EMMachine
-
Posts
1,649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by EMMachine
-
-
6 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:
I just realized I didn't get the changed warscrolls for my CoS armies when available, which means there is no book or intended way outside the Warhammer + app to get the right scrolls. I'd need to download all the CoS warscrolls while still available and I really don't feel like doing that.
Which warscrolls do you mean? The once that are in the Battletome itself, updates from Campaignbooks?
6 minutes ago, Sarouan said:With reviews online, it's not a problem to have them. Even more with 3.0, since they're even less of them and options now (the way subfactions are treated is a big part of it, of course).
This works if the warscroll is shown completly, the problem is if the rules were added contextdriven to the text. Something like the last Article about Bastian Carthalos:
13 minutes ago, Sarouan said:Granted, but in that case, it's still easy to have what you need from a review. It's more tedious, indeed, but if that's your only argument, that doesn't stand IMHO.
Yeah, but most of the time prints of the review have quite bad quality.
-
3 minutes ago, Yondaime said:
since the unfettered ability is a bubble and it dosnt target the unit you can use a command ability
Wasn't their a case that "choose a unit with this command ability" is basicly an equivalent to be the "target of the ability"?
-
You mean if you can use the "reapers of vengeance command ability" if the daemon unit is within 6"?
I would say no, because that command ability doesn't use the standard methode if the unit is an eligible to fight, and instead says that the unit has to be within 3". But you would get the +3" for the pile in because it is a pile in move that is made in that moment.
Important in that situation is also that the unit that used "unfettered command" can't be the target for the "reapers of vengeance command ability" because he is most likely already the target of the "unfettered command" while every other unit in range does only profit the rule.
-
6 minutes ago, Sarouan said:
About the "free advertisement" argument, I do get your point from a customer's point of view. Believe it or not, as a customer myself, I do agree with Runebrush here : rather than keeping them on the webstore, I would simply move them on warhammer-community. However, if I was in the shoes of GW and seeing what is the content of new battletomes...I do see why they took another road in the end. Warscrolls are now a huger part of the main rules than in 2.0 - and thus the battletome's rule content. If they were still "free", there's even less incentive to buy the books afterwards, IMHO.
I think you would buy the book for your main army anyway because you will most likely need the Allegiance Abilities.
So like others said, you wouldn't need the book if you only want one unit as an ally (at least as long as you get the points for that unit).
It's basicly the same with the campaign books. In second edition if a warscroll was updated in a campaign book, it was possible to download and print the new Warscroll, while using the points from the warscroll builder, or get an update from a 2 player campaign box that wasn't released with the Battletome and was most likely sold out with release.
It was possible to get warscroll updates for free and without subscriptions.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Enoby said:
I do wonder if this will have a big impact on preorders for any new AoS stuff. I'm unsure how much rules affect sales, but if you can't see what a unit does and attempt to list build much before the book is released, then I'd imagine pre-orders would be lower. Sure, you can look at 'man reads book', but they're usually a bit boring and require a lot of skips to see what you want - no replacement for browsing at your own pace.
In case of preorders it could be a double-edged sword.
If the warscroll is shown and we see the unit is weak, the preorders can be lower as well, and if the unit is strong preorders would be way higher in case of the competitive community.
-
1
-
-
Well, we at least have two new free warscrolls in the download section of warhammer Community, the Unterworlds Warbands from Harrowdeep:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/downloads/#warhammer-underworlds
I had the feeling before it would have made more sense if GW would have made 1 pdf for each faction to download on Warhammer Community instead of 1 pdf each warscroll.
The removing of the warscrolls is also bad for the lore wikis. The main authors will most likely have the books but it gives people not having the books the change to write a stub article about a unit including the weapon loadout that unit has.
The nice thing with free Warscrolls was, that you were able to see what the unit is able to do when the Warscroll was released.
