ArkanautDadmiral

October 16, 2021

1 hour ago, RexHavoc said:

I've not read a AoS book since they cancelled the eight lamentations.

I've picked some of the others up since, but honestly just lost interest when the sequels were cancelled and they went with the cash grab Gotrek stories instead. I brought the gloomspite book, coven of Blood & lady of sorrows partly because they were cheap and partly in case I regretted not getting them later on. But had no inkling to even try them.

I get that they likely want AoS to be their 'big gods and even bigger models' game, where as the eight lamentations was more about regular mortals in the realms. This is probably so they can continue to push big god models against the more gritty old world stuff that will be incoming, but AoS was once unimaginable in size and had room to cater to the mortals and the gods. They massively shrunk the setting in the 2nd Ed retcon and to me, that took away what was unique about the setting that wasn't just 'old world heroes on steroids'.

I really hope that they bring things like Josh Reynolds back to writing for AoS in the future. I'll happily go back to buying AoS books again then.

I don’t feel the way you do about the gods thing, or the other stuff really. Incidentally I think Spear of Shadows featured One of the gods more than any of the other books I read, bar Hamilcar.

Only reason I’ve not been too bothered about AoS books recently is because they’ve all mostly been about factions I’m not bothered about, or anthologies which I don’t have interest in. That and I’ve been making my way through Eisenhorn and Ravenor. As soon as there’s another Cities, KO or Chaos centric book I’ll be straight on it.

October 16, 2021

I wasn’t a big fan of Dominion. I’m hard pressed to pick three…

Scourge of Fate, Spear of Shadows, Hamilcar Champion of the Gods… Overlords of The Iron Dragon, Gloomspite, City of Secrets.

There you go have 6 haha. I’m going to read Scourge of Fate again. I desperately wanted a Spear of Shadows sequel but Josh Reynolds departure rules that out

Oh I missed Plague Garden… and Dark Harvest haha.

AoS books haven’t really been piquing my fancy recently though.

October 11, 2021

Through my late teens I used to organise hardcore punk / metal gigs etc. When I started doing it, it was because no one else was putting much on, we live in one of those towns where people get to a certain age and ****** off to a city, and so no one had picked up from the generation before me.

Being DIY punk gigs, money never came into the equation, tickets were supposed to be dirt cheap or free, because punk. Bands would play just for petrol money, because punk etc.

Gradually I started to get asked by labels to put on bands from all over the world, bands people in the community loved. Arguably it was the best music scene out town had. We had people travelling from all over. It was great, but a those bigger bands from the USA etc aren’t only playing for petrol money anymore. All of a sudden I needed to make more money to pay them. But people weren’t happy with admission price increases, I started having to get tonnes of flyers printed to spread the word and get more people in. Hotel costs, food costs, better equipment hire. Bands started staying on my parents floor too after shows haha.

Eventually I had to pack it in because the financial risk to myself was ridiculous. But the bit that tipped me over the edge was that no one cared. They expected me to be doing it just out of love. If I made extra on a show, the thing to do was to share the money around the bands more, or extra to the venue or sound guy etc the idea of me ever taking anything away was unspeakable, I was just the promoter.

I found myself working bar jobs just to pay for putting shows on. So when you had people who were apparently part of the community and who love the music, complaining about a £6 ticket for a show with 5 bands 2 of which from abroad or flat out sneaking in etc without paying, it killed my love for it.

I packed it in, moved to a city and never put on a show again. I think I only even went to shows a handful of times after.

No one picked up after me in my town either, shows became more rare and it’d just be some local bands. Incidentally ticket prices went up loads anyway, even just for the local bands. I live in that town again and I’ve been asked countless times to put shows on again but I never will.

Anyway, my point is. If you have someone willing to put in the work and take the risk, to bring you something you love, don’t take it for granted unless you’re willing to put up yourself. You might end up with nothing.

Some people just expect others to do for them. Doing stuff like that out of love is great but it’s not sustainable.

October 10, 2021

9 hours ago, The Red King said:

To continue your analogy and tie it back to what I mean it would be like if we were having a conversation about the many MANY psychological tricks that casinos employ to get people to gamble away their money and when we say "it's bad that they do that" the response is "well people should be smarter with their money."

Yes. They should, but that's not the discussion. We're discussing the myriad of ways corporations go about trying to make sure they are less smart with their money. Your statement is true but it isn't really apropos to the complaint we're making. The fact that someone shouldn't go for the candy under a box with a stick and string attached to it doesn't in any way exonerate the person who set up the box and pulls the string.

