Sarouan

Some people used to take a lot of time to make a convincing page from a new codex just to be able to post it on the internet and enjoy the rumors getting wild / click-bait / just for lolz in the past. Why not a false NDA contract. And since people who really, REALLY hate GW are more than happy to jump on anything, it's also easy to use that as clickbait on website / youtube channels for the public out there that's thirsty for that kind of dirt on GW, no matter what it is. Like you were using unverified claims that turned out to be false in previous threads here. See, as long as it matches your narrative, you're more than eager to believe it. That's why it's dangerous to have extreme views, no matter how right you think you are. Better to check facts and sources first.

Still, the kid genuinely thought the army he bought was actually a GW Warhammer army. And the seller knew very well what he was doing by labelling his product as such. That's what really matters here. Cracking down on purposefully mislabelled products on second-hand websites is a good thing. I despise people who try to take advantage of innocents who aren't as knowledgeable as miniature veterans.

Make a live stream of the Tale of Two Moderators ! With a chat on twitch and people throwing money at you while you build miniatures and paint them

No, I'm also pretty much aware of the even more huge power imbalance between my current employer (the state ) and me. And even so ! In this case, the youtuber already has a job. The contract is about something more "intimate" with GW that may be indeed more profitable for the youtuber in the future in terms of view - doesn't mean his channel is worthless without that tie. He can still have his youtuber job without it. Me, on the other hand, I am 100% certain I lose my job without it. Which is why... ...the context in which this contract is made (if real) is actually key for its importance, before trying to say "it's bad for everyone !!". If it's actually specific like a long term contract with an outsider for, say, working on future battletomes and receiving crucial information way before its release, having very restrictive terms about leaks is not that surprising...and thus may be not the "generic NDA contract" other people working with GW for less "sensible projects" have.

Even if it's real...it's basically a contract. You can also point the terms you don't agree with and negociate with the contractor about them. If they agree to change them, good. If not, well it's still up to you to decide to sign or not anyway. We also need to know in which context this contract is sent. Is it to receive free GW products in advance ? Or working on rules ? Or something else ? Because all of that matters and put some terms that may look very restrictive in another light...NDA contracts are usually specific in adequation to what it is protecting. For example, I work for a federal administration. What I have is even harsher than this one...not only can't I disclose personnal information outside of the needs of my work, I also have to justify them. With the protection of private data being more and more important, the need to show it's strictly used for very specific purposes is growing with the years. And if I was to use them inappropriately...not only am I risk with being fired, I'm also liable to be served a lawsuit. Should I be denouncing this situation I'm in ? Well...I'm not sure I would be taken seriously if I did. Besides, I believe it's actually very understandable I'm limited that way... If GW was to work with a reviewer and giving free products for the sake of reviews well in advance...I wouldn't be surprised if they get very restrictive about leaks, since that's a high priority for them for quite a lot of years now. And well...for a youtuber, having information before everyone else ? It's basically a goldmine.

...but what is the point ? Showing you're right on a hypothetical case ? Why not waiting for facts being confirmed from a serious source first ? At least, you'd be sure it's a big mountain or a molehill. I don't get the need to make a hypothetical big mountain of something that may not be real...

First, you have to be sure the file is actually the real one...and if that's the case, in which context it was made. You can debate all on you want on the terms, if you don't take them in the right context or - worse - if it's not real because faked for whatever reason...well, it's pointless to debate on this, IMHO.

Feel free to take that as "personnal insult" where it's really just me saying "you shouldn't decrebilize yourself for this, it's not worth it". I actually agree with you on some threads you made about GW practices. But here ? Come on. What you're only doing is simply giving fuel for people to just ignore your arguments in the future - because you're talking about something you don't know about and try to make it look like it's big. Worse...from a file taken out of context and with suspecting other interests trying to attract attention to gain money (youtube video, spikeybit topic...that's a too obvious click bait topic for people wanting to spit on GW and hungry for more "clear cases GW is evil" being "out in the public view"). Such a great leak it is, isn't it ? Well, not really.

No, but that's where the usual suspects for GW bashing come from. Yes, indeed. And the usual suspects for GW bashing joyfully jump on the opportunity without trying to ask themselves that...which is really not helping their cause, IMHO. That's why I'm saying it's better to keep your anti-GW arguments for a much stronger thread, honestly. Hollowhills being "sad" to report this, just lol.

It's coming from here, obviously : https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/801058.page Honestly, if you don't like GW, you should really find a better base than a NDA contract. Besides, exactly like the other "outrage threads about GW being evil", the file is taken out of context from a known click-bait website. It's basically a GW hater troll thread. Really, keep your arguments about demonstrating how "GW is a really bad company and you shouldn't buy their products" for a much better topic. You're really wasting your time here. Or just plainly decrebilising yourself by trying to argue it's something big. Yukishiro, seriously, be better than this. You're doing more harm to yourself than good, here.

Sounds like a campaign book, honestly. Yeah, it was disappointing for a preview. At least we know what is the version of AoS itsy-bitsy spider nursery rhyme. First we got the Kruleboyz with a heavy mordor inspiration and now we'll have something Shelob, it seems.

I honestly bet about Warcry between a new starter set for the current edition or a new edition (with a limited box like Kill Team and extensions used the same way, for both Warcry / AoS). Given the launch date for Warcry, we're not far from a new game edition cycle, IMHO. I don't think it should be major changes like Kill Team, but still enough for justifying it. Either way...I don't expect customization or "Necromundisation" of Warcry, far from it. Quite the opposite, actually. I expect GW will keep the trend they initiated with Warcry (and that we can see in current Kill Team) - one profile for one miniature with a specific set of weapons / equipments, and gimmicks as "customization" like relics / artifacts / limited equipment. What I'm really hoping for is new warbands but for Cities of Sigmar - like a Hammerhall warband, and so on, but really typed with the AoS Realm flavor and not just "copied and paste from old Empire with different colors".

Wouldn't be surprised if Warcry follows the same principle than Kill Team, with a new starter set and new warbands. With all the focus on Dawnbringer Crusades in AoS, wonder if the next story arc could be about that, with bands from Cities of Sigmar. But that's just me dreaming here.

Rules are available on reviewers's videos, anyway. Just have to hit "pause" a lot. Yeah, warscrolls on GW website are very convenient - though I largely used them for anything but using them in an actual game (have the battletome already for that, after all). More like analysis / check up before buying. Though it's weird the old warscrolls are still online for the "old units". Anyone sent a mail to customer service and had an answer so far ?

Welp, now they may be overpriced. I think the debate about them being OP will go to an end, here.

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.