-
3 hours ago, acr0ssth3p0nd said:
While we're on that note, Daughters of Khaine should be GA Death. They literally worship a God of Murder. They expand the influence and power of Death as a concept, regardless of whether or not Nagash benefits. Nagash is an incredibly powerful being with the greatest understanding of and ability to control and wield the forces of Death in the Realms, but he does not own or control Death itself any more than Sigmar does for Order. Grungi, Sigmar, Teclis - all these figures work within the broad sphere of Order, so why should Nagash not have to share his space with a god (or goddess - shhhh, don't tell anyone!) of Murder?
Well, GA Death normally means that the army itself ist undead. Death has living followers but they are praying to Nagash.
With the theme of Blood Sacrifices, why not Chaos. I mean, their was a connection between Khorne and Khaine in 40k and WHFB.
13 hours ago, Ggom said:As someone who has been involved in heresy since 2018, I think the idea that Heresy players are difficult to play with is ridiculous. Heresy gaming tends to lean towards an older crowd with more disposable income, and i think there may be a different set of values predominant - narrative style gaming, emphasis on painting, conversions and story - but I’ve always found it a friendly community. There are some salty youtube personalities out there *cough-outercircle-cough* but that’s true of most gaming groups.
Yeah, the Horus Heresy Community is more focused around building armies that fit the Legions Lore instead of the Comperative aspect of taking the best stuff. They are more "Historicans". And Outer Cirle isn't that bad. He critizises mostly the prices (which is understandable if you look at Australian prices) the fact that so much stuff is removed or that the scale of models isn't fitting anymore for the new models. Their are way more problematic Youtubers.
On 10/22/2021 at 8:45 PM, CommissarRotke said:What you describe is why the lack of AOS media bothers me so much. It's like GW probably understands some of this issue, but either doesn't know how to get around it (COMMISSION MORE BOOKS MAYHAPS) or actively won't do it ("hey do y'all want a reprint of some WHF books??"). Like we're how many months into AOS 3.0 yet the ONLY books so far are Dominion and... a short story collection... with zero on the horizon. I 100% agree with you that unless GW actually, truly, and fully commits to the Mortal Realms as a setting then AOS will never reach its full potential.
Yeah, this is quite strange. Their are also no Black Library Online Only releases. The next release is basicly a Warhammer Horror Anthology.
But I think another problem with the lore is, that it is very hard to get the stories into the chronological order because most of the time the mentioning of other events is the only thing we often get, and in some cases the stories or events are so stand alone that it is impossible to find the right place in the lore. I would see myself as a "Loremaster" and really like the possibibilities of the lore, but I have the feeling the shown maps are a little to big for the stuff we know about the regions inside and it would make sense if the shown part was a little smaller but with more focus on that shown regions. I have no problem with the size of the realms because their are so many posiblities that the community could basicly fill unknown parts of the Realms with their own lore without creating conflicts with the official lore.
Their is stuff like the "Realm-Lords" Novel that I'm still reading, where we don't get the name of the Destroyed Alarith Temple, we don't really know where in Ymetrica we are, did the Guardian even have a name?
Many Authors miss the connections between stories that we had with Josh Reynolds. Or sometimes stories contradict each other with the worst example being the Gotrek Stories where we have at least four Authors which partly don't know what stories the other authors told.
-
3
-
-
I have the feeling this would have worked better with the Rules of 1. or 2. Edition in mind.
The thing is, while in 1. and second edition all Command Abilities were activated in the hero phase, now the activations are all over the place.
Have you checked "Age of Fantasy" a system of One Page Rules?
The rules are quite slim, the core rules, armylists and some stuff like campaign rules or solo rules are for free (their is additional stuff if you support them on Patrion, and the system is with alternative activation.
-
5 hours ago, Beliman said:
Not-sure-if-it's-an Unpopular Opinion but:
- Look Out Sir should be a 2+ bodyguard instead of a -1 to be hit.
- Challenge should return to engage (and kill) that pesky characters that stays in the middle of a unit (with Look Out Sir).
I know that there are a lot of buffers in the game that must be killed ASAP for gameplay reasons, but it's boring to kill them with magic/pew-pew-pew.
We see the villains engage with the heroes in a one-on-one fights in movies. Sometimes using swords, sometimes just with bare fists. But always with pure epicness!!! And Age of Sigmar should try to emulate that!