I can agree with that , hence why I said personal responsibility doesn’t absolve a corporation of responsibility. but it’s not what you said. You said personal responsibility is just a buzz word. Just as personal responsibility doesn’t absolve the corporation of theirs, the corporation doesn’t absolve us of our own. Maybe I misunderstood but you seemed to imply that personal responsibility doesn’t exist and it’s a buzzword manufactured by corporations. That’s why I took exception.

Just because a casino has tactics to try and make you spend more than you have doesn’t mean that you’re not also to blame for making the wrong choices. Both can be true. Just because someone got burnt by a shady business tactic or a scam or whatever doesn’t mean they didn’t make a wrong choice. I agree the scam shouldn’t happen, but they do, so we must look out for ourselves. Especially if the end game is the knowledge that the scam/shady tactic happens and not action to make it stop. If your end game is knowledge then it falls to personal responsibility to make the better choice with it.

We’re going round in circles with this though, because as I’ve already said, you’re preaching to the converted. Only I obviously put more onus on personal choice and responsibility than you who seems to sit the majority of it at the corporations door. That’s cool if you feel that way. I disagree though.

Ultimately my hope is that all the big content creators cover much less GW, and much more of other systems and hopefully affect the imbalance in the market place.

We could boycott GW official events, rather than GW as a whole. Protest outside stores etc. Stop visiting GWs sites for information and get it from third parties instead. Easy things that don’t stop people from playing with their models, and these are just ideas off the top of my head. That’s what I’ve been dissatisfied with, I’m never presented with ideas like this by the most vocal against GWs actions in these discussions, so it ends up feeling to me (and this isn’t aimed at the person I’m quoting or anyone in particular so we’re clear) like people just want to spout anti capitalist platitudes to satisfy a fetish more than anything. It seems like it’s all talk, literally. I can respect the people who say 3D print everything in this regard, even if I don’t agree, because at least they’re presenting an idea.

I suppose that’s the end for me in these conversations now, because I’m aware of the shady practices… so I suppose I’ll just carry on as usual then.

October 9, 2021

8 minutes ago, The Red King said:

My counter argument is: Personal responsibility is a buzzword refrain used by corporations to make you feel like you're not doing your part to save the planet so you cant complain when the truth is that corporate entities account for far more pollution and environmental damage than we could ever hope to counter by using cloth napkins and to parrot that refrain in any context is playing into the kind of inter-class conflict that corporations love to foster so that we don't look up.

The truth is that the debate is pointless. It ultimately boils down to pro and anti corporate individuals which is outside the scope of the kind of conversation we can reasonably carry on here on TGA.

This is a catch22 whether you intended it or not. If I wasn't "happy to spend my money" the refrain would change to "well your opinion doesnt really matter because you're not even a player in the community anymore." Or "what are you doing on an AoS board if you don't play AoS?" Or at worst "bye you wont be missed." All sentiments that I have seen expressed here on this site before.

This is going to sound overly dramatic but I'm not sure how else to phrase it so please know I do not take the matter as seriously as this is going to sound.

I'm not you or anyone else's revolutionary leader. I'm not here to direct you in some uprising against corporate interests or GW and to set the bar for having an opinion at "you must immediately provide me with actionable commands or I won't take you serioisly" is a ridiculous goal post.

There is no world in which covering up shady business practices makes the world a better place. There just isn't, so I don't understand people who feel the need to come and defend a billion dollar corporation from our mean and terrible slander (not really because slander would have to be... well untrue.)

Caveat emptor, buyer beware, personal responsibility. If you (this stopped being directed at the person I'm quoting almost immediately just so we're clear) want to use any of those as an excuse for allowing anti consumer business practices than you must either encourage the dissemination of information to potential customers or admit that you're just using a buzz word to deflect criticism from a corporation that you feel compelled to defend despite them caring less than 2 cents about your life even if they knew you existed.

Everyone always has personal responsibility, it’s not a buzzword. That’s not to say a corporation doesn’t have any responsibility, but we’re never excused from being responsible for ourselves.

I’m personally responsible for everything I do, if I decide to gamble away all my money, that’s my responsibility. We have to be accountable for our own actions.

October 9, 2021

26 minutes ago, Orbei said:

I understand where you're coming from. My view is pretty much the same as The Red King's.

