Greybeard86

Having detailed heroes is, I feel, a tad different. Though jeez that vengorian lord! The designer is evil. I know it is a polarizing sculpt, but I like the horrific combination (it truly is nightmarish). IMHO this is what flesheaters should have looked like. However, yesterday I opened a box and I can guarantee (money back 100% ) that those spikes at the end of the wings and that breaking sword will break at some point. Why would you design things like that? Is this a gaming piece at all?

Related to this, I hate bits that are clearly going to break. This is a problem of many new plastic sculpts, as GW loads them with small pointy bits and they just break too easily. I am finishing up some 40k scions and the antenas are already broken for half of them. My gitz battleforce box came (unopened) with several pointy bits broken. 40k custodes spears have, at least, 3 parts that will most certainly break at some point (trigger guard, spike at back, eagle bit back). Take Trajan valoris, it could do without the plume by the sigil shield, the weird front armor hanging bit, the leg covers. These is connected with the over design as I feel that very frequently those hanging bits, coils, and whatnots contribute a fair bit to the busy feeling of miniatures. I end up cutting and not adding bits to my minis in an effort to simplify them. I understand this is very personal, though.

It doesn't need to be so drastic, all or nothing. For example, in the case of the NDA, you could stop supporting (no patreon, no views) reviewers that take GW's deals. We know that there is at least one "big" youtuber who revoked his "reviewer" deal with GW. If you do care about the "integrity" of reviews, this is an easy move which would nullify GW's attempt to control them. In general, small gestures are powerful. If reviewers do not get GW deals, they can cover other miniature ranges freely (without fear of retaliation by GW). If other ranges get attention, people will buy more, and this will put competitive pressure on GW, which can only benefit us. There are many more such things we can do as a community, ranging in the level of involvement. If you are against "only GW no 3rd party bits", do not go to GW events (or tournies that impose those rules). If you don't like GW's rules, embrace, within your community, older versions of the ruleset, or event third party rules. If you don't like GW's prices (e.g. gargants), print 3rd party giants (or by them printed on etsy). These are just some examples of being a consciencious consumer without going full on revolutionary. Don't feel discouraged, that's what corporations bank on, blind spots and the feeling of indefension. You have plenty of power ;).

Exactly. The mental gimnastics required to blame on the consumers the shady behavior of the corporation are next level. Strong arming reviewers with private NDAs is bad behavior an anti consumer regardless of anything else. Then blaming FOMO on us is like criticizing people for buying a chocolate cookie by the cash register. They are out to get you and, as a consumer, you play at a disadvantage since companies are going hard after blind spots. Maybe, just maybe, if we actually condemned shady behavior when we find out about it we wouldn’t have to be so freaked guarded when dealing with certain corporations, such as GW.

I think the old dogs of war encapsulate what border princes should be. Renegades, misfits, adventurers all banding together for gold and to build a new home and the Wild West. I would like the option to have allied units from other armies build around a core that might be contingent on the particular state being represented. For example, a Breton renegade can have a core of bretonnian units, then the Mercenaries rounding it up. I have to admit I really liked regiments of renown, though it d be cool if you could build our own via point upgrades.

It is obvious there is a demand fit things like bretonia and tomb kings. Just look at the prices on eBay and the thriving 3rd party industry around them. It took a long while to build the whole world as an iconic place, and AoS is still riding the nostalgia from those times. Throwing away all that capital seemed like a very stupid move to me and GW is backpedaling big time. Good, now give me my kurnothi, deep sea monsters, and heartless capitalists infernal dwarfs.

Again the same? Aren’t we all in the era of influencers and online reviews? Are we all aware that people make this for a living? I mean at this point I wonder what the motivation for posting yet again: “don’t like don’t sign” is. Informed consumers lead to better markets. This is well established and a strong policy focus nowadays. GW paying tit for tat with reviewers is bad for us, a shady business strategy and not inconsequential. It is not only an ethical question, it affects our bottom line same as it affects GW’s.

I am baffled that, at this point in the conversation, we still need to explain that: 1) a company strong arming reviewers into giving positive reviews is bad for us and 2) GW can make or break channels with early access, coverage in warhammer community and similar tools. So no, it really isn’t optional for those covering warhammer, not getting this sort of support is a big deal (at the very least they d need to think very carefully about it). It is a phenomenon happening with video games as well, and it is a well known perversion of what reviews are meant to be. As for being accused of negativity, that is also extremely surprising to me. Given the above, of course a lot of people are going to dislike this sort of actions. I thought this was a place to discuss the hobby, and this most definitely is part of it.

Let’s face it, a lot of us have extreme pro GW model bias. It is normal, we worry about other model lines fitting with our current collections. Also, will that random miniature with a very specific look get discontinued when The company fails, leaving us with the inability to continue building a collection around it? Plus a model it is not a model, it is also the story behind it, that we know and feels more unique that whatever random fantasy sorry someone comes up with for a game that, again, might fail in a couple years. I guess it is no surprise that many companies build around GW aiming to be a close substitute, as opposed to trying to replace the entire system. Personally, I fall for all of the above and the sad part is that I know I am playing right into GW s strategy. Which is then used against me charging higher than average prices and the whole FOMO, inconsistent support and so on. For this reason, I am making an effort to look into alternative models for GW backgrounds. The cold one riders we linked so many times are an excellent example of that. If enough of us did that, maybe we d breath life into other companies and might get us a true competitor in the market, which can only be good for us.

