Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23 31 32 33
Results 641 to 660 of 660

Thread: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

  1. #641

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    People are already in camps, and critical thinking can't be done properly from a single perspective.
    Well said. I say have patience, wait and see what comes of 9th, keep your models, play 8th if you don't like what you see and keep this thread to rumours (not speculation and opinion).
    <

  2. #642
    Librarian Tarrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    337

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Honestly I'm looking forward to the 9th, I don't collect as much as i use to, models + life got more expensive.
    While sad my elves got bunched, I was happy undead got bunched too.
    I look forward to seeing a new Empire theme, as the old one seemed very confused (both dark age, Renaissance Italy and golden age all rolled into one).
    Something I hate about current WF, is that more new players are focused less on theme and story, Making a unique army, instead collect on tactics, how to get the best advantage. When I started my high elf and chaos warrior army I collected and styled around a story/ theme I designed. I didn't care about advantage of big troupe formations upgrades and monsters, rather how they came to be. My cousin collects a Empire army, half is made up of state troops, the other are Mordhiem war-bands formed into mob units, banding together to fight off a bigger threat (My vampire counts).
    I'm not saying everyone does this, but I have seen an increase in people collecting this way even I when thinking about collecting more DE found myself focused on what would preform tactically better rather than what I wanted.
    I really welcome a shake up, and if games go back to less troops but more variety and story, then I'm in.
    Last edited by Tarrell; 27-02-2015 at 02:07.
    Evil is a point of view. God kills indiscriminately and so shall we. For no creatures under God are as we are, none so like him as ourselves.
    <

  3. #643
    Commander Stegadeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Copper Desert, Lustria
    Posts
    531

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Shudson66 View Post
    While making some good points. Saying you are not going to have a internet present because people complaint, is a pretty lame excuse. Just because something is difficult and not always pleasant does not mean you don't do it. Sometimes doing things that are hard like listening to whining people is just part of the job. I don't like to tell people at work that they are no longer needed but I still do it.

    And to say people don't complaint about the other games is just plan wrong.
    Very much so. It also shows how far some people will go to defend even the worst policies of Games Workshop. People made fun of their model? Oh teh noes! I bet Dreadknights still sold like hotcakes. If they closed their social media because they wanted universal acceptance, it's the worst excuse ever. If they wanted a better reception, perhaps they could have, Oh, I don't know, held a contest. Post up 3 sculpts in green, or 3 CAD designs (CAD bothers me not one iota so long as the models look cool) and let people vote. Randomly select ten people who voted for the winner to receive the model for free. Hey presto, you involve the community in the choice, you generate interest hopefully driving sales because now people feel as if they had a part in the choice, and you make nice for the community with a reward.

    Stuff like that would go a long way. It's so simple. There was so much over simplification, strawmanning and white knighting in that post. Anyway, rumors. Let's discuss those. Personally I look forward to seeing what shakes out for 9th as I have no personal investment in it, if that makes sense at all. My Lizardmen are finding a new home. At this point the thing I am most curious about is the new aesthetic that's been rumored. I always felt WHFB was sort of cartoonish and I'll be interested to see if they take it in a more mature direction rather than just cartoony + grimdark = new aesthetic.
    "the one thing I can't quite get past is that the wrathmongers, there's just a part of them that reminds me of a sunburned farmer in metal overalls going out to thresh some wheat on a PCP rage." rotbeard

    My YouTube Channel
    <

  4. #644
    Chapter Master Malagor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    In the dark woods
    Posts
    2,702

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Icarus81 View Post
    We had good FAQ support until they decided to do the End Times.
    Actually no, FAQ support for fantasy was terrible before the end times as well.
    There are several issues in the armybooks that has never been cleared up like PF in lizardmen, a special character giving bonuses to the unit he joins and yet he is not allowed to join units, dwarfs have an item that no one is allowed to take, how does drain magic work on spells like Wither ? and many more.
    <

