yukishiro1

I said it was close to poverty wages, which it was. Please read what was written if you're going to take issue with it. If you live in a different country where that is not close to poverty wages, I don't see how your experience has any relevance. But it's not worth arguing over, it's got nothing to do with the fundamental topic, so I'll leave it here. If you want to feel insulted, that's up to you.

How is it an insult to anyone to point out that that wage was close to a poverty wage? It's an objective fact, facts aren't insulting to anyone, certainly not to other people on poverty wages. You even confirm it yourself - only a few thousand above minimum wage at the time. Nobody should be getting paid that little.

Management would certainly prefer to keep compensation secret in most organizations...and that very fact suggests why it isn't good for employees for that to be the case.

Look, I gotta be honest...if you *don't* joke about GW's Copyrightfriendly Nonsensenames, there's something odd about your sense of humor. I'm 100% sure even the GW employees who name these things themselves laugh about the absurdity of some of the names they come up with. It's almost an overt joke at this point how it's completely motivated by copyright concerns. They don't actually think these names are better than generic, non-copyrightable equivalents, and there's no reason we need to pretend they do. If someone comes up with an even funnier, goofier name for a model than what GW came up with and it sticks, more power to them. The GW employees probably get a good giggle out of the best ones, too. Kruleboyz isn't exactly something you name your new faction because you are being super duper srs.

Yeah, for sure, if those lists still work in an environment where objectives are comparatively so much less important to your final score. Not saying they won't, just not sure they will either.

If you're a middle manager you get paid to take the blame for senior management's mistakes and to shield them from the rancor of your subordinates. It's what makes it a pretty thankless job, pay aside. If there's a "middle management problem" at a company, that's actually a senior management problem that senior managers are trying to hide. It is interesting to me that we haven't seen any "the job of a corporation is to make the most money, don't blame them for doing that" arguments made in this thread yet, when they are so commonly made to with regard to every other part of the hobby that touches on economic considerations.

He said it was less than he made as a store manager 4 years previously, which would have been 2012. Someone being offered 10k more than that to manage a store today in 2021 seems totally in line with what he said re: his compensation in 2016 as a designer and in 2012 as a store manager.

"Here is our final offer: Three boxes of Blood Warriors, a packet of crisps, and a coupon for 15% off the web store with a purchase of £200 or more."

Those are 2016 numbers, so presumably they've come up a little since then...but not a lot. It would certainly echo many of our suspicions about how much GW does or does not care about the rules side of things if they pay them less than everybody else, though.

Yeah, but GW has massive margins and makes profits of over 100 million. They're not operating out of grandma's basement on the edge of bankruptcy like a lot of game companies. Be interesting to see how much those numbers have changed since 2016 when he was talking about. That's right when GW's growth started taking off. It'd be nice to think they've used that pile of cash to boost salaries to something less embarrassing. Though I wouldn't bet on it.

It depends on your list. It's extremely strong for shooting lists that can safely give away the first turn, because when one of those lists gets the double from T1 to T2, it pretty much just wins. This may be slightly less true in AOS3, but in AOS2 a top competitive shooting list that got the T1 to T2 double had a win rate in the mid to high 80s. Absurd levels. Essentially winning 40% or more of your games without even trying because you gave away the first turn and then got the double made going for low drops absolutely worth it for those lists. Now that you have to actually one-drop your one-drop battalion, that advantage is slightly mitigated. But you're still going to see those shooting lists going for it, because it's just such a massive advantage. As long as games can still be over by the middle of T2 against shooting lists that get the double, you're going to see people chasing low drops with those lists IMO. Some lists that rely on buffs for survivability also needed to go low drop to avoid sometimes just losing the game on T1 because their key pieces got killed before they could be buffed. This is much less of an issue in AOS3 due to all out defense and best day, so for these lists you probably won't see so much emphasis any more on it.

That's mind-boggling if true. Close to actual poverty wages.

Yeah, agreed. Might potentially need to stop heroic monsters from being able to do heroic actions, too - or, at a minimum, force them to pick between doing a heroic action and using a monstrous rampage in a given turn. They just feel like they are all advantage and zero disadvantage right now.

The chances of that happening are quite low until T3. But it doesn't even need that ability, the faction is full of healing even on top of its own d3 heal and heroic recovery. I only mentioned it to drive home the point about just how fully GW has created a game where a lot of models are effectively immune to anything but MW while also having massive healing capacity on top of that virtual immunity. If healing was very limited for models capable of getting to a 2+ save easily even against rend, what GW did might make sense; it's the combination of healing and the easy access to the 2+ even vs rend that results in stuff that can't be killed except by buckets of MW all at once.