Personally, I don't believe an email to GW will accomplish anything. Nor will a personal boycott. The voice of a single consumer is of very little concern to most companies. It's generally when there is widespread outrage and bad press that positive action is taken to remedy things. The conversation helps though. Raising awareness and spreading a topic to others, so they can in turn be informed and broaden the conversation. Like a snowball, as the conversation grows it will be easier for others to find and perhaps reach the level where GW takes action. Perhaps not, but at least we will all be better informed from it.

Yeah, I get this. There are certainly some models that I know I want simply at a glance. Here's what I enjoy learning about from content creators. What do they think about the rules after a new army book is released? The pros and cons of a faction? How does it actually play on the table? What are the potential issues of new models? How do the models assemble, what bits are there to use? Ork boyz are a good example of this. You can't tell just by looking at the box, but the models are monopose and you only get 3 shootas, so to field a unit of 30 shootas you need to buy 90 Boyz. This would be pretty annoying to learn about after making the purchase, believing the kit can be assembled to field a unit option allowed by the codex.

Regardless, even if I didn't value any reviews I would still disapprove of an NDA that is unusually restrictive like this. Clearly some people value the content this effectively aims to muzzle, evidenced by the thousands of views they receive. And yes, I realize that creators who don't get the early release models by signing the NDA could still make such content. That does not validate the shady NDA aimed at reducing critical content, in my eyes.

The NDA is bad we’ve established that, that’s not my point. I’m happy to agree with you about all of that. My problem is that the conversation stops there, we acknowledge it’s bad and then continue to open our wallets and keep doing what we’ve always done. Nothing changes. And I don’t believe GW will see a need to change anything if the people complaining are still spending money, signing the NDAs etc. If everyone is behaving the way GA want why would they change anything?

We must surely have some responsibility ourselves as consumers.

Your Ork example is a good one, I would want to know that first. They do still make sprue images available though that would show that right? The information is available? I thought generally GW we’re ok about saying what the kit makes but I couldn’t find anything in this case except the sprue images.

Youd only need to buy 90 of that Boyz sculpt though right? Not the other boyz available? It sounds like a situation similar to the new Chaos warriors?

October 9, 2021

53 minutes ago, The Red King said:

@ArkanautDadmiral For me personally, knowledge is the end goal of the discussion. I'm not getting out of the hobby over this but being aware of predatory and anti consumer policies is important for me because it will help me make informed choices about whether or not to stay in the hobby and how I spend my money while I am in.

People can't say "consumers should just be smarter with their purchasing" while simultaneously saying "theres no need for us to discuss businesses shady practices". The former requires the latter.

See, I just can’t get behind knowledge being the end game. Where’s the line for you to make an action? I.e. not spending money on GW until they change?

If the person telling me GW is awful is still happy to spend their money with them, what are they hoping to accomplish by telling me how awful they are?

I’m just trying to drive a conversation here by the way because I’m genuinely interested and quite conflicted myself. I want to buy and play AoS but the GW issues are making me much less enthusiastic about doing so. I’ve not bought anything since dominion and have no plans to buy anything else at the moment. No plans to play any games at the moment either. I keep coming here mainly to see if anything in the rumour thread gets me excited but I generally keep coming away less interested.

October 9, 2021

He does hit on a point that’s bothered me time and again here.

What am I to do with the information that GW is shady?

I went from being on the fence during this drama to believing the NDA was real. Great, you guys convinced me… now what?

Now I’m aware that GW aren’t consumer friendly. What should I do? Is it enough that I’m just aware? What does that achieve? Surely there’s some sort of action to take? No one presents this though. It just seems like saying GW is bad is enough to excuse ourselves continuing to perpetuate the cycle.

In regards to content creators too. Can someone give me examples of those that do REVIEWS.

Almost all of the content creators I know of make 99% GW content. What does a review matter from them? Everything they talk about is from the same company. I could understand if they were reviewing competing products too but it just doesn’t seem that way.

Maybe I’m just the wrong target, I don’t think I’ve ever needed a review to inform my decision about a GW product. My thought process is, does that model look cool? Great, done.

I don’t play or collect miniatures from any other company either, but that’s mainly because I know nothing about any others, and the tidbits I’ve seen haven’t grabbed me. If these content creators covered other products more often, we might see interest and communities grow for them. But they don’t, they stick to GW, because either they prefer the GW games to everything else too, or they’re aware their bank balance is better for focusing on GW. At what point is it not ok for them to chase the money?

So I just couldn’t take a review from anyone who only reviews GW products seriously anyway, what’s the point?