  5. #645

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rake View Post
    Uh? What?
    Games Workshop fault is loyalty to its fanbase? The same fanbase you yourself agree they ignore? The fanbase that has been clamoring for a change in rules and a progression in fluff for the last 10 years? They sold us out for the pre teen market in the clearest fashion imaginable, turning our game into herohammer and monstermash and ubaspellz and you call that LOYALTY?! They're about to screw us by making their 1/2 their collection useless and you somehow equate this with loyalty?
    Sorry mate. GW's biggest problem is not loyalty. It's complacency. "Well the internet says bad things about us so we are going to ignore it" has nothing to do with an unfair victimization of GW. It is another sign of their REAL problem: the crippling complacency that came with being a market leader for all these years.
    What do you think is more likely? Hundreds of random internet gamers focus their attentions on GW en masse by chance? Or hundreds of people REALLY have an issue with the company. And these issues, perhaps not tremendously greater than those afflicting all other miniature manufacturers, are compounded by the ABSOLUTE disregard for the needs of their older gaming community and obnoxious pricing policy?
    That being said:
    How accurate and believable are the sources regarding the obsolescence of older models? Do they come from regular peoples we trust or from the 'webz'? Cause I'm hearing it a lot and im wondering if it is because its a real rumor or if its just echoes...
    Everything, on the web is just echoes. These echoes become rooted as fact when they're nothing more than conjecture. GW has said nothing about any form of models becoming obsolete. Though my precious gob-lobber did suffer the fate a long time ago. So it is possible. I just wouldn't take any of it to heart until the day comes.

    To the rest of it:

    Young males has always been GW's target audience. Most find their way into the GW community during their early teens to twenties. They have always targeted younger audiences with their games. I got into GW when I was 9.

    It is easy to say GW has been complacent, but the evidence is just not there to support it. They are not complacent when they change their rules, changed the setting with Storms of Magic, increasing the effectiveness of magic, monsters, and heroes. They are definitely not with 9th addition. Just as they are not being complacent when they introduced flyers, unbound, Knights, fortifications, super heavies, and a vast number of new units and models to the world of 40k. Most of these "non-complacent" actions have been rejected by an internet community who would have preferred GW never introduce them into the universes and games of Warhammer. Yet when some upstart on kickstarter with giant models and little men on foot we praise them. When PP or FFG add new models and units to their universes we are excited by the new hotness instead of trash talking them for doing it just for the money. Even though, every new product ever released by any company in the history of mankind was for money.

    It is true that as these games progress some units change in terms of their effectiveness. But that has always been the case with GW. It's the case with every game system on the planet. One slight rule addition or change can drastically alter "preferred builds" or introduce new options that are better, for what we want to achieve, than an older, preferred options. But what makes a list or a unit valid is how we choose to play the game.

    If a player wants to play these games in tournaments or a tournament style of play (bring and play) then they are entering a social contract with the other players, not GW, about how they plan to play the game. It is this social contract, not GW, that demands a certain way of creating our armies. In order to compete, a player must be up to date with the strongest, most powerful armies, builds, and combinations to have a chance to win the game. So a player may have a strong army one year, then the next have to buy an entirely different army to stay competitive. But GW is not responsible for this situation. It is the social contract a player accepts when they sign up for that tournament or show up at the shop with their pre-written list. It is up to those tournament organizers to make the social contract of the games being played at their event balanced, not GWs. Just as it is up to two players playing on their living room floor to make sure the game is balanced and fun for everyone.

    GW games have always been designed this way. It empowers us, the players, to choose how we play the game (number of points, board layout, model selection) and what sorts of games we want to play with their models in their universes (the narrative). This system of empowerment creates the illusion of an imbalanced game when it’s not. So that's why, in 40k, if I play an unbound army of all Imperial Guard troops facing off against an unbound army of Baneblades, though the points may match, the Imperial guard have no hope in winning. The reason these lists don't work as a game is not the fault of the points or GW's game design, but the two players who decided to fight baneblades against Imperial Guard troops. So an invalid list only occurs when the social contract of the game about to be played makes those lists invalid. There is no one else to blame for this line of thinking than ourselves.

