Jump to content

EMMachine

Members
  • Posts

    1,649
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by EMMachine

  1. 1 minute ago, SunStorm said:

    I think you are confusing investors and consumers. You are also assuming that people cannot be both.

    well, even consumers are investors because by consuming the product they are investing money into the company that the company can use.

    I don't have a problem if employees have shares, getting a bonus when it was a good year or consumers who care about the product and most likely spend the dividend for more products.

    My problem is that decisions are often made by those parasitic invenstors and speculators, who don't care about the product itself, never have bought anything of the company and only how to maximize profit in the short run, which will kill the company in the long run by alienating the consumers with rising prices resulting in firing stuff and closing locations to keep the profit on a similar level to keep the dividents high.

    • Like 1
  2. I think one positive thing of the free Warscrolls wasn't even mentioned. If a 2 player box or Campaign book updated a warscroll of an existing battletome (or such cases as with the Tzaangors being in the Tzeentch and Beasts of Chaos Book), the warscroll in the shop was updated as well so you only needed to download and print the warscroll instead of having multiple books.

    I have bought the books mostly because of the lore (and basicly paid 1,6 times the money for having the german book in it's printed version and the english one in the app, paying with Google Play).

    If the new app is rules only and behind a subscription where I have to use bank data or creditcard information, the app is useless for me.

    Going against the real "investors", the community that gave them money for their entire existence are worth more than those fakes that are called "investors" who buy shares ones and take more money out of the company in the long run, than they put it ( because they are only a very expensive credit that is never paid back).

    • Like 2
  3. The thing is, it is said multiple times that nobody except the IP owner should make money with it. The fanmade stuff as well as painting videos, battlereports etc is basicly free promotion for the products.

    GW could either spend money for promotion, not knowing if the money is spend in a good way or wasted or they don't have to pay money because the community makes it, but after it is still some sort of work the company profits it should be allowed that the content creators can get money with ad revenue or if people want to support the creator.

    In worst case the IP rules will hurt GW because with less free promotion they will earn less money (because the content creator doesn't have the money to spent it on more GW products, or people that spend money because of the free promotion)

    And no, I don't have a youtube channel (only an account with 0 videos) and I basicly make my form of promotion with helping a wiki spending money on nearly every book that is released.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

    „Own it for life“ is not very useful in a game where only the latest edition is played anyway. As much as I hate to admit it, for a game like Warhammer a subscription system does make sense (or free rules, but that’s a different topic).

    Well, I can still read the lore from my 6th Edtion WHFB Armybooks, 4th Edition 40k Codizes or 1st Edition AoS Battletomes. Something I can't most likely do with a subscription model. We don't even know if Warhammer+ still exists in 5 Years and if it is going down their is no equivalent value for the money you have spent for that subscription anymore.

    Rules and points for free would most likely be working model because GW would most likely be able to make enough money with models and Lorebooks (I mean D&D is still existing as well and you are not forced to buy every Campaignbook from them) + the rules and points would be easier to update.

    • Like 1
  5. 5 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

    At the risk of being a grumpy sausage, I find many subscription services fall short of the mark.  Sadly we live in an age where subscriptions have taken over that "buy once, own it for life" approach that existed at one point.

    I feel the same in that case + most of the time you are getting easy into a subscription and it is hard to get out again.

    The worst case for Warhammer+ could be that they make stuff in the first month to get the subscribers in and than do 10 months nothing still getting their money because of the subscription.

    I have the same feeling with music. I liked it that I had the option to buy music on Google play for google Music (with the option to download them as mp3), and I had no problem paying 30-50€ for multiple music albums during a month. It felt like supporting the music group. Than Google stopped using Google Music and switched to Youtube Music. Where you get some essential functions (like playing the music in the Background) only with a 10,-€ Subscription each month. I don't even use Youtube Music in the browser (if I want to listen to music on youtube I use youtube). They switched a good product for an inferior one.

