GW is a pro-corporate lapdog or someone criticizing GW is a GW hater. Reality is more nuanced than that, most of the time. Once you aknowledge that...it's easier to tone down a bit in your interventions. When you think of the other not as an enemy but someone like you, you can empathize more easily as well. And that helps a lot to write something less...agressive.

I'd say it really depends where you intend to play. If your goal is to play with friends and you're not that interested with competitive tournaments, better to talk with your friends. Usually, it's not a problem. Even playing at a GW's store occasionnally. Small local events shouldn't also be that troublesome, as long as you talk about it with the people involved. When it begins to be a question is when you intend to play a lot with different people you don't especially know. There, the need for more common ground on rules is better to avoid long arguments and misjudgments. If that's your mainn purpose, better to keep the official GW bases for the said units. Otherwise, using a bigger base has an influence in game, though for single-model units, the impact isn't the same (coherency rules don't matter for them). It's for 6+ model units that the question is especially more bothersome...usually for yourself, actually. Using a bigger base tend to be not that an advantage for you, in the end.

@NinthMusketeer What are you talking about ? I wasn't criticizing, just giving my thought about the situation he was talking about. What do you think of my idea to raise the number of 5 to 6 models max to be in coherency with just one model of the same unit, otherwise ?

I think it's sniped turn 2, with your house rule forbidding double turn for 1-2 and thus having the Maw Crusha unable to avoid full gunline shooting in addition to unleash hell if he plays second on turn 1.

Simply moving the max from 5 to 6 models for not having to be in coherency with 2 models of the same unit don't actually touch too much on the existing rules, and help a lot for lots of the units that have to be taken by packs of 3. Especially "monstruous infantry / cavalry". Besides, it keeps the spirit of the rule, since I don't believe units of 6 models do actually stretch that much to cover a huge space on the battlefield in comparison to units of 5 of the same size. Sure, doesn't fix everything, but that's already good enough I believe.

Well of course if you're not convinced by Warhammer + and think there is no value in giving GW money for that, you're better with no subscription. Not like you have to do it, in the end. And if you think you won a great battle against GW by not subscribing / writing posts on a forum to tell others not to subscribe, good for you as well. See you in a few more months when more content is added.

For now. We don't even have the new battletomes for AoS 3 out, all we have is the rulebook and well...you know we have the core rules on a free PDF available to download on their site. Otherwise, they still do electronic books. Just not the ones you want. Black Library has plenty of digital and audio books (who don't kill trees as well ). So using that argument to justify not subscribing to Warhammer + (that's entirely digital, by the way !) is sounding kinda just like a weak excuse, to me. It's looking neither good nor bad. You choose "bad" because you're biased negatively towards GW, that's the real reason here. The current answer about warscrolls made specifically for AoS 3.0 (meaning new battletomes) is : we don't know. You have no facts supporting you on the removal of warscrolls so far. Wait for the 3.0 battletomes, then maybe you'll have some. And if you do, you'll have the right to make a victory dance on top of my head if that makes you happy. Everything else is just assumptions. That, and we also had leaks in the past because of the instruction booklet. So the less you put, the more you control the information. To me, the change in it isn't indicative at all about what GW intends to do with warscrolls available for free on their site. It's still easier to control the flux that way, after all. Ah, the debate on microtransactions, indeed. It's a whole story in itself, but you're totally right. With patreons and alike, it's very easy to lose count of the total of money you let go every month if you're not careful. To be honest, I was intending to wait before subscribing, because it's true there's not much content so far. It's the vouchers that changed my mind - basically, the amount was covering the first two months anyway and it's a good amount of time to see what GW will add meanwhile. I thought to take a year to really test them (and have the miniature, of course ). So I'm giving them a try, like I did with Miniwargaming. And if after that it's not suiting me or I don't find the content interesting enough, I'll stop. Just like with Miniwargaming.

They did the same for when they release "exclusive" boxes with new units like for the daughters of Khaine. The updated warscrolls came online later. And your previous post was very affirmative, like it was a fact GW already publicly aknowledged or wrote somewhere else. But it was just an opinion of yours, as you clarified upwards. So I did tell my opinion on that matter, that's all. What was disrespectful exactly in what I wrote ? I didn't even quote you. Sounds to me you took it way too personnal. To me, "moving on" means that there is no real interest in trying to do a "what if ?" scenario that may not even be relevant once GW will release the 3.0 battletome. "Wait and see" is much more better at this point. ...Like this Warhammer +, in the end. I admit I rolled my eyes upwards when I read Hollow's original post, but it's not like it surprised me. He did the same when there was the buzz about mods and fan animations...then now it all died down, so it's a big noise for nothing in the end. To me, here it's exactly the same situation. Big noise for nothing. And to me, the main point he wants to make is just his general dislike for GW, like others, and he doesn't care much more for the real facts : only anything that makes GW look bad. To me, his OT to "please not subscribe now to GW" isn't because he believes it would "benefit" customers. It's because he believes it will hurt GW if Warhammer + isn't successful. Not like it matters or has any real effect, though. Pretty sure people didn't need his intervention to already have their own opinion on the matter. Yep, there's not much content here (it's not like you can't go on the website and actually see all the videos available for subscribers, is it)...but that's why GW made a few advertisement with the vouchers and the free miniature or the yearly deal. It's precisely to make people subscribe now when there isn't much content, and it's also why it's a deal now rather than later since...well, the later you subscribe, the later you get your miniature or you don't have that voucher of the value of two months anyway. Later...the difference in content will be there.