    Just as we might assume Kirby and pals are taking baths in our hard-earned money right at this very second, laughing about how much they don’t care about us. They just want our money. How else would they fill their hot tub? Well GW has never said they don’t care about us. Never once. In fact they have done everything in the world to prove to us that they do actually care about us as much as they can.

    We are the ones said it. We believe it is true. We attack GW. We return their enthusiasm as marketing gimicks and tricks to get us to spend more money. We see every change they make as a way to make even money. We see their rules updates as bail outs for a dying business rather than look at it as something fun and exciting to get behind and get other people to join in with our excitement. We think this, because someone on the internet says that’s why they're doing it and it has been driven into our heads. We listen to them and we bandwagon against GW.

    This is exactly how lynch mobs form. A bunch of people think they are right so they find the offender and hang them from a tree. It doesn't matter if they were right. They believe they are right and that is all they need. They may have even very logically gone to courts or town meetings to debate it before they do it. There was always "logic" behind it. It's how thousands of Protestants died. It's how some very wonderful things in our history and culture have been destroyed. So yes, I agree. Some people are really angry. They are really angry because they think GW has done something terrible to them. But that anger doesn't come from GW. It is just a company that prints little plastic miniatures we use in their games (the games we love). A company excited to bring their worlds, their imaginations, and their creativity to us. That's all they do. And yes they make money doing it. Lots of it. So does every other gaming company. So does the guy who put the coke in the bottle for us at the factory that we enjoy. But we're not lynching them for making a huge profit off their products.

    So have they listened to us? Well, they have listened. We as a community said we wanted less models to play warhammer because it's too expensive as an introductory game. We've said we wanted the setting to advance, and not like last time, we want this advance to really stick. We want better, newer models. We want faster updates and all of our armies updated. We wanted it all and criticized them time and time again for not giving it to us.

    So they are now giving us everyting we have asked for except lowering the prices of individual boxes. They have listened. Less model count for introductory games, advancing the narrative with a no-take back attitude, newer, bigger, better models, and a way to keep all of their armies updated by condensing them into a few factions. Sure, you could play all elves. Or you can play elves and men. Whatever, it’s our game at that point to do with as we please. Everything a player could possibly do with warhammer we can now do it if these rumors are true. They have given us everything this community has asked for, but we still hate them for it. Because obviously, the only reason they'd ever give us everything we were asking for is just for the money. Not because they care about what their fans want.

    I mean, do they have to shove this cookie in our mouths before we realize it's a cookie and not a ****?
    <

  6. #646
    Chapter Master infamousme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    @malagor
    I'm curious as to what this non usable dwarf item is.
    <

  7. #647
    Chapter Master Avian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Under a magical gloom
    Posts
    15,877

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by commoner33 View Post
    So they are now giving us everyting we have asked for except lowering the prices of individual boxes.
    Regularly updated FAQs?
    Updated models for all the 10+ year old Core units?
    Similar levels of attention for all armies (including some non-Empire terrain)?
    Game rules that scale better downwards (especially magic)?
    Communication from the company as to what their releases in the near future are?
    Return of hobby content to the website?
    A quality magazine that isn't mainly ads?

    Some people also miss Games Day...
    As a long-time Goblin player, I can reliably inform you that failure is ALWAYS an option.

    Painting Log - Circle Orboros - Warpwolves FTW!
    Terrain Log - Circle Orboros themed terrain for Hordes
    <

  8. #648

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    I agree with Tarell. I am looking forward to the possibility of a game that does NOT rely on hoards of infantry to win games. I would absolutely prefer a game where you could build the army you wanted, based around a certain aesthetic/theme and still be able to be a worthy opponent, hell maybe even win a game or two.

    If this is where 9th is headed, I for one will be a happy camper. Regardless, WHFB is currently a good game to play, and has been for as long as I have played it. I will continue playing it (in whatever edition I prefer) with people who enjoy the game and the hobby.
    <

  9. #649

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    @ Avian

    My list was in regards to what I said we wanted from the specifically in my post.
    I agree with you. They could do better. They could always do better. So could every other company. But I hear you.