    • Like 1
  6. 32 minutes ago, ArkanautDadmiral said:

    I think the trend will continue that creators who are on top of their game will get offered partnerships too. It’s just a shame that when one of them does accept they’re suddenly the enemy in many’s eyes.

    I don't know the story about Sodaz, but my guess is the following. I think the community has the point of view, that fanmade stuff has more passion and higher quality than stuff of a company that looks how to get most profit with least effort, and people either have the option to consume the content for free (generating ad revenue, or support the creator actively with patreon, and people only started with patreon because it is way to easy to be demoneytized on youtube).

    So being hired by GW means a drop of quality and putting the content behind a pay wall with subscription (where the money most likely goes entirely to shareholders while the creators are underpaid). It simply feels better when Creators actually get the money instead of people that don't care about the product at all.

    Most of the time subscriptions feel like scams. I mean, the Warscroll Builder has higher quality for free than the Armybuilder inside the AoS and 40k App combined which are behind a paywall.

     

    • LOVE IT! 1
  7. The funny thing is they are writing at the beginning "We also have a duty to preserve and protect our intellectual property rights – this is the only way we can ensure that Warhammer will be around forever". Well if you want to be around forever your top priorities should be your customers and the people working their and not the shareholders (unless they want to end like Thomas Cook or Wirecard).

    It's the community that gives the money so GW still exists and they basicly make free publisity, while they lose money in the longrun to the shareholders that make next to nothing or not even are interested into the product.

    • Like 1
  8. 19 hours ago, JustAsPlanned said:

    -Stormcast (Thunderstrike, of course)

    -Warclans (Either Kruleboyz or Ironjawz)

    -Lumineth (They’ve been shilled a lot recently)

    -Gravelords (Maybe an Avengorii monster mash type deal?)

    Looking at the last boxes Thunderstrike Stormcast and Kruleboyz are nearly impossible. It's more likely that those will be the Battleforces for 2022 because the models aren't new anymore at that point and anyone who really wanted the box has already bought the stuff.

    Looking at the last boxes we had:

    • Tzeentch (Battletome was January 2020)
    • Kharadron Overlords (January 2020)
    • Gloomspite Gitz (January 2019)
    • Ogor Mawtribes (November 2019)

    My Guess is that models that are included in a Battleforce are at least 9-11 Month old.

    So my guesses would be Ossiarch Bonereapers (Battletome November 2019), Hedonites (February 2020) either Realmlords with 2020 stuff or maybe Daughters of Khaine or maybe Seraphon. In case of Destruction it is a little weird that we got 2 Boxes last year and besides Bonesplitters and Sons of Behemat their isn't much left.

    • Like 1
  9. 53 minutes ago, Charleston said:

    Do we know anything about the new codex releases? Because currently we are in the perfect vacuum of old tomes + new core rules. As soon as the first book releases drop we will see new wordings and approaching to balance which will tilt the balance scale again as we currently see in 40k.

    Except for the covers and that they will come in August we know next to nothing about the new Battletomes.

    But it is also too early at the moment. We will hear about the Battletomes in the Week before Preorder, so we have to wait for the "Preorder next week" Announcement that is released on sundays (or if GW wants to make another preview).

    • Thanks 1
  10. Hm, looking at the rules, I would say

    A 750 point or 1000 should have a boardsize of at least 30x44, 1500 and 2000 at least 44x60 and 3000 at least 44x90

    Its the minimumsize. It wouldn't be a problem using 44x60 for 1000 pojnts instead because it would be larger than 30x44

  11. Hi, I would say Horrors are 1 of the weirdest units in context of 3. Edition rules like rally. It wouldn't have been a problem with the old rules where each unit of Horrors was it's own thing. It is a quite silly situation that it is most likely possible at the moment to roll 49 dice for a unit of 10 Pink Horrors where 1 Brimstone Horror is left.