Imagine a channel that only reviewed EA games.

Or a channel that only reviewed a certain brand of car, a certain brand of power tool. Why would you listen to them?

I understand why the NDA is bad because generally we’ve had a pretty good discussion here. But I think it’s worse for the creator than it is consumers like people are saying. If the content creator landscape was different I might feel otherwise.

If the action I’m expected to take is not buy GW products, then I’m out of the hobby. I’ve no interest in 3D printed stuff or third party proxies. Pretty sure my FLGS wouldn’t appreciate that my stance on GW means I’m not handing money over to those guys anymore too. And I’m not going to force myself into another system that doesn’t interest me.

Ive only had two answers to this question before, 1 was to 3D print etc, the other was to not say bad things to people who don’t like GW, which I didn’t even feel warrants a response because it goes both ways and doesn’t answer the question.

So please, I’ve opened my eyes, I realise GW employs shady tactics. What should I do now? Tell me how that knowledge can help me try to affect change.

September 28, 2021

7 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I think this is largely correct. Which is why the terms in that NDA seem so unnecessarily punitive. They shouldn't need to force people to agree to never do anything that could result in any GW customer anywhere in the world buying less GW product. They already have the stick of just terminating the agreement and not giving them advance copies in the future. Most of these overreaches in the NDA don't seem to even serve GW's interests. GW isn't going to sue someone who didn't do anything wrong, so why include a provision for indemnity without fault? GW doesn't need to get people to sign in blood that they don't do leave bad reviews, because people won't leave bad reviews anyway if they want to continue to get free GW product. GW doesn't need to get people to agree not to sell T-shirts to their fans without GW's advance permission, because why would GW actually care about that?

That's largely what made me question whether it was real in the first place. This is both an oppressively one-sided agreement...and one where the oppressive one-sidedness doesn't seem to even benefit GW much in practical application.

Is there a type of recipient you would expect that NDA to be more appropriate for?

Maybe they messed up and sent the wrong one? Or would that type of NDA just not be appropriate in any circumstance?

September 28, 2021

1 minute ago, yukishiro1 said:

They don't have to mark it as a paid advertisement or sponsored, but they do have to disclose that they got the product for free. The standard formula these days seems to be "thank you GW for sending us this free review copy!" which is a very roundabout way of disclosing that fact.

And even if they did, that's a bit different from disclosing you signed an NDA that prohibits you from saying or doing anything that leads to GW customers anywhere in the world buying less of any GW product.

I’m not referring to it in regards to disclosing you’ve signed an NDA.

More that you’re likely not going to receive a balanced review if the video is marked as paid promotion etc. And viewers can use that to make their choices.

Unfortunately I think just the risk of not getting free stuff anymore if you leave a less than favourable review is enough to deter most content creators from an unbiased review without having to throw an overzealous NDA in there too. Especially when it comes to Warhammer where the only thing most of them are covering is just GW products anyway.

September 28, 2021

36 minutes ago, Orbei said:

I can't wrap my head around why someone wouldn't care about this, if it's true (as it seems to be). This isn't just anti small business (content creators). It's anti-consumer, as this serves to turn objective reviewers into people who are unable to give an unbiased or critical opinion. Why would a customer of GW be okay with this?

Wouldn’t anyone receiving free early copies of product from GW need to mark their videos as paid advertisement or sponsored?

I know on IG the influencers we send our products to for free always stipulate as such on their posts, even though all they’re getting is free product.

September 28, 2021

5 minutes ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Because there is a very sizeable proportion of the fanbase who either legitimately could not care less because they know/will not ever stop buying GW products short of Nottingham being taken by a sinkhole, or are so fanatically devoted to The Product that they cannot possibly comprehend GW as doing anything wrong, whether that's some kind of sunk cost fallacy, earnest belief GW are their friend or have shares in the company and therefore feel 'responsible' for defending it.

What would you like those fans to do?

September 27, 2021

5 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Oh, for sure. It was their arguments for why it couldn't be real, not mine. I think we can all cite many examples of GW's sloppy drafting. You would like to think it didn't extend to their legal department, but it doesn't surprise me that it does.

Arch is a ****** and I wouldn't trust his take on anything, but the stuff he posted there is legit (as far as I know, anyway). If you want to see NQA admitting it's real and that she was wrong about it being fake, it's there at 11:32.

I don’t fancy giving him extra views and ad revenue by watching his stuff.