    They do update their FAQ's. Maybe just not as fast as we'd like them.

    GW has always taken forever to update models. I have no idea how they decide to do it. I hope condensing things will make this a non-issue in the future. But ya' know, it might be
    like wishing to see a unicorn or something like that.

    I think their army problem is due to having too many. I think it might be why they are downsizing things. Just too much bloat, things that don't sell, too many armies to support. I
    mean they get to what 3 armies a year. If they had only 4 they can get to them done in a year. But nobody really wants that do they?

    Magic/psychic powers are GW's greatest weakness. I've never liked them in any incarnation of their games. Just terrible and super game-breaking...or not. I imagine this will be revamped in 9th as well since it is supposed to scale from skirmish to armies.

    I think they should just cut white dwarf and visions. Go over to daily or weekly content, with hobby articles. I doubt they will ever tell you to scratch build anything though. But my main point, who reads magazines anymore? .

    But really, these are minor compared to the bigger issues I've covered, in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stegadeth View Post
    Very much so. It also shows how far some people will go to defend even the worst policies of Games Workshop. People made fun of their model? Oh teh noes! I bet Dreadknights still sold like hotcakes. If they closed their social media because they wanted universal acceptance, it's the worst excuse ever. If they wanted a better reception, perhaps they could have, Oh, I don't know, held a contest. Post up 3 sculpts in green, or 3 CAD designs (CAD bothers me not one iota so long as the models look cool) and let people vote. Randomly select ten people who voted for the winner to receive the model for free. Hey presto, you involve the community in the choice, you generate interest hopefully driving sales because now people feel as if they had a part in the choice, and you make nice for the community with a reward.

    Stuff like that would go a long way. It's so simple. There was so much over simplification, strawmanning and white knighting in that post. Anyway, rumors. Let's discuss those. Personally I look forward to seeing what shakes out for 9th as I have no personal investment in it, if that makes sense at all. My Lizardmen are finding a new home. At this point the thing I am most curious about is the new aesthetic that's been rumored. I always felt WHFB was sort of cartoonish and I'll be interested to see if they take it in a more mature direction rather than just cartoony + grimdark = new aesthetic.
    Hey Stegadeth! I do hope your lizardmen find a good home.

    I knew I would catch flack for merely posting. I know everything I said goes against the consensus viewpoint of most of the internet chatter about GW and their "failures," w I also knew some people would attack me for being a GW lover. I knew all of this and I posted anyway. I knew also, by trying to challenge the consensus, I would be seen as being divisive. It's the way of the net, where a person challenging the consensus with logic and reason, who disagrees with a majority of opinions, even if all those other opinions are only breeding hostility, tension, and fear, becomes the troll. The one who is trampling over other people's rights to their opinion. The enemy of the post.

    But I didn't see really any of the things I am being accused of doing in my post. Did I miss something?

    Strawmanning? Just because I don't agree with the consensus opinion does not mean I'm straw manning. I am well aware of the original arguments in my post, point them out, then explain, in detail, how I disagree with them.

    White Knighting? I never really praised GW. I said there are a lot of things they are being accused of doing which is simply not true - to my knowledge or any one else for that matter - because GW has never said this is what we are doing and what we are achieving. We actually don't know anything. I never said GW were saints. I only said there are many things we think about them that do not come from GW. They come from us.

    I also explained why they might not have an internet policy. I simply said they had one, we were jerks to them on more than one occassion, then they quit having them. So I conjectured. They should have an internet policy. I like your idea. Its the way of the future, really. And they did, a long time ago, have a conversion contest for a Tyranid hunter squad. They also ran a worldwide campaign to change their setting and had lots of people submitting fake data to force outcomes. And we do live in an era where people will vote for the worst contestant on shows just to see them win? And with so many people hating GW, would this really work out well for them? Don't know. Still, it's a great idea.