    2 hours ago, AaronWilson said:

    Icon Bearer - "1 in every 10 Pink Horror models in this unit can be a Pink Horror Icon Bearer. If the unmodified roll for a battleshock test for this unit while it includes any Pink Horror Icon Bearers is 1, you can return D6 slain Horrors of Tzeentch models to this unit, and no models from this unit will flee in that battleshock phase."

    In case of the Iconbearer it simply has to work that you can bring back pink horrors, otherwise the Standardbearer would never work for horrors (except if you use Petty Vengeance instead of Split and Split again) because you have to allocate wounds to the Pink Horrors first.

    A unit that splits never is below the maximum size until the unit is brimstone horrors only.

    2 hours ago, AaronWilson said:

    I believe this would be the case in a following turn, where you may have 15 blues & 10 brims and would able to use Fold Reality, or Rally to return slain models.

    I think I wouldn't use Fold Reality on a unit that large because a roll of 1 would kill 25 models in that case. (more likely on a unit that has been reduced to a few Brimstone Horrors so you could bring back some new Pink Horrors.

    Their are two options for GW.

    Either they have to limit the amount of dice for Rally to the maximumsize of the bought unit (It wouldn't change anything for most of the units, but Horrors would need to be under the maximumsize to use rally)

    Or they have to make changes to the warscroll of the Horrors again. (Restricting the amount of dice or making them 3 different units again).

  12. 4 hours ago, Fyrm said:

    See, here’s my issue with this answer. I’m coming from the exact same starting point. I love the lore, I want my army to look beautiful and be painted stunningly and for my army lists to ooze the lore I’ve presented. 

    But here’s the rub. This rule stops me from doing that. My Sylvaneth glade? The one run by a princeling treelord? Can’t make a pretty conversion for him if this rule is to be enforced. I can’t paint my spirit of durthu all corrupted, scars from when he rescued the seed pod of his closest friend, the Treelord Ancient who used to rule this glade, and returned it to the sacred soil to regrow into the princeling. I’m discouraged from painting my plant folk after gumbo limbo trees. At least I think I am. I’d have to look into what the official color schemes for each glade even is, and how to apply it to the army?

     

    47 minutes ago, insomniaftw said:

    What about in the cases where a sub-faction is expressly REQUIRED? This FAQ specifically says that in order to have a living city army it must abide by exactly the living city color scheme. A color scheme they show in exactly 8 close-ups.

    So, I guess it must be confusing to see a living city army based on cherry blossoms and with 3 treelords in it. You might think its something else entirely, even though none of the cities have a pink theme, and only one city can have more than 400 points of Sylvaneth.

     

    I have the feeling you are reading the FAQ-Point wrong. The FAQ about Proxies doesn't force you guys to paint the models in the official painting theme. It only tells you, If you are using the painting theme of an official subfaction, than use the rules.

    I have painted my Stormcast Eternals in the colors of the Celestial Vindicators:

    AM-JKLXfa6ev_bQkruK-Mssanm7MF2BDpXEhiTOw

    That way I will either use the Celestial Vindicators Subfaction or no subfaction because of lore-reasons (so not playing them with the "Anvils of the Heldenhammer" subfaction). I could have chosen to make my own stormhost to choose freely (+when I painted the first models, subfactions haven't existed yet, instead their were the megabattalions that nobody could use).

    In most cases it is not the colortheme alone but also an iconography.

    For example Hallowheart has a blue/white colortheme (that was shown in Firestorm) and as iconography a burning diamond with something that looks like the Ironhalo from the Stormcast Helmets below.

    You still can have blue and white colorthemes with your own iconography being your own guard but if you use the official colors of hallowheart and the official iconography than play the subfaction hallowheart

    Their is absolutly no problem with a cherry blossoms themed army played with the living City rules.

    In the end you have to tell your opponent at the start of the game anyway what subfaction you play

    • Confused 1
    • LOVE IT! 2
  13. 20 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

    I think there is a very pragmatic observation to be made here--the company without the relentless marketing is out of business.

