Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Greybeard86

  1. Don't like those orks, tbh, but I can see how they might appeal to others. The whole squig thingy doesn't doo it for me. The krieggers look too beefy for my taste. But I like that they are getting some support, both armies.
  2. Fyreslayers share a lot of design elements with the latest WHFB dwarf plastic models. It has been said that they are in fact from that era, which partially explains why they really aren't more fleshed out on AoS. I hadn't noticed that helmet in Shartor, but now it all but confirms the FS origins hypothesis.
  3. Or, apparently, that collection of FW sculpts they still sold last year for hundreds of $, a line started in 2016. I do miss proper gryphons, still hoping for centaurs and hybrids of all types: Bull + dwarf = awesome chorf. Horse + humanoid = awesome Kurnothi Horse + eagle = hippogryh Goat + humanoid = awesome Kornothi and so on. I really liked the vampire lady (I know it was hated among some).
  4. GW pre-end times. True, some armies hadn't received support or were somehow squatted, but Swedish system had rules for them: https://eefl.freeforums.net/thread/2409/swedish-comp-system-final-document This is because it was at the core of the game, in part due to GW, in part because that was the culture surrounding it. And, for many armies, several iterations of their core units coexisted without grief. Dwarves had plenty of reesculpts of the same units, so it created interested layers in collections. More recently, sisters of battle had a full release re-imagining existing sculpts. There is no shortage of example of "old GW" and the community supporting via rules old sculpts. It is a modern thing, this systematic squatting. And the community has folded into GW corporate to a large extent, with ITC merging in, and so on. We no longer have external patches to fix egregious issues.
  5. It is OK, Grungni forgives greedy dwarfs (i.e. FS and KO)...for now.
  6. I understand (in part based on your explanations, so thanks!) what is going on. I am pointing out that this is a very crummy move. You release a range of miniatures and sell it for a premium price (hundreds of dollars). You cannot turn around a few years later and say "Look guys, these sculpts cannot be played now. Turns out we released them because we had planned for them some time ago, but we never really intended for them to stay". Because that is freaking misleading! If you want to move away from a business model based on long-term support, you got to say it. We are releasing some cool sculpts but they aren't going to be supported past the next 5 years. So buy them if that's your jam. What makes it more aggravating is the possibility that then GW turns back and says: by the way, we are still planning on releasing "new chorfs", but you won't be able to field the recent sculpts because we want to sell you some others. Cheerio!
  7. I am not discussing FS, they are confirmed safe in Grungni's great cauldron of soup. This is quite likely to reflect a change in policy from GW because FS looked all but dead. I am discussing the possibility that GW might release a bunch of sculpts, sell them for hundreds of dollars (they were eye-watering expensive), then squat them in a few years. To turn around and release more sculpts in the same design/lore space. Because that is what it looks like they might want to do with chorfs. And, given release cycles, it is likely they knew all along. And that'd go in the book, big time, the great book of consumer grudges.
  8. They are being supported in a soup, that surely beats what they did to chorfs. And it is my point exactly. They are making an effort to move away from the original approach of release-collect-squat. Or so I thought. We have examples of successful releases that didn’t need to be all new!!!!?!! units. Sisters of battle sell like hot cakes and, while they are adding new units, they originally mostly ported the original pewter sculpts.
  9. Incorrect. It was a squatted army they brought back. Now it turns out they brought it back as part as some abandoned project they had years ago. They released anyway then proceeded to squat it in only a few years because it was not meant to be a mainstay army. No reservations in taking the hundreds of dollars those models costed, though. Were we supposed to guess they would release models with a very clear and close expiration date? Because next time I’d want that in print. Not acceptable. If they release a new chorf army, which is all but confirmed, they need to provide room for these sculpts within their re imagined chorfs. Or get called out of the scummy move this was.
  10. That is an internal consideration of GW, not something we as players / consumers should be worrying about or even knowing. It was a full AoS release, nevermind what internal label the project had. Or should we now be second-guessing everything GW releases to make sure it will continue to be supported?