    Also, it's pretty crazy how some people will assume that all I have to say are good things about GW. I have tons of things I think about GW. I think they should lower the cost on their boxes. I also think the rest of the gaming community and many other companies should lower their prices. I think GW has made some bad calls, including holding onto armies that don't sell well. I would have personally never have created the lizardmen because I didn't like the aesthetic in Warhammer and a race halfway across the world from everyone else would be really hard to work into games. I think they've created too many armies which has limited the effectiveness of each individual army that already existed. In my opinion, the Tau should have never been made. Instead, the entire codex should have been split to the Imperial Guard and Eldar. I can say all sorts of opinions about how I think GW did something wrong. But I don't play Tau or Lizardmen. I am sure a Tau player or Lizardmen player would strongly disagree with me. But I wouldn't call him a strawmanning, white knighting, hopeless defender of GW, blind to their every mistake.

    But am I really dividing the community into camps? I don't see why. I am trying to actually dissuade people from hating GW to bring us back on board to talking about these games we love with a positive light on the hobby rather than being resentful of its very existence. So I guess, if I am pulling people away from the hate-GW and 9th addition camp, then maybe I am being divisive. I am dividing us into two camps. But isn't it better for Warhammer, 9th addition, and a board largely dedicated to GW and its various games if a Warhammer love camp does exist?

    Or is that not the purpose of Warseer anymore? Is its only function to hate GW, its most recent releases, and its pricing?

    And if you talk out against that, you're a straw manning, white-knighting, blind, delusional man who loves his models a little too much?

    I am glad to hear you're excited about the rumors now though. I hope you do end up really liking the new addition. Honestly. I really do. I can't wait to see what comes out either!
    <

  10. #650
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    On campaign in Maryland
    Posts
    9,970

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    This is exactly how lynch mobs form. A bunch of people think they are right so they find the offender and hang them from a tree.
    Actually, no. It starts with someone talking in a collective 'we' and taking a lead as a voice of a silent majority that doesn't actually exist. Once you assume authority, you can stampede people not paying attention in any direction you like.

    All those 'we' and 'us' you're casually tossing around don't actually exist. Different people want different things, and different combinations of things.
    If you want to argue for your personal opinions, feel free. But don't try to pass them off and attempt to legitimize them as somehow the will of a (non-existant) collective. That's fairly offensive rhetorical chicanery.

    So they are now giving us everyting we have asked for except lowering the prices of individual boxes.
    I believe Avian illustrates this fairly well with his examples, but I still have to say; as someone who actually likes the ideas in principle* with a real remake of fantasy, the elimination of the redundant races and just disposing of the worthless armies, I think this statement is a load of nonsense. It isn't even vaguely what most people asked for. Most wanted some magic fix-it button that brought warhammer back to popularity without any sacrifices or personal cost. It wasn't going to happen, but it should be no surprise at all that a last ditch radical approach isn't going to go over well.

    *we'll see how it turns out in practice.
    Last edited by Voss; 27-02-2015 at 05:57.
    ----------------------------------
    And lo, the Return!
    <

  11. #651
    Commander Stegadeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Copper Desert, Lustria
    Posts
    531

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by commoner33 View Post
    Everything, on the web is just echoes.
    I suppose one could think so. It doesn't make it true, however. Unless your using echoes differently than I assume you are.

    These echoes become rooted as fact when they're nothing more than conjecture.
    Once upon a time someone made a conjecture about 8th edition. Just because something is conjecture does not mean it is not rooted in fact.

    GW has said nothing about any form of models becoming obsolete.
    Well of course not. They don't say anything. That's one of their biggest problems. That said, multiple sources who have been very reliable in the past at knowing what was coming, by whatever means they use, have said that we can expect that to happen. No need to hide our head in the sand and pretend it wasn't said.

    Though my precious gob-lobber did suffer the fate a long time ago. So it is possible. I just wouldn't take any of it to heart until the day comes.
    I wonder if anyone made a rumor about that? If so it would prove my points rather well. And since it has happened once it will certainly happen again. I stayed with Warhammer when my Skinks had their short bows taken away and were given blowpipes. I didn't complain about that change at all, in fact, even though it rendered a lot of my old models obsolete.