Yeah, or they need to go way up in points, which is problematic too because it makes MW even stronger. The Vengorian lord is a perfect example of GW pretty clearly not really understanding how their new system really works in practice. 280 points for a 10 wound 3+ 10 bravery monster wizard who reduces rend by -1 within 3", heals d3 every combat phase if it killed anything, and has a command ability that gives a d6 heal to a unit that killed another unit in the combat phase. It's just a crazy amount of abilities that stack together to make the model virtually unkillable except through MW and easily able to heal itself up to full if you don't kill it in a single turn. All out Defense alone and it's on a 2+ vs rend 1. And it can arcane shield itself on top of that, along with best day. It can quite conceivably be on a 2+ against rend 3. It's just silly, and I really don't think GW actually realized what it was doing. Models saving on a 2+ vs even rend zero ought to be extremely rare, having dozens of models that are frequently saving on a 2+ vs rend 1 or 2 is just absurd.

I gotta be honest, I just don't think I can get over the kangaroo posing.

My fear is that the 5++ amulet and the tome shows that GW wants to inflate artefacts generally, and that the new books are going to be full of stuff that is at a minimum as good as, or probably better, than that.

Yeah, I think they just need to bite the bullet and errata save stacking so that it can never go above +1 to save, with further bonuses just wasted except to offset minuses to save, i.e. not used to offset rend. That way rend 1 always takes someone to a 3+, which is the issue - saves that end up as 2+ even against rend are too much and make stuff effectively unkillable except with MW, and that's not good for the game. In my games, it's really only stuff with a 3+ that have seemed problematic, and it really doesn't feel like GW has pointed a base 3+ save for how valuable it actually is. It's like they didn't quite realize the monster they were creating. This would have a very limited impact on most stuff in the game, because you're really not stacking more than +1 to save on it anyway. So it effectively addresses the issue with hardly any collateral damage. For the small handful of stuff it would impact that isn't on a problematic 3+ save to begin with, mainly stuff with native +1 to saves that then can't double up with anything else, you could just errata their scrolls to have their native bonus either actually increase their save - i.e. put marauders with shields on a 5+ instead of a 6+ with a +1 to save, make iron golems have a 3+ base save when they don't move instead of a 4+ with a +1 to save, etc - or to reduce rend by 1.

It's up there now on the US site too, under "made to order" on the left column after you click on "Age of Sigmar."

They shoulda been brave enough to stop letting you take Archaon in other factions except as an ally (that takes up your whole ally allocation but can be taken even though he's more than 400 points); he shouldn't be able to benefit from the allegiance abilities. It makes it too difficult to balance him. And yeah, my experiences against pinks have been just downright sill, even sillier than they used to be. They desperately need a fix to the way rally works, it's downright absurd the way it works right now (as well as being incredibly clunky). My suggestion would be that rally can only bring back models of the weakest sort currently in the unit - once you have any blues, you can only rally back blues, once you have brims, only brims.

That very much did read like an actual game post to me - he even referenced how popular it was becoming in his gaming group, then described in detail what happens when you face it. I think you are being overly sensitive here.

Yeah, that's true enough. They probably should have limited it to one Fox moving in each shooting phase, not all of them. That would have naturally limited your ability to stack them.

I didn't say anything about your intent, just what you did. Nobody was "stumbling" here (except you I suppose in thinking someone else was), nor did they need your "help" to "clarify" a "common point." I think you are kind-of making my point for me re: being unpleasant, but I don't want to perpetuate the unpleasantness, so I'll leave it here.

If you misread what he wrote in a way nobody else did and jumped on him because of it, that doesn't seem like his problem. Perhaps the lesson is not to jump on people in the first place, it's not pleasant even when you're correct, and it leaves one looking very foolish when one isn't. It'd be nice if people could just, well, be a bit nicer to one another.

Most factions with teleports (not all, obviously) have them tied to a hero that can be insta-gibbed T1 by that list. So that doesn't really help. The foxes are just bad design, making something so squishy to ranged attacks but so immune to melee is a bizarre choice in a game that was already dominated by shooting. It's classic LRL, it's not particularly powerful against the strongest factions, but it's NPE to high heaven against the less strong ones.