September 27, 2021

11 minutes ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

The only difference I can see is the one sent to NQA had the person's real name as they had signed the NDA. It still has the fact that the NDA is confidential information and therefore illegal to share in any form without prior GW written consent. Still has the odd definition of restricted customer that included anyone who was a client employee or in the habit of dealing with GW. It has the weird noncompete clauses from the original. Also the indemnity clause from the original as well.

If you want to find the screenshots of the doxing and other events I found a link to them on reddit which is also where I found people trying to get NQA Pateron removed (which is extremely terrible behavior and I whole heartedly condemn). It seems like from the screenshots I saw Goobertown Hobbies may have been pushing NQA buttons to the point she doxed the guy (still doesn't excuse what she did as doxing is a horrible thing).

On the point of assuming it's real. I say the next action to take depends on GW's action. If GW decides to go after the whistleblower I would say to help the whistleblower's legal defense through crowdfunding and let GW know that it is not okay to go after whistleblowers like that. If GW instead comes out and admits the NDA is real, but they are not going to try and enforce it and will change the NDA to be much better I would say to keep a close eye on GW and maybe even ask to see what this new NDA would look like just to make sure they aren't trying to pull a fast one of admitting they will change and then doing nothing to actually change the NDA.

I don’t get why the guy signed it if he he could tell it was sketchy enough to warrant sending to other youtubers?

It’d be great to hear his side of it, there’s been so many odd actions in all this.

If I received legal paperwork I thought was in bad practice, I definitely wouldn’t sign it. Maybe he just wanted Miscast to give it a once over and didn’t expect him at all to make it public?

The whole thing is so messy for me but I’m convinced it’s likely real.

I can’t see GW coming out and making a statement about it, unfortunately. So now it’s a waiting game to see what happens to the guy I suppose.

September 27, 2021

7 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

this video covers it without spreading the name of the leaker

Isn’t this ArchWarhammer? As in the hard right guy who’s said a bunch of racist and derogatory stuff? If so I don’t care about his opinion on it.

September 27, 2021

13 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

The original one was edited to removed his personal information so it wouldn't be clear who was leaking it. The version he sent to NQA was the unedited version, to prove he had really been sent it.

There are screenshots floating around of her twitter from before it was banned where she doxes him and then responds to someone saying "does this mean it's real?" by saying "this one [the unedited one] is." I'm not going to post them because I don't want to spread the info around further than it already has been.

It is odd, but then doxxing someone like that is an odd, irrational thing to do. People behaving irrationally often behave, well, irrationally.

No of course, not asking you to post them was just trying to get context of her actual posts.

If the only thing edited out was his personal information I don’t understand how that changes anything for her? How can one be fake just because it doesn’t have the guys name on it?

Irrational is definitely the keyword there, I don’t understand her thought process at all.

September 27, 2021

2 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

The tl;dr is that NQA was originally one of the "this has to be fake! there's no way this is real!" people. Then the guy who actually got asked to sign the NDA sent the unedited version to her to prove it was real, at which point she (1) admitted it was real and (2) doxxed the guy at the same time.

The fact that she now seems to think it's real doesn't necessarily mean it is - it still could be some elaborate hoax I guess - but at least to me, it substantially raises the chance of it being real that one of the doubters has changed her position because she got actual proof with an actual name attached.

How was the original one that miscast and GTH posted edited though I guess is my question? What was different about that to the version the guy sent to NQA?

Is there any screenshots of her posts for context? I don’t understand why she would admit it’s real and maliciously dox the guy at the same time? If she had an agenda why not just stop talking or keep up the claim it’s fake? Seems like a really odd set of actions from her.

I’ve no reason not to believe the guy who got doxxed actually received it. I’d hope some other people came forward in support of him and the YouTube community banded together with them.

Let’s say it is real though and a lot of people’s assumptions are proven true. What next? What does everyone do with that information?

September 27, 2021

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

At this point, if it is somehow some elaborate fake, GW really needs to come out with a statement that it is fake. Anything short of that and people are reasonably going to look at the situation - particularly NQA flip-flopping from claiming it's fake to admitting it's real after getting an unedited version - and conclude that yeah, on balance, it looks like it's real.

I’ve missed a bunch of what’s gone on, can you explain the NQA flip-flopping and unedited version stuff?

I know she doxxed the guy which was really disappointing.

September 24, 2021

1 hour ago, The Red King said:

If its real then it's bad and predatory. If its fake then we still learned that GW has recently acted at least bad enough that it's plausible AND that many customers would defend their actions.