    It is easy to say GW has been complacent, but the evidence is just not there to support it.
    Yes and no. Making proud statements that one's company doesn't do market research, advertise, or completely abandoning social media seem sort of complacent from where I am sitting.

    They are not complacent when they change their rules,
    We'll have to agree to disagree. See, changing the rules for the sake of changing the rules, or generating revenue is a form of complacency. Not in the sense that they'll put in a little work and make a lot of money, but in the sense that it is lazier than improving the product that is already out there and working to perfect it. It's a lazy way to make money. They could focus on getting a ruleset so tight that there are no holes in it. Then they could focus on other systems, subsystems, genres, licenses, spin-offs, etc. But, that, is truly hard work.

    changed the setting with Storms of Magic, increasing the effectiveness of magic, monsters, and heroes. They are definitely not with 9th addition.
    See above

    Just as they are not being complacent when they introduced flyers, unbound, Knights, fortifications, super heavies, and a vast number of new units and models to the world of 40k.
    Ah, White Knight, regale us with more tales of how Games Workshop has saved the gaming world!

    Most of these "non-complacent" actions have been rejected by an internet community who would have preferred GW never introduce them into the universes and games of Warhammer.
    Really? Then why are we still playing the game? We are using the internet right now, are we not? Everyone on this board, right? And presumably the majority of us on a site that is predominantly about Warhammer would be players? Showing that we haven't rejected these ideas nor does it show a preference for us not wanting these changes. This statement is a logical fallacy.

    Yet when some upstart on kickstarter with giant models and little men on foot we praise them.
    We do? You sure seem to know a lot about the habits of everyone in this community. Or your simply assuming. What was that? Occam's what?

    When PP or FFG add new models and units to their universes we are excited by the new hotness instead of trash talking them for doing it just for the money.
    You seem to have missed some discussions about elites in Warmahordes. Again, you're either assuming or are being disingenuous. Either way...

    Even though, every new product ever released by any company in the history of mankind was for money.
    I imagine quite a few not for profits and non profits would take exception to that statement.

    It is true that as these games progress some units change in terms of their effectiveness.
    Refreshing! We're dealing in reality here. The real question is why do they change? Why did skinks get blowpipes? It was a thematic shift to be certain. Of course, has to be it. I bet Aztecs didn't use the bow and arrow. Wait a second...

    But that has always been the case with GW.
    And so we should simply accept it and not somehow voice our displeasure? Sorry. Not going to happen.

    It's the case with every game system on the planet.
    Depending upon how you define game system, I disagree. While classic board games like Monopoly might release different editions, the plain old classic is still available. Companies still make chess boards, right?

    One slight rule addition or change can drastically alter "preferred builds" or introduce new options that are better, for what we want to achieve, than an older, preferred options. But what makes a list or a unit valid is how we choose to play the game.
    Unless of course Games Workshop stops producing models and content for your army so it forever languishes behind updated ones.

    If a player wants to play these games in tournaments or a tournament style of play (bring and play) then they are entering a social contract with the other players, not GW, about how they plan to play the game. It is this social contract, not GW, that demands a certain way of creating our armies.
    Well, yes, if you completely ignore the fact that GW writes the rules.

    In order to compete, a player must be up to date with the strongest, most powerful armies, builds, and combinations to have a chance to win the game. So a player may have a strong army one year, then the next have to buy an entirely different army to stay competitive.
    Right. Because GW changed the meta with a new rule/unit.

    But GW is not responsible for this situation.
    Say what now? There is both more herp and more derp in that one statement that you've pretty much made pointing out the gaping holes in the rest of your logic irrelevant. So, I'll save us all some time and bid you adieu.
    "the one thing I can't quite get past is that the wrathmongers, there's just a part of them that reminds me of a sunburned farmer in metal overalls going out to thresh some wheat on a PCP rage." rotbeard

    My YouTube Channel
    <

  12. #652
    Commander Stegadeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Copper Desert, Lustria
    Posts
    531

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by commoner33 View Post
    Hey Stegadeth! I do hope your lizardmen find a good home.
    Me too. An interdimensional bubble is a lazy and rather pathetic idea.