    Actually I don't think that the marketing was the main problem.

    The problem was most likely that they had too many games. I'm not sure about the beginning but the timeframe should be 2008-2017 for all of them.

    • Achtung! Chuthulu
    • Uncharted Seas: A Fantasy Naval game
    • Firestorm Armada: Space Battles with Space Ships
    • Distopian Wars: Steampunk Game with Sea, Air and Land units (with around 20 factions, 7 Large Factions + the rest are smaller once)
      • Their was also a Land + Air game named Armoured Clash using the Air and Land Units in Battalions
    • Dystopian Legions: 32mm Infantybased game with 6 Factions
    • Planetfall: Landbased game from the Firestorm Armada Universe
    • Halo, both a game for Fleetbattes and Groundbattles

    My main guess is that Halo broke them in the end because they most likely had to pay licencing fees + many of the games had quite similar rules with other optical concepts. They basicly would have needed a Customerbase like GW to survive.

    I think shortly before they went bankrupt they tried to get money for new editons of Dystopian Wars and Firestorm Armada with Crowdfounding but were unable to pay the supplier at the end.

  14. I think their could be another reason with the coherrency as well. In 1.0 you could spread a unit as far as possible and when a single model was in range of a hero the entire unit would get the effect. Later they invented "wholly within"  in such rules to prevent it. Now in 3.0 we have the case that the unit leader can give commands as well, that means you need to restrict the spreadout of the unit so the unit isn't able to daisychain and buff themselfes with commands.

    (and yeah it could have been 2" but then we most likely would end up with the same daisychain as before not really needing the rule at all)

    In the end the new coherrency is mostly working with triangles

    This is a valid formation for for units with larger bases (could be glottons, or blight drones)

    PYHjV4KRdfLDxkcDpzvoooL8wxiYqaEH_yMvjEtf

    In units of 6 you don't even have to care if one model dies. In larger units maybe the triangles have to be rotated a little so killing one model doesn't break coherrency

    In case of 32mm Bases. It is possible to get a second rank into combat range (this exmple was for 2" weapons, the two models in the middle should be in range as well)

    1YZz5iOPKBJ8CqQDpLopwFTNOrdXg_NHNEv1E8R5

  15. 16 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

    +++ MOD HAT +++

    Come on folks, I politely asked people to take the Warhammer+ discussion onto a new thread and have just read a page worth of you continuing the discussion in the rumour thread.

    Maybe move the conversation about Warhammer+ into a different thread (the one Lowky made). I know the moderators can do it.

    • Like 2
  16. 1 Thread could really be a little much here, especially since you don't find anything when you search for something months later.

    Maybe it could help if their would be at least a new thread each year.

    I have clicked through the entire thread to look how many pages are from what year (and we have to remember that 1 full page is 25 posts):

    2016 = 91 (1 - 91)

    2017 = 259 (92 - 350)

    2018 = 405 (350 - 755)

    2019 = 715 (755 - 1470)

    2020 = 583  (1470 - 2053)

    2021 = 709 (2053 - 2762) with only 6 month (and at least 53 new pages in the last 11 days).

    After TGA is 1 system forum a rumours subforum with specific threads for every greater release could actually make sense (or having the conversations that are about 1 faction could take place in the Alliance part of the forum and unspecific stuff in the general discussion part.

     

    • Thanks 1
  17.   

    I have played Dystopian Wars from 1.0 to 2.0 (literally since the time where the game had about 5 factions and about 5 naval units each. It was the main reason why I hadn't played WHFB during 8th Edition.

    We had a small community of 6 people during 1.0 and 1.5, sadly later in 2.0 their were only two players left. In case of DW you really had the feeling the game got better with editions (simplifying the Linked Weapon rules, the way that the tiny fighters got Movement trays and refueling got simplyfied so the Tinyfighters especially Divebombers and Torpedo Bombers could make more than one bombing run (since in the old game they had to land on the carrier and start the next turn)

    I still have nearly anything from the 2 main alliances (except for maybe the latest release of denmark or some of those large robots Spartan Games had created in the end.