  11. https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2016/05/breaking-forge-world-brings-back-chaos-dwarfs.html https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/en-GB/searchResults?N=2903449697+859719962
  12. Indeed, but those were remnants of WHFB. Not that I condone (the slow squatting is enervating), but it is qualitatively different that squatting an AoS release. Because those were new chorfs that came with AoS! Does that mean that now AoS armies can also be squatted? You buy a model and a few years later GW kills it to make more cash out of a "re-imagined" version of it? I think that'd be a nasty way of moving the setting forward and a business model I would particularly dislike. As I said, GW seems to be moving away from this. Picking up the poor Fyreslayers and throwing them into a united dawi soup is a compromise, as I believe they were meant to be burned in a back alley trashcan fire. I applaude this reconsideration, I just hope they don't simply revert back to the end-times and early AoS approach. What they do with chorfs, early stormcast, squidboys (IDK), fyreslayers, and similar armies will be their declaration of intent.
  13. It seems I ll make good on the contract. Moving on to assembly and final effects (highlights, smoothing of certain transitions, and so on). I am a bit scared of basing. It was never my forte and I haven’t done any in many years.
  14. It doesn’t need to be that way. They can reesculpt and keep the old ones around too, that was the way they used to do it (for decades!). To me, this is no longer a matter of whether you like or not a given sculpt, but rather the development and business strategy. Are you going to provide support for you products after release? Or will you squat them to resell a re imagined version? They had their hard reset with AoS, I thought they had moved away from these tactics and we were experiencing a new approach. It is beyond chorfs, it is a declaration of intent.
  15. Then Id likely pass on them. I have plenty of projects already and I am not supporting crabby moves like that. Seriously, those FW models were awesome but very expensive. They were also released with AoS 1. I see no justification for squatting them and the proceeding to release a new faction in their design space. In general, l was hopeful that GW had turned away from Kirby s planned obsolescence tactics. Things like dwarf soups seemed to indicate the intention to keep old armies around, even though most likely they were originally designed as perishable small armies. Chorfs are industrial magic dwarfs with centaur mutations. They can reesculpt in plastic, add new things, but maintain some unit equivalence so that their uber expensive FW versions can be used. Doing something else is a ****** move.
  16. The way the handle chorfs will be important for me. They released a bunch of expensive and good looking minis to simply squat them without a word a few years later. If those minis are not included somehow in the chorf release (mining having rules), it will be an indication that the worst version of GW is alive and kicking.
  17. Someone mentioned stuff about centaurs. Do we have any update on Kurnothi centaurs? Thanks!
  18. I like it far better. But then again, I like my gooffiness tempered with a high dose of sobre design.
  19. What do you mean? Has something happened?
  20. Not even that. That anti-consumer has a "legal definition" is too broad a statement to consider. There are certain practices that are "anti-consumer" and are under consumer protection laws; whether a specific instance falls under that is not immediate. Nevertheless, GW has done clearly "anti-consumer" things in the spirit of the term. Selling expensive models and supplements for end times was one of them. Other things are also "anti-consumer" but may not be covered by consumer protection law. For example, if they decided to discontinue suddenly a bunch of AoS1 factions. It may make business sense, but it sucks for the consumers who bought them. The question is then where the line between doing business and "improper practices" that hurt the consumer "more than it is reasonable or desireable from a total welfare standpoint". That is why we try to break and impede monopolies but allow other practices. That is not to say that, again, something might hurt consumers and not be considered ilegal. But that doesn't make it "good" and consumers certainly have the right to complain openly and react accordingly.
  21. Such a great idea, I am planning on doing this with part of my brets. Google Mousillon Bretonnia for some ideas. I'm not sure though about the gaming part. @Neil Arthur Hotep ideas looked good to me.
  22. You answered your own question. Because doing what's best for profit is not always aligned with providing a good product and support. That is why we have so many regulations for other more central industries, though toy soldiers is low in the priority of the regulatory bodies. Accepting anti-consumer approaches from a company that is swimming in profit and has huge margins out of fear of the game being discontinued is not my cup of tea. I'll say this: while GW still leans heavily on hype and releases, at least they are, in a sense, toning it down for AoS. AoS1 and early 2 was brutal, with constant releases of small and all but discontinued armies. Now they consolidate and that usually means support for longer. How we approach some of the more cut-throat practices as consumers, how we debate them online, how that shapes our behavior. All of that matters more, I think, than what your comments suggest you think. There is a reason why GW makes an effort to stay in good terms with "influencers".
  23. I don’t claim it is a bad plan. But it is founded on new releases driving a disproportionate share of sales, and it does hurt balance and those who stick to one army. It is nevertheless possible to have other approaches to releases and rule support, you just need to take a look at other companies that don’t rely on hype so much. So I don’t buy the idea that it is the only way to avoid warehouses and stores imploding.
  • Create New...