Fact : all the current warscrolls are still available on their website for all the previous miniatures. As far as I'm concerned, that's only what matters. We'll only be really fixed once 3.0 battletomes come with the new miniatures. I never used the app before, anyway. Besides, they just released Dominion Warcry profiles for free on their Warhammer Community Website, with a campaign as well, so I'm not leaning to the grimmest case so far.

Sure, sure. And Duncan should release all of his painting tutorials videos for free since he's just making us pay for advertising paint sellers, or Miniwargaming because they're just advertising GW products and other miniature game companies in the end. 😂 Or you can just wait for the 3.0 battletomes to actually come with the new units, and see on their website if they do indeed remove all the warscrolls / don't update them / don't show the new ones. Your call, but mine is more minding about facts, not assumptions and trying to present them as "facts" in former implying posts.

It's not a difficult question, since it's based on nothing in the end. And I actually answered to the accusation here. Funnily, it's your answer that can be seen as a deflection from my own post statuing GW does release digital books and thus completely undoing that "I do that to save the trees" argument.

So based on nothing so far but assumptions they'll do it. Moving on.

They do release digital army books. Just not for free. https://www.games-workshop.com/fr-BE/Codex-Adeptus-Custodes-ipad-2018 And honestly, if you think that saves some trees, you should better look on the paper industry and how they recycle books already. I do believe your concern has nothing to do with trees, though. More about you being angry GW doesn't release all rules of their games for free.

Yeah, what was annoying for me is that I had to look for the link to Warhammer + website. Signing in was a bit troublesome but I think it was linked to having too many people signing in at the same time. Now it's fixed. Just watched Bound for Greatness, I liked it. Really translates well how horrible life in the Imperium is...and how easy Chaos can find its way in your mind. As for the battle reports, they follow the same pattern than their twitch channel, I think. TBH, that's not really my main interest (that's the reason why I stopped my subscription to Miniwargaming), but the way it's presented is quite clear and helpful for those wanting to analyse the tactics and flux of the battle. Lots of effects used too in their videos. The difference with "competition*" will be quite clear as they keep adding content with time, IMHO. *Amateur channels can't even compete, here. Only true professionnals investing time and money in making videos / adding special effects would apply for this. Miniwargaming "normal battle reports" aren't really in this category, IMHO. Their narrative campaigns do use more tools for the presentation of the background, but barely for the battle reports themselves.

It's better to subscribe in september, anyway.

Besides, comparisons to other businesses doing exactly the same is really funny. When Duncan started it, there wasn't many videos as well at the start. Yet the monthly / yearly subscription wasn't far from what GW asked. In both cases, it's the same question of having faith in the creator to actually keep posting content on a regular basis that is worth keeping your subscription. That's how it works. And if it's not ? You just cancel your subscription, that's all. Which is why I find this topic highly political as usual. It's all about your personnal opinion on GW, in the end. Not the real content.

Like people said already, Warhammer + isn't simply a streaming platform. Subscribing to it actually unlocks others things : a free miniature, access to Warhammer Vault, access to Warhammer 40k and AoS apps in addition to the animations / videos on Warhammer +. For the price asked per month in comparison to what you pay separately for Warhammer Vault and the apps, well it's a bargain right now. Not saying it will stay that way in the future, so I can only look at the situation when I'm subscribing obviously. First I did when I subscribed was to look at the Warhammer Vault and read a few older books. Calls for boycott are useless, anyway.

Yup, looks like we have yet to see all the new Stormcast Eternals units.

They already do. Why do you think some channels do receive books / boxes in advance so that they can do reviews at the time of the pre-orders ? As for Wizards of the Coast...well, here are their policies : https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy It's not just "allows them". It must be accessible for free - no money asked to access the content in any shape nor form. It's not just "not being a Patreon supporter". Well, that and the other conditions, of course (they don't allow using their musics or videos in the fan content, for example, nor using their logos or trademarks). It's actually restrictive in more than one way. Oh, and don't forget to read the FAQ. WoC explicitly forbids you to use some of their IP without a written permission from them. So no, you can't just do whatever you want.