This is an incredibly biased line of thinking. If it’s fake GW aren’t in the wrong, the person who faked it is.

This is my biggest issue with these discussions, I’d how much people try to pass accountability for other people’s actions into GW.

If you expect GW to be responsible for their actions then you should expect other people to be for their own also.

September 24, 2021

2 hours ago, HollowHills said:

I don't see why it would be fake. Like, who is going to mock up a false NDA with obscure legal language that most of us casual random don't understand just to make Games Workshop look bad to a handful of people online.

Plus it seems to match their wider tactics of cracking down on fan videos and 3rd party content.

Trolls do things like this all the time, social media is crammed with misinformation. Considering the way opposing Warhammer subreddits are constantly fighting each other it wouldn’t surprise me in the least someone would make a fake document damning GW because it’s almost theatre at the moment.

You’ve a much higher opinion of people than I do to think some lowlife wouldn’t fake something like this though and I commend you for that.

I’m still about 60/40 on it, I just find it surprising no one has come out and said they’ve received it yet.

It’s all yet more division in the community though which is disappointing.

There’s no positive outcome to this whether it’s real or fake.

September 24, 2021

Looks like it’s originated from a channel called miscast or something but even he himself is saying it’s been being sent to other YouTube channels, not even himself. So far no ones claimed to have received this particular one and the narrative is it’s a new type being sent to small channels in the hope of keeping them on a leash if they get bigger?

Some have obviously felt strongly enough to send the NDA to miscast but not strongly enough to identify themselves, which would suggest to me they’ve signed it despite having issues with it? Are you not allowed to say you’ve received an NDA even if you’ve not signed it?

September 24, 2021

Looked at the link, I get the impression Goobertown hasn’t received any documents like this from GW, but he’s definitely someone who receives advance copies of products, he made a video complaining about not getting them early enough recently.

Would it not be strange that he’s not receiving these documents from GW himself? I can’t think of any influencers who HAVEN’T been negative recently either.

Any information about the original sources? Does he say where the multiple places he’s found it posted are?

The company I work for send stuff out to influencers and while we don’t have any kind of NDA, we expect positive coverage, if not we just wouldn’t send to them again. Which is probably all the pressure these channels reliant on GWs existence to make all their content need to be positive. At least 8 of GTH videos feature GW products. Surely we’d be expecting him to receive the NDAs directly from GW?

Threatening any sort of legal action over negative reviews sucks, but I just don’t see the need for GW to even bother with the NDA when the risk of not receiving free advance copies is probably enough.

It wasn’t long ago the criticism was that GW were going to shut down everyone’s channels, including tome reviews, but creators still got advance copies of SCE and OWC. Now it’s that they’re threatening legal action if you don’t say nice stuff about the free things they send you.

Itd be great to see the original sources of the document before jumping to conclusions.

If it’s real hopefully creators don’t sign it and either pay for the copies they review, or make more content about non GW product instead 🤷‍♂️. The power is with the creator ultimately, they don’t have to sign anything, they can take their ‘free advertising’ somewhere else.

September 12, 2021

51 minutes ago, JanGret said:

You do know, that you get the main allegiance ability for each of the three warclans though in Big Waaagh!? You just don't get the subfaction stuff. So basicly you will have to decide: Do I take Gutrippaz in my Kruleboyz army and am able to pick Big Yellers (or another subfaction) or do I replace them with an IJ battleline that will survive better but give up the subfaction. And I think that is quite an interesting choice to make...

I didn’t realise that, no! There’s hope yet!

September 12, 2021

1 minute ago, Acrozatarim said:

No, sadly you need to go Big Waaagh to mix the clan units.

No spending money on KB for me then haha, I was so pumped on the idea of running Brutes alongside them but I don’t want to run Big Waagh just to use another unit in the same book

More to spend on a different project then. Thanks for the clarifications guys.

September 12, 2021

13 minutes ago, JanGret said:

Orkmann is right. I found it in the GMG video (https://youtu.be/ewYJ1eHP6yg?t=302)

On "Da Green Tide" (page 80) it clearly states:

"If you choose a Kruleboyz army, all Orruk Warclans units in the army have have the Kruleboyz keyword"

Same for Ironjawz and Bonesplitters. Only Big Waaagh! allows using of all three warclans.

That sucks unfortunately, puts me off doing a Warclans army at all. Could they not even be taken as allies?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Store

Downloads

Blogs

Events

Posts posted by ArkanautDadmiral