Greybeard86

I would be outraged if they started a process of widespread legending more models within a few years of release. I really do hope they don't dare do that. They got away with it during the end times (which was a nasty move), to then turn around and legend the models they introduced during that period? That's be pretty shameless. On the Kruelboys, I have to admit I do not like them that much. But I do like the recent trend (started with that bizarre vampire lord) of making truly disturbing monsters.

Cannot speak for everyone, but in my case: I do not believe that the strength of the game is following exactly rules with models. The vast majority of players I know cannot distinguish between weapon types, let alone faction colors. I believe that it makes for a nicer game when models are painted and the roughly represent what they are meant to model (cavalry aren't infantry, giants aren't dwarfs, and so on). But I certainly wouldn't mind if someone modelled a giant with a club and then wanted to use the cleaver for rule purposes. Or multiple other things more aggressive things, such as (gasp!) using some Mierce giant as a megagargant or more heavily converted armies. The whole WYSIWYG relies on players focusing completely on visual cues, when we know that there are multiple ways for efficient information transmission (tokens, unit identifiers, or similar things). In fact, visual cues are often very misleading due to the myriad of armies and equipments they carry. So, to sum it up, appreciating the visuals of the armies on the table does not equate to needing strict equivalente between what you see and what you have in rules. I'd rather habve people modeling what they think is good and pleasant for them to build and paint. This is NOT a game based on fast reactions, you can take your time, and ask if something is unclear.

So, in other words, you want GW to print that rule to make it easier to enforce, as you believe we should all follow (GW's) rules. A whole lot of us truly dislike that rule and would certainly be put off by someone sticking it to our face in the club. Which is what is likely going to happen when someone of your persuasion meets with someone like me. I also believe that it is better to agree on a good set of rules. But I firmly believe that GW is not good at handling rules (imbalanced armies, excessive rule releases) and, what's more, I believe they have the wrong incentives when it comes to designing them. So I am firm proponent of tournament packs crafted by the community. This latest rule is, IMHO, a clear example of that as it is something designed in their interest but not in the interest of the broader hobby.

No, anti trust competition does not claim that monopolies are evil. Or environmental protection laws do not claim polluting companies are evil. We have such regulations because we provided evidence that, in absence of regulation, the decentralized equilibrium was “bad” in a welfare sense. GW will sometimes be tempted to do things that are good for GW but bad for the consumers. They are not evil, just self interested. Sometimes they push it too far (end times + AoS 1, or recently chorfs). In those instances we need react and voice our concern. And act accordingly!

I guess we got triggered because you used big words like “greatest hobby evil”. Or because you said you wanted GW to have stronger wording to be able to use that ruling to prevent proxying. Honest question: if you are open to a chat about it and this are just opinions and preferences, why do you need GW to print such rules?

AKA as the ultramarines-not-wait-white-scars-or-are-they army that art of war 40k keeps using in their streams? Once I was pointed that out and it is funny. I also think it is bad when we have to start magnitizing arms because some loadouts are clearly better rules wise and that changes every X months. I want to model for aesthethic reasons, does it really matter if it is a sword or a dagger? As long as the opponent understands what it is (and there are easier ways than for them to memorize what the pointy things are), it should be fine.

The whole "modeling for advantage" and "WYSIWYG" does not hold much whater, IMHO. I certainly do not know why players jump on that wagon, as it is strictly against our interest. There are many ways to model however you want and still ensuring that the opponent both knows what things are and gets frequent reminders, far better than memorizing the shape of whatever killer-thing-of-doom is sculpted for all armies. Tokens, numbering squads, handing in your list, and other tings we have come up with over the years. I also think it is outrageous that anyone would speak of "gotcha" refering to modeling when GW has riddled their rule books with gotcha moments and gated it behind hefty paywalls. Gone are the days of special weapon blisters (I think?), but those were pretty nasty too.

That triggers me a bit, sometimes. I like pretty models but fragility should be a consideration in game oriented models.

We need more gryph-things. But please not the chonky ones, why couldnt gryph-chargers look a bit more like a scaled up version of the hounds?

I do not think he is implying you'd be that guy. Rather, that this is how GW envisions it (or wants you to think about it). The problems with sticking to an army (which I would actually prefer) are, among others: They are freakishingly espensive. An army will set you back 600-800$ easy, not including hobby supplies. I say expensive wrt to other brands, where an army will cost you 200$, even if it as the same or more models. The meta rotates too fast. Even if you are not cutthroat tourney oriented, armies can have vast gulfs in power, and that changes over months. GW might legend you (holding the grudge forever for chorfs). So proxying and generally speaking recycling as much as possible is the way to go for many. The game just isn't being designed for moderate expenses from a person collecting a single army over time.

I don't see why we have to have that discussion at all. Slippery slope much, I'd say.