    The main problem from Spartan Games was that they got bogged down by all their systems and licencing the Halo game was most likly the last nail to their coffin.

    I followed Warcradle losly, but actually didn't liked it that they reduced the factions to 8 and changed the scale of Land units so something like this isn't possible anymore:

    ACtC-3c_TRtGEdNiqREEgP8RJwUZ7F7e1-MhwXHw

    On 6/22/2021 at 11:31 AM, Mcthew said:

    Dystopian Wars 2.0 doesn’t have a forum that I know of, and even if it did, I wouldn’t join, for the reasons above. The hobby is more fun without others forcing their views onto you. That’s not a hobby. And it isn’t even interesting, if you really think about it.

    Spartan Games had it's own forum and Warcradle should still have one, but I doesn't really follow it anymore. In our german communities gw-fanworld and tabletopwelt their are also still subforums for the game

     

    On 6/22/2021 at 11:31 AM, Mcthew said:

    I’ve said this a lot over the years, but my love of AoS is in the models, the lore, the mechanics of the game. The fun. And yet recently I’ve been embroiled in debates that have been interesting but actually pointless. 

    For example, having debates with LRL players about broken warscrolls and odd points increases across the board, has, in hindsight been a waste of my time. None of my friends have an LRL army. None of them are interested in building one. It’s doubtful I’ll ever play one, so I’m asking myself why debate it? Does it affect me that I think some units are broken? Actually, really, no. Does it bother me LRL might get nerfed or not nerfed in the future? Actually, again, I shouldn't care less, as it it’s not something I intend to invest in.

    Do I think our debates will impact GW decisions? Again, that’s a no (see previous comments!). So why do it?

    While this forum has been a great place to get advice, and the debates have been interesting, I’ve found there have been more negative experiences than positive. I don’t mean just from those complaining about their factions being nerfed, but also from those who complain about players who have been on the sharp end of the changes, but whose own factions are sitting pretty. In some respects, behaviours have been entirely selfish, and it’s not something I will indulge further.

    I am a beer/soda and pretzels player essentially. I don’t do tournaments. I don’t play at the local store (to be honest, I do very little at the local GW store, including buying stuff). I play within a friendship group. However, debates and arguments seem to be driven by those who do play competitively, and like to be loud enough to shout down those who do not. I’ve even been guilty of doing that sometimes. But it’s exhausting trying to be objective when so many players are not even attempting to.

    I know what you mean. I've got a little quiter here as well because of the discussions here (and using the german communities more at the moment). I'm more narrative focused so "meta" doesn't interest me that much.

    Threads like this show what I partly dislike:

    I have read around 55 of 65 pages until now. The thing is, I have the feeling people simply want to rip the new edition appart before it started without knowing the full picture (like everytime when some rule snippets are revealed) as a excample ("Unleash Hell", before knowing that each Command Ability can only be used once per phase.) And with the Sentinels you could start a drinking game. Some time I have the feeling that their is way to much focus on future releases, where little is known instead of what we have now.

  18. 55 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

    Is there that much difference between a unit's Save characteristic being improved by 1, and a unit getting +1 to save rolls? I would have thought that was functionally identical in all but the most niche edge cases.

    It is quite similar in most cases. (if your Save Characteristic changes from 5 to 4 and you check if you have Dice with a for on them or if your Diceroles will become a 5 after adding one and you check which dice have a value of 5 or more after modifiers.

    The only real difference is Save Characteristic 1+ because after you can't get less than 1 on modifiers a dice roll that wasn't a 1 in the first place will save even with a rend of -6 because at the end the comparion will be modified roll of 1 = Savecharacteristic of 1.

    If 3.0 will restrict the amount of buffs on to-Hit, to-Wound and Save, making the characteristic better will have more value, because buffs on the characteristic are most likely not restricted to a +/-1 and their is also the question if rend will be a modifier on the characteristic because of this (otherwise high rend wouldn't make much sense).