Heroes on foot should fight other Heroes on foot, in a ferocious battle!!
5 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:I miss challenges.
I actually don't miss challenges that much. It sounds nice on paper and totally epic, this is true. The problem I have seen in WHFB as well as 9th Age was that challenges simply became a tactic how a 10+ Upgrade Champion tanks all the damage of a 400 Point Hero on Mount and the unit winning against that Hero because of passive boni.
1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:I honestly wish they would stop doing this and just bake it into the Bravery characteristic. Mostly because I forget about it every time.
1 hour ago, Iksdee said:I agree with this. I also dont like being forced to build all options for msu. It made sense in whfb with horde units and siege style gameplay but i think it should have stayed there. A 5 model unit with full command just looks weird to me.
You are not forced to use all options. I have build a Ogor Mawtribes army that doesn't include any Banners, only Champions and Musicians
9 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:I completely agree with this idea. I think it would be cool if they had to 'join' the unit sharing the movement characteristic of the lowest movement between the hero and unit. It could also result in the unit gaining the hero's bravery characteristic to help mitigate the effects of battleshock and make heroes bravery actually have a functional purpose. Also Behemoths would be unable to join units.
Sounds a little like OnePageRule
-
1
-
39 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:
I really wish Rick Priestley and the late Alan Bligh were still around to give some serious longbeard mood and feel guidance.
I really wich Josh Reynolds would still write AoS Stories. He was literally the AoS Black Library God.
22 minutes ago, tupavko said:- Kragnos: I love BoC... that's already enough to hate Kragnos, but I can accept that other people can have horns and hooves (as a professional designer there is something about design that should be explained here, but maybe another time but there is a lot to tell about "good design" and "likable design") but the narrative and his ties to the actual Destruction forces is so plain, such a strech... And buy making him badly they ruined also Gordrakk and Skragott, another two new characters, that already weren't too well presented yet they managed to ****** them even more.
Yeah, he would have fit well as the Demigod of the Beastmen next to Archaon for Mortals and Be'lacor for Deamons.
22 minutes ago, tupavko said:WHFB had an organic and functional lore, inspired by classic literature and historical facts, something that actually made WHFB so popoluar, and one of the reasons why CA invested so much money in producing Warhammer Total War. Is that the only possible lore that can achieve that? No obviously! AoS, is not produced by someone who has no experience, we are talking the same company, the same people, the same writers who made WHFB, Horus Heresy series or Mordheim. AoS could work and definitely should work, but it needs narrative love, instead of fan service ("the best of this..." "the greatest of that"... Sometimes being the worst is also a good thing), or plain text for the sake of filling empty pages. The worst thing is that GW is still capable of doing it, Cursed City (never happened) is a great example, yet such examples are more sporadic islands in a vaste ocean of commercial mediocrity.
Thats the point. A world like AoS has so much more potential in case of lore than making a copy of our existing world. The thing is, it is more work, because they have to describe the rules of the world and have to create their own civilisations instead of saying, "these guys have a culture like in spain ... and these are japanese"
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Makyou said:
I see! I thought when GW released the statement that they would be making the Old world as AOS' 30k, it meant that it will surely be the same way they are handling that system as well. It may just mean that it's a time before the events of what is happening currently.
Basicly but in a strange way. If 30k to 40k would be similar to Old World to AoS the complete universe would have been destroyed between 30k and 40k and either a second Big Bang would have taken place, or the story would have been outside of the known universe. Thats the big difference. Except for the part that some people from the Old World became gods in AoS and Aelfen souls were eaten by Slaanesh during the endtimes and extrated in the age of Myth by the new Aelfen gods their is not really much left of the old lore.
AoS could be nearly the same if the Old World would never have existed (it was more a complete reboot), while the events of 30k are essential for the lore of 40k (the reason why Chaos Space Marines exist, why the empire became what it is etc.) + okay 40k existed first and GW filled the past later.
-
1
-
-
In addition to the Cycle of the storm stormcast battletome Thread where I already posted this, FAQ is released:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/eC2wlUtZJDX0ByXi.pdf
QuoteQ: If I use the Lord-Arcanum’s Cycle of the Storm to heal a wound on a model instead of it being slain, what happens to any wounds that remain to be allocated?