Agreed, and I live in those dusty libraries. I am mostly concerned with what this does to the "community", which is organized around such personalities (to an extent). The fact that they call their marketing outlet "warhammer community" makes me cringe so hard. That they would attempt (I think they succeeded) to strong arm reviewers with NDAs that "ban" criticism is just ugly. I completely understand why reviewers accept it, though. But that doesn't make it any better.

And that's great, but GW churns sprues for much less. An industrial process, despite the costs associated with it, is still far less costly than a 3d printer. PS - I do not disagree with the overall sentiment of the post, though.

Baseless speculation. Within the next two years, we'll see: Dawi (combined, some new sculpts) Cities v2 aka crusades (more squatting of cities, new sculpts). Chorfs. Kurnothi. And TOW released, with GW finally tapping into those sweet bretonnia monies.

There is something crazy revolutionizing about 3d printing, and I do not believe it is only the ability to mess around with minis at home. It is the fact that it makes production technologies available to a wider population. Quite frankly, 3d printing is horrifically more costly than GW's mass production systems, it is not in the same galaxy. The fact that you can get 3d printed things for cheaper (even printed by others) is just indicative of the vast margins GW enjoys (much higher than many other industries). So, I am not sure everyone will have a 3d printer home, but I do believe that printing services will be more prevalent. This is quite certainly already predating on GW sales, as I see people using alternative sculpts and pieces for many of GW's main system. Obviously for things like bretonnia, but it goes beyond that. GW is attempting to push back on this tightening restrictions around alternative sculpts, but it is a losing battle, IMO. When you can get THIS, why would you buy THIS? And the lore is equally well represented by both models (better by the less derpy one, I'd say). I welcome this competition. GW has a massive advantage over cotage industries. Lower prices, increase quality, become more consumer friendly. All good things for us.

I mean look at this, the scupt above is on par with anything anything GW has ever released for troopers. Coherence of sizes and styles, like others have said, is a big factor. Then, the lore: it is not some random piece of plastic, it is a saurus knight or whatever. This is a big factor and something that GW did very well, creating an appealing background that gives value to the plastic / resin, beyond what it would be worth otherwise. And, while not free (writers), it certainly isn't as expensive as the physical side of the business. I do not begrudge the lore, but I certainly believe that it is being used as both a barrier to competition and (asd a consequence) lower value (older sculpts kept too long, high prices), which isn't good for us.

That is exactly what GW (and many other companies in gaming and other contexts) want. Because by tying us in via the lore, they don't rely so much on model quality and value (those eye watering prices...). Which is a double etched sword: we as consumers want good lore, it makes it more fun! But it is like having a charismatic salesman, the lore, it can uptalk the product. This is objectively bad for the consumer (lowers competition, and so on). Are there better mass produced fantasy models out there? I am not sure. Are there better models produced by smaller companies (files for printing and so on)? From a technical level, absolutely, no doubt.

What I fear is a hexfire sort of treatment. No new models except for some foot hero. I'd like to see more sea monsters / creatures. I think it is pretty safe to assume the dawi will get some love soon anyway, but what about the finboys

Ignoring the drama side, are we surprised that warhammer “influencers” get goodies with strings attached? I have seen some competitive channels snicker when they mention some of the new hot stuff and whether it is balanced. Frankly, from ITC organizers to YouTube personalities, the vast majority are so in bed with GW that it is hard to trust any of their so called reviews. At this point they are just part of the hype machine. This is a curious case, since a lot of the “pure” community is actually in the unsupported systems (e.g. whfb, mordheim), whereas the supported systems have been taken over by GW and “subsidiaries”. I am surprised there isn’t more backlash against this. I like the sculpts and the background (though I like more the foundations of that background than some of the new more developments), but I d like some honest reviews and honest discussions about FOMO, clearer release schedules, more pro consumer policies (Enough with the tree wasting money grabbing rules releases). I feel that for that push not to devolve into internet bickering and trolling we need more of a true community. Sycophants ain’t community leaders.

Frankly, I have lost faith in most people covering GW products in youtube and popular websites. Even without the NDA, a lot of them just have too much of an incentive to stay in GW's good side. I love the sculpts, I sure do not love the company, and I wish we had healthier discussions about it online. PS - Also, it might be against the rules, but why are the MODs always trying to steer conversations? I get that you can do whatever you want, but the constant reminders to "not be too negative" seem a bit excessive.

I stands corrected and accept giant octopus as a well-established mythical creature; I'd happily paint both of them.

I'd like the octopus, but I do feel the serpent is more atuned to the "mythological" approach of AoS. But yes, it is unlikely that idoneth get much more love in the near future. Do they not sell? I don't get it, they are a faction that is easy to expand on.

I sea serpent would be amazing. Why don't you want it? I'd reserve derpy names for regiments of renown, not for entire factions / subfactions.

My jam is more this: More "lizard / snake", less "dino", if that makes sense.

Absolutely, this. I grew up on this and I just can bring myself to like this current iteration.

I do not like the dragons, they are a bit too "chunky" for my taste. That said, I haven't liked any of the many dragons released over time by GW. Hopefully enough people like them to encourage them to keep trying. That said, I'd very much prefer more gryphons and the like, in the leaner style of past (do not like chunky monsters, as I said).

Yep! Though recently I have been experimenting with smaller / non-gaming sizes, and I find that you can easily capture the feeling of a "regiment" with 4x3. Of course this is a matter of taste, but I do not like painting too many of the same thing, to the point that I will not participate in some systems if I feel I got to put down too many of the same thing. This is my approach nowadays, as gaming takes the back sit to painting. Very much so!