     

    The Strange thing with the Black Knights shield is, while they simply lost the buff (they had a 5+ save in the old book as well) the Blood Knights got better (they had the same rule 4+ Save and +1 against Rend "-" and now have Save 3+. The thing with removing the Shields is mostly, that units that got the shield removed often only have one set of Weapon options that includes the shield while those with a shield rule have loadouts with and without shields. It was simple a way to reduce the amount of abilites on the warscrolls.

     

  19. 3 minutes ago, mojojojo101 said:

    I'd assumed the opposite was true. If its not your turn, you move endless spells. Or maybe you just get to pick first, then you switch for any further predatory spells.

    The thing is, we still know next to nothing, except "move every Herophase"

    I would have liked the idea (in the case that start of the round would have stayed) that each player would have rolled a dice for their own endless spells if they have control, and on a roll of 1 the opponent would have control that rould.

    This would have fitted the random nature that you can lose control but not that you lose control of 50% of your spells or all if only one was played everytime.

    • Like 3
  20. On 5/29/2021 at 8:23 PM, stratigo said:

    I know people who like bretonians that are starting to get quite upset that every time they mention the army they liked people go "LULUL but they are ghoulkings. LULZ"

     

    On 5/29/2021 at 8:38 PM, Neverchosen said:

    Sorry I meant no offence 😕
    I love Bretonnians and truly want them back. I have listed on this site many times how I much I would want them to return. However, I do also really think it is a fascinating idea that the Flesh Eater Courts are linked to Bretonnians and are not a replacement for the army but kind of their dark reflection. They are their cursed kin and they could be enemies of a new Bretonnian order. I think a Bretonnian themed army fighting against the Flesh Eaters is like a dream come true for me... 

    I also really hoped it would come across as a joke as I think there are better parallels to Bretonnian's chivalry within the game in the SCE and Cities of Sigmar. Although a truly new take on Bretonnia would be much more welcome from me. 

    On 5/29/2021 at 8:54 PM, Saturmorn Carvilli said:

    There's always Chaos mortals too for Bretonian styled knights. I really feel with Chaos controlling so much of the Mortal Realms it would make sense that Chaos Lords would set up evil kingdoms with equally twisted nobles and knights that serve them.  I also think just so the kingdom can function some sort of rules of honor (that can be ignored when one won't be caught) might be established to prevent the kingdom from decending back into anarchy.

    Make more sense that Chaos mortals still acting like northern invaders like in WHFB all the time.

    Yeah, I would say that Chaos partly fits the Knighty Order Type as well (Order of the Fly, except that their are no Maggotkin Models with Horses only the regular Chaos Knights)

    I really would hope that GW wouldn't make an "One Trick Pony" Faction like the Bretonians were the other variant were peasant spam, that basicly had stats like zombies (maybe this is where Flesh-Eater Courts Knight Delution is coming from).

    It would make more sense to give Freeguild more room after the Knightly Orders in AoS Lore are Part of the Freeguilds, but their could be a specific Set of Allegiance Abilities for Knight Orders.

    22 hours ago, Mcthew said:

    Gotta admit the 8 things about the rules left me a bit cold (and annoyed again by presentation - no, GW these were not an amazing 8 things at all). The main things have been leaked already, the other stuff is hardly revolutionary. So nothing about better terrain  rules, no improve LoS for shooting, but we have a potential where you have a heavy monsters army; or no monsters/no 500 points+ heroes just lots of level 1 or 2 heroes with hordes.

    Sadly the 8 things haven't get that much information about the game.

    23 hours ago, Sarouan said:

    Endless Spells moving during each hero phase...meh. That's not their problem. The problem is that the opponent can move them even if you bought the spell for your army. So I'm waiting to see WHO can move them at each hero phase before getting hyped about this.

    Maybe it is "The active player moves them".

×
×
  • Create New...