A: Continue to allocate them as normal. Cycle of the Storm will not always stop a model from being slain, but it will require an extra wound to be caused in order to do so
-
FAQ is released:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/eC2wlUtZJDX0ByXi.pdf
QuoteQ: If I use the Lord-Arcanum’s Cycle of the Storm to heal a wound on a model instead of it being slain, what happens to any wounds that remain to be allocated?
A: Continue to allocate them as normal. Cycle of the Storm will not always stop a model from being slain, but it will require an extra wound to be caused in order to do so
-
It's strange that it is already in the App but not on Warhammer Community yet.
-
18 hours ago, Dogmantra said:
I think that there is room for an extremist Stormcast splinter faction to exist in the narrative alongside Chaos. Canonically, at least one Stormhost (Hallwoed Knights?) has already done some major purges that went just a little bit too far. I think you could definitely get a contrast between ideologies that would make it interesting.
Most likely you mean the "Knights Excelior".
13 hours ago, Phasteon said:If you want to play matched play 2k points with min. 3 battlelines and all other restriction you‘re „queuing“ for a competitive game.
If you want to be fluffy or casual go and play open play missions / battleplans from battletomes.
Don‘t be mad about someone playing a „more effective“ list in a „casual game“ when it‘s your own responsibility.
That's not entirely true. Their are some cases where the "more effective" list is actually breaking the lore (multiple Frostlords or multiple Abhorrant Archregents). It is one thing if you lose against list that is fitting some way the lore of the faction or if the list is ignoring the lore completly and is only including the strongest stuff possible.
On 10/15/2021 at 11:21 AM, Dankboss said:Specific army centerpieces such as high leader units should be limited to 1 per army depending on context. It makes no sense that my army can field 2+ Freeguild GENERALS, Frostlords, Megabosses, Abhorrent Ghoul KINGS etc etc. That's not how power structures work in a functional army. It would also curb spamming. At least give sub-commander options like the Drakesworn Templar to his Lord Celestant on Stardrake. I know this is a high fantasy game but please let's just have some reality to bring it together...
GW letting us build armies of all dragons is a mistake and only encourages spam. How many times have we seen a new army drop and the article tell you you can build a whole army of (insert efficient monster/ elite unit here)? The game is better when most army composition actually looks like an 'army' and not 3 Frostlords and the extras tacked on. Armies composed of a couple powerful monsters is infantile and lazy, making it look like I'm smashing my Transformers into your plastic soldiers. I know we're playing a game with models but there is nuance here. Sons of Behemat get a pass. Let's not pretend these armies are the thematic force of a steam tank company and their support, they're pick 3+ of the smashiest monster and throw it at your opponents face overarm. And this isn't even a 3.0 problem.
GW's insistence on complete flexibility and freedom is detrimental to the game as it's open to abuse.
Sorry not sorry.
Not sure about the Ghoul King in the mentioning above because a Flesh-Eater Court can have multiple, Ghoul Kings being the Royal Family, the Abhorrant Archregent is the real model that should be restricted in that case, but I can see that a court could be more focused around the Courtiers. It's the same with Auric Runefathers or Auric Runemasters each lodge normally having only one.
My own point of "Unpopular Opinion" is "Unique" and "Named Character" is basicly still the same thing in the rules. It fits with the things @Dankboss said. We are missing a ruling in the Pitched battle Profiles that say that a model should only be once in the list without the restriction for command traits, Artefacts etc. This would fix the Problem @Dankboss mentioned and wouldn't give us the strange situation we had with the Scinari Loreseeker in 2.0 and again in 3.0 after the Errata. With making him unique GW is basicly stating that the whole civilisation of the Lumineth Realmlords only has 1 Loreseeker in all the realms together because of giving him the same ruling as a named Charakter while it was more likely that they simply wanted that only one model of those is in the list.
Another "Unpopular Opinion", putting "Battleline if" behind a subfaction if that subfaction isn't the only faction using that strategy.
