Jump to content

Greybeard86

Members
  • Posts

    654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Greybeard86

  1. 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?
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Someone mentioned stuff about centaurs. Do we have any update on Kurnothi centaurs? Thanks!
  9. I like it far better. But then again, I like my gooffiness tempered with a high dose of sobre design.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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".
  13. 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.
  14. That is an endless discussion. But let me say this: we know that all 40k army books are already written, so why drip feeding the releases? Why is it that units and entire factions get the spotlight on a rotating basis, leading to long cycles of irrelevance and lack of care (poor rules, few or no model releases)? Obviously it is a strategy, a deliberate choice, as they choose to focus marketing efforts and no little part of it might be that this simply pushes people to collect more armies. I know that this is a very common recommendation from vets to rookies. Heck, someone just referred to people sticking to one army as legends. That says it all.
  15. This is depressing to read, though I understand you meant it to be a positive note. I cannot help but think that GW’s design cycle is engineered to brazenly push us to collect multiple armies. Those who stick to one army are probably just a thorn inGW s side, which to me is super bizarre coming from a company that published in white dwarf articles like Stillmania.
  16. I think it was a very interesting discussion. It is now clear to me that there are people who care about it and want such rules to be enforced. I was also told why they care. I think you got a handful around here
  17. Hey, I loved you post on DoW. Is your blog inactive? Some time ago I started putting together a DoW collection for a hobby project and your post resonated with me.
  18. And thus the rule serves what purpose, if it is to be ignored?
  19. I like the general on foot. Not as a general, but I like it as a duelist champion of sorts.
  20. Stuff like this is not negativity, it is legit toxic anti consumer behavior and needs to be called out. I can fanboy over new centaurs and satyrs for kurnothi and still rightfully make a big deal about such practices.
  21. Darn this is a depressing one. Something I really liked about GW is how they supported their minis for a long time, often leading to interesting sights on the table. Different generations of a sculpt coexisting looked cool to me, and meant a company that respected your time and money invested. We all know this has changed brutally. It is not only end times and the primaris move. They have been favoring adding completely new “units” in similar design spaces and abandoning the old ones in terms of rule support. What baffles me is how new players accept that (and some of the old ones too) as a necessity. They can’t support forever, you know, they need to make money! Yet they did, for the most part, and grew a company that way. Do not get me wrong, I also like new sculpts and new armies. Some really cool ideas were new at a time, of course, like Dogs of War. But there should be a better balance between adding cool new things and supporting existing ones. The lore of the setting, the beauty of the model range, those things, if cared for properly, age wonderfully. Constant new things just lack that depth.
  22. I read everything, nice post. They have made sure that people cannot reasonably be expected to try sub-factions and colours by pricing them out of it and making sub-factions too similar. Different color scheme different rules? In other games, you get distinct armies (historicals are a clear example), with distinct models. Having different armies means trying these different aesthethics. But here you have to repaint the same SCE with different tabards or whatever? All that paying 600$ dollars for the privilege? All that besides the point that it is very restrictive to those who want to have freedom with how they paint the miniatures, and that don't find following "official GW" uniforms as inspiring as you do (it is, after all, a matter of preference).
×
×
  • Create New...