So why have the rule at all? Let's be frank, GW wants to have all miniatures be a free ad for their products. If you start mixing in "proxy" stuff, often converted using other manufacturer's bits and so on, then people might wonder out of the GW shop. For example, maybe they like giants from other brands better than GW's, and would like to "proxy" them. Or they heavily want to use other bits from scibor,victoria minis, or even 3d printed stuff. GW does not want any of that because it detracts from their business. Even though converting is ad the core of the hobby. The color schemes things is just collateral damage, I believe. I stopped getting white dwarf over stuff like this, it has become less interesting to me as it diverted from "Stillmania" to "Modern marketing 101".

GW wants to tightly control the hobby with the exclusive goal of making more profit (not even maximizing sales), while swatting away the competition (for that sweet sweet market power). You have expressed in the past your support for stockholder dividend maximization, but I fail to see how that is the "Greatest Good" for the Hobby at all. Proxies are not a "Great Hobby Evil", at least in the opinion of the masses of people who use them for various reasons, and asking GW for ammunition to try and shut down those using them is just weird to me. As if GW had any legimitimate way to decide how we play with their toys. Akin to buying a car and getting a dress code to drive from the manufacturer. You dislike proxies and want GW to print something so that you can attempt to circumvent social conventions and stick it to the face of the poor lad using proxies. Sorry, hard not to get triggered by this. PS - And this is from someone who mostly paints GW miniatures, new and old. But I want this to be because I choose to do so, not because it is forced upon me to play the dominant system.

Exactly how do they intent to enforce this? At this point this seems more like their bean counter's wish list than a thoughout guideline to play the game.

Will it, though? I was traumatized when the long list of new formation memes came out. If it does, I agree, it will be a massive plus.

I think you are looking at it too narrowly and railroading us into your conclusion (unleash hell does not reward bringing more shooting). Diminishing returns should be assessed accounting for whether you are likely to get it off, at all, or where it matters (the expected value). More shooting units provide more such opportunities. For instance, if you just have 1 shooting unit, then threatening to tie it up with chaff makes it likely to force it on the opponent, whereas if they have two shooting units they could save it for when your "good unit" is charging, not your bait. I do not know where you get that conclusion, but I think it is markedly wrong. Unleash hell makes any shooting unit more dangerous. Thus, in itself, it rewards bringing more shooting than in a world where the rule does not exist.

This.

I am currently revisiting old dwarf sculpts. This month I'd like to finish a couple of metal flame cannons (the very old version and the slightly newer one) for which I already painted crews. This is part of my pile of shame before I move to some Fyreslayers I wanted to paint.

I understand companies are totally committed to hype and marketing, but I would appreciate a clear release schedule for both rules and models. I feel that's treating me with more respect than bombarding me with "lIIImiteeed!" "nEEww" "whAt could thIs pIxeL bEE?".

Does it encourage single units, though? I was thinking about crossfire. Having a couple such units guarantees you'll get the potential for 2 more volleys even if the attacker has some shenanigans and gets into one of the shooters.

I guess it is about whatever aspect of the new rules people want to discuss. It's just that unleash hell is the most polarizing. Finally, a suggestion. Unleash hell may only be used against an enemy that charges the unit directly. At least that tones it down a bit.

I think you fail to account for the true effect of unleash hell. It is not to simply shoot and unbuffed salvo an extra time, as you report here. It is to shoot potentially up to two (weaker) additional times over the previous edition. Unleash hell works very well with screens. Shoot when they charge the screen, shoot in your regular phase, then shoot when they charge the ironclad (or whatever shooting unit). That is the potential damage you have to face if you decide to charge with your "big beefy monster" into the ironclad. That is, ~10 additional damage over the previous iteration of the game even for a well armored opponent (and we didn't use any buffs here, it could get quite a bit worse). You may argue that it is possible to use weaker units and multicharges to charge ranged units and potentially force unleash hell. But that was possible before too, unleash hell just made it less viable, as it means that the odds of tying up the enemy ranged unit with chaff diminish. Now they just added counterplay to this move, which becomes more of a requirement (as directly charging is less viable due to unleash hell). If ranged units were underpowered and the meta favored melee, this would tilt the balance towards ranged. Given that it is the opposite, this is aggravating.

In some regards it does sound more fun! I am very glad of that. In others, I think they could have made more effort to integrate shooting better into what was designed to be a mostly melee game. That is why shooting is so oppresive, the game does not have the core elements to counter it (terrain, anti sniping, better rules for what and when you can shoot).

It might surprise you, but I agree with you 99%. Where I disagree is about the current emphasis in the process of crafting the core rules. I feel that the core rules are part of the problem with shooting (e.g. sniping heroes), and designing more rules to make shooting better but not more rules to protect against shooting is a bad move.

Many thanks! Apologies for not being clear, I meant MSU wolves vs skeletons, reinforced or not. I understand they fulfill different roles (faster vs tougher, needed support vs not). It just seems to me that the skellie side suffered from needing to spend reinforcing points, but as you pointed out not many things seem to merit above MSU. Blood Knights seem the new hotness to make up the "core" of the army, as "hero hammer" does not seem to work too well yet. Is there an alternative composition that doesn't focus on knights and is actually competitive?