Stuff like Dracothian Guard units only in Hammers of Sigmar Armies or Paladins only in Knights Excelsior. The thing is their are Extremis Chambers in other Stormhosts as well as Exemplar Chambers but rulewise we are forced to take a specific stormhost to play those specific chambers, at least in matched play.
-
1
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Makyou said:
Hi there guys! just had a long convo in my LGS regarding the Old World. Seems like the main concern from most of the people there is that the Old World will be positioned as the 30k of AOS. I really have no idea what 30k is, but they're saying it's more expensive than playing 40k and models are more hard to buy since most of the models will be distributed or manufactured by Forge World. Do you also see it that way? any 30k player here wanna chime in?
Well, it looks like the Old World will be part of Forge World as some rumours say.
To give a little inside. 30k's lore is 10,000 years before the lore of 40k, also called the "Horus Heresy" because it is the time where the Space Marine Legions had the war against each other because Horus switched sides to Chaos with halve of the legions. I think it was losely described in early 40k lore and because their own system distributed by Forgeworld fleshing out the lore of that time.
I think "the Old World" is described by some people as 30k of AoS because it is the lore that happened before the realms of AoS existed, the flaw with this description is that besides of some characters and Mallus, the core of the Old World, nothing of the old world really exists anymore, while the universe of 30k still exists in 40k with maybe some planets are destroyed.
I have the feeling, if we would get a game that would be placed at the end of the Age of Myth and the start of the age of Chaos fleshing out the lore their this would be the real 30k to Age of Sigmar because the realms would still be the same + the corruption and later take over of chaos (or failing of the Pantheon of Order) would have some similarities to the Horus Heresy.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Scurvydog said:
My guess for order is SCE, probably some of the new bad battleline units and chariot etc. They might tease the dawnbringer crusades to bring up some hype and sell a cities box.
Hedonites box could be likely and probably Bonereapers would make sense. Those would be my top 4 guesses at least.
The new Stormcast Stuff will be more likely in a 2022 Box. It's unlikly that GW will damage profit by giving the new stuff in a cheaper box during the first halve year (if it is Stormcast, it would be Sacrosanct Stuff or older). The Factions that would get a Christmasbox would have early 2021 at best as releasedate, more likely 2020. Cities of Sigmar could be more likely because all the kits are quite old.
-
Maybe the profile picture is after her first reforging and the tagged picture after the 10th reforging
11 minutes ago, Blackthorn said:I think a Sisters of Battle head could work, size could be a bit of an issue though.
After the profile picture literally looks like a Sister of Battle head the style would fit.
-
1
-
1
-
-
No, re-rolls aren't modifiers. They actually happen before you check for Abilities which need a unmodified value.
-
I really don't know if making models and rules for a Lord Commander was really a good idea. I mean Bastian Carthalos is basicly the AoS equivalent of Roboute Guilliman from 40k. Someone who lead an entire legion of Space Marines.
I mean even the Lord Imperatant we got with the third edition would lead multiple chambers, so we won't even be sure if a Lord Commander would even lead something like for example the Heldenhammer Crusade or if this would have been lead by a Lord Imperatant instead (and back then those ranks didn't even exist or at least weren't known).
1 Strike Chamber normally has between 150-300 members (if we are building a warrior chamber with minimum size units we already would have around 120 models and a amount of 5000 points and than a model like the Lord Commander, that would lead most likely 50000+ points, are taken in a 2000 Point army (let's not begin with literal gods) 🤢.
1 hour ago, Beliman said:Imo, I like what GW did with Space Marines. My only issue with them is the quantity of their releases, not the background and fluff that we see on their kits. Naming a character makes that hero to be more beliable, at least for me.
I don't know. Named Charakters normally only exist once in the mortal realms (or the 40k universe), so having named charakters with rules in the game most of the time is immersionbreaking because they are used way too often if they are strong. I mean, look in the soulblight thread. Looking at the last 10 pages their was only one listpost that had no named charakters, the rest at least had one or even more (and those that are taken are also leaders of entire dynasties or even legions).
I remember the time during the Realmgate Wars where we had two warscrolls (Lord Celestant and Lord Celestant on Dracoth) and in the lore dozens of characters based on those two models in the game. In the lore they had a name, but no rules (and they had more lore than many of the named ones with specific models).
It would make more sense to make more generic characters with more options instead of making more one of a kind models especially if those named charakters are so stupidly high ranked that you normally wouldn't see those at the battlefield at all (they are basicly collector models).
-
Here is a discussion about Cycle of the Storm that already has 4 pages:
I think the main problem is that the rule itself is a copy & paste of the rule from the Stormcast Eternals Battletome of 2018, while the way wounds are allocated and models removed have changed with 3. Edition.
-
1
-
-
On 9/28/2021 at 12:24 PM, Nqshou said:
Quick question : Gristlegore Terrorgheists are 300points on the warscroll builder but 305points on the new AOS app.
Do you know which tool is right?
Thanks!
It should be 305 Points (Source: Generals Handbook 2021)
-
It's a long time that I was in that thread and still I don't have painted any FEC units. (I don't post that much resently because I have the feeling that after some month the forum loses the connection to some of the pictures I include from my google account.
In all this time I also added Nighthaunt, Soulblight and Ossiarch Bonereapers to my collection.
I started a Soulblight Vampire Army in August this year and what started as a mix of Vargheist, Blood Knights and a Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon to start of with became 2000 Points of Kastellai and Avengorii each.
Here first are the lists:
Allegiance: Soulblight Gravelords
- Lineage: Kastelai Dynasty
- Grand Strategy:
- Triumphs:
Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon (435)
- General
- Deathlance
Coven Throne (310)
Bloodseeker Palanquin (290)
Battleline
5 x Blood Knights (195)
5 x Blood Knights (195)
5 x Blood Knights (195)
5 x Blood Knights (195)
5 x Blood Knights (195)
Total: 2010 / 2000
Allegiance: Soulblight Gravelords
- Lineage: Avengorii Dynasty
- Grand Strategy:
- Triumphs:
Leaders
Vengorian Lord (280)
Battleline
Terrorgheist (305)Terrorgheist (305)
Terrorgheist (305)
Units3 x Vargheists (155)
3 x Vargheists (155)3 x Vargheists (155)
3 x Vargheists (155)
3 x Fell Bats (75)
3 x Fell Bats (75)3 x Fell Bats (75)
3 x Fell Bats (75)
Total: 2115 / 2000Than in the time between August and mid September I painted 1500 Points of the Avengorii List with actually quite a simple color theme
Fell Bats 1
Fell Bats 2
Vargheist 1
Vargheist 2
Vargheist 3
Terrorgheist 1
Terrorgheist 2
Vengorian Lord
Group Picture 1000 Points
Group Picture 1500 Points
-
1 hour ago, GrimDork said:
Here are my thoughts on this. I’m not going to comment on whether the NDA is real/fake, others have put both sides of the argument out there, not really anything more to add. Except to say the only way we will know 100% is if GW confirm/deny or if more influencers receive a copy and are willing to tell.
I don't know if it is real or fake, but the mentioning of the old logo is strange at least. While others where wondering why someone would fake it, it basicly gives people like Arch or GAMZA Content for their channels. Okay in case of GAMZA his last content is more with the IP policy because his latest videos are more about that you can print replicas of GW models that are costing 1/10 or 1/100 the price of GW models, actually missing the point that GW has to pay for more as only the material and can't sell a imperial knight for 10,-€.
I don't know if it has actually influence on GWs shares because the share value droped by 20,-€ in 20 days being on a value at the moment that they had in April the last time.
1 hour ago, GrimDork said:On the subject of biased reviews, tbh I’m not too bothered if they are generally positive. I watched one “review” for the dominion box from Zona-something (can’t recall name). Video was entitled “why I don’t play AoS”, his opening words were “because it’s $*#t!”. He then goes on to recount the destruction of the old world and the early days of AoS. Apparently he hasn’t even tried the game. He opens his free dominion box, says nice models, then proceeds to kitbash some of the Stormcast into space marines. This video bugged me and if I worked at GW this is not the kind of thing I would want an influencer saying/doing with a free product they’ve been sent.
I think I remember that video, yeah it was a strange one.
I mean, I basicly hated AoS when it came out (mostly because of the compenium lists and their "funny rules") but became a fan of the world after the Generals Handbooks were released, mainly because of the posibilities and not being stalemate like the old world was in all the years I know it (even nullifying lore progress of the 6. edition of WHFB).
I still have the feeling that many people who are talking bad about AoS never have wrapped up with the system only using the arguments and information of the time when AoS was first released in July 2015.
1 hour ago, GrimDork said:Here are my thoughts/questions/speculations on the NDA. First off I’ll preface my comments with a blanket if it is real. If the leaked NDA is a revised document that will gradually be sent to all YouTube content creators it would be very concerning. In the clause about business dealings with restricted customer, what is a business dealing? In my mind it’s taking money from, which a large number of you tubers do in the form of Patreon or premium memberships for extra content (miniwargaming, WargamerOnline, GMG to name just a few). Not sure if Patreon would be viewed as business dealing, or if it would be viewed as artist/content creator and backer? Is that a business dealing?
If such channels were given this NDA to sign they would not be able to, as they would immediately be in breach. If they don’t sign, presumably they would lose the perk of having pre-release copies? If they did sign they would effectively cut off funding, ending their channels anyway.Tin foil hat time! It seems odd that this comes out shortly after the launch of WH+ and IP policy changes. For a good number of years lots of content creators have been making money featuring predominantly GW games. Have GW seen this that people are willing to pay for batrep content and thought “that’s money that could be coming into our pockets!”. GW start producing their own content, then try to get rid of the competition by not supporting them with free stuff. I’ve not subbed to WH+ so no idea on the quality of the battle reports, but I would assume that they would be high quality productions. It makes me question whether this is part of a move where GW is trying position itself as the main source of all GW related content, all behind the paywall of WH+.
The evolution of the last months really bugs me. I really have the feeling that shortsided decisions GW is making will damage or kill them in the long run.
The changes to the IP policy, the removal of free warscrolls.
I have the feeling, if you don't force people to pay for everything they will pay money more freely. See for example twitch (even though I only know the situation after the pandemic). Like with youtube you can watch the streams for free or go premium by spending money to support them so you can use the comment function.
Instead of forcing people to pay each month building all that overhead with Warhammer+ where we don't even know if it still exists in 10 years maybe losing the content we payed nearly 550€ in that time (I rather pay a price like this each month for buying product instead of renting it, and knowing that I still will own it in 10 years if it doesn't get destroyed by act of nature in that time). GW could have made a Warhammer License for Youtube generating revenue for every video with warhammer content (battlereport, painting tutorial, model- book or lore review, Let's plays) + having a fair share that way with the content creators of those videos who are basicly making free promotion for the company. It would at least be a healthier relationship between company and consumer.
I guess you have to use bank data to make a warhammer+ subscription, so it's not an option for me. I don't want to have my bank data on the internet so I only buy stuff where I can buy cash (ordering from a GW-store for example) or use transactions where I can top up the value of my account on the site with giftcards (steam, googleplay, paysafe, nintendo eshop)
-
2
-
The End of Free Warscrolls
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by EMMachine
I think it is also the price of the books. I'm in the hobby since 4. Edition 40k and back then their weren't free rules for units, but a Codex in 40k (and most likely the armybooks of WHFB) did cost between 15,-€ - 20,-€ (I think my Tau codex costed 17,50€ back than). I heard from others that they were most likely to buy codizes or armybooks of army they didn't own back then than now where we have prices between 32,50 € and 37,50 €. I'm most likely one of the rare hobbist type who still tries to buy mostly all books I can get, but GW would most likely sell more books for a cheaper price because it would be more affortable for the community to get a view over all the rules (and not with a subscription where you basicly lose all access to the content if you stop subscribing).
We see that it works by looking at D&D (or most roleplaying games). Most of the books exept the players handbook, Dungeonmaster Book and most likely a Beastinary are optional. Still those companies didn't went bankrupt.