    I knew I would catch flack for merely posting.
    Uh, nope. I don't care if you post or not. I don't know you. I don't value what you have to say other than for a giggle.

    I know everything I said goes against the consensus viewpoint of most of the internet chatter about GW and their "failures,"
    It's quite telling that you put failures in quotes.

    w I also knew some people would attack me for being a GW lover.
    You're not being attacked. You're opinion is being debated. Huge difference.

    I knew all of this and I posted anyway. I knew also, by trying to challenge the consensus, I would be seen as being divisive.
    Not really. There's always folks who see things differently. They are, in fact, usually a silent majority.

    It's the way of the net, where a person challenging the consensus with logic and reason,
    Now that is debateable. Unless of course you are referring to logical fallacies and redefined reason while the rest of us weren't looking.

    who disagrees with a majority of opinions, even if all those other opinions are only breeding hostility, tension, and fear, becomes the troll.
    Why do you even care what it breeds? See? This is what I mean by white knight. And, I don't think you're a troll. Far from it. I honestly think you are associated with Games Workshop in some way. You've a new account, show up in threads where you know Games Workshop is likely to be talked about negatively, and continue to spout nonsensical defenses for a corporate entity that chooses not to say anything at all.

    The one who is trampling over other people's rights to their opinion. The enemy of the post.
    You have a mighty inflated sense of self-importance in regards to this thread, my friend. You can hardly do anything to anyone's rights behind that monitor and keyboard on Warseer. Your enemies are rational thinking, reality and logic.

    But I didn't see really any of the things I am being accused of doing in my post. Did I miss something?
    Only what you closed your eyes to. I made it a little more clear in these last two posts, didn't I? You're welcome.

    Strawmanning?
    Yes, look up straw man. Better yet, Here you go!

    Just because I don't agree with the consensus opinion does not mean I'm straw manning.
    Of course it doesn't. It's the blatant disregard for fact and ignoring GW's part in nearly all of this debate. As a for instance in the post I quoted so much of before, saying it was players' social contract to blame for the way the game is played and not GW's rules and rules changes. Big. Fat. Straw. Man.

    I am well aware of the original arguments in my post, point them out, then explain, in detail, how I disagree with them.
    I believe these last two posts where I have taken your arguments point by point will satisfy you. Again, you're welcome.

    White Knighting? I never really praised GW.
    Ha! Your gushing defense of them places you on that white steed in your shining armor, sir.

    I said there are a lot of things they are being accused of doing which is simply not true - to my knowledge or any one else for that matter - because GW has never said this is what we are doing and what we are achieving.
    So the credibility of multiple, reliable sources for rumors be damned? That would also require quite the suspension of disbelief because we know what Games Workshop has done before.

    We actually don't know anything.
    I actually think we know more than we think we do.

    I never said GW were saints. I only said there are many things we think about them that do not come from GW. They come from us.
    Wait, are you saying our own experiences and interactions with an entity shape our feelings and opinion about them? Thank goodness you're here to point these things out. Yes, that was real, brutal sarcasm. Your arguments are utter rubbish. Frankly speaking, I am just putting you on ignore from here on out because your cheerleading has contributed nothing to the discussion of rumors and in fact has detracted from it, taking this thread far afield.
    "the one thing I can't quite get past is that the wrathmongers, there's just a part of them that reminds me of a sunburned farmer in metal overalls going out to thresh some wheat on a PCP rage." rotbeard

    My YouTube Channel
    <

  13. #653
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    980

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    So they are now giving us everyting we have asked for except lowering the prices of individual boxes.
    Sooo... we asked for the game world we loved to be blown up and for our armies to be squatted? I'd love to see links directing me to posts where people have been asking for this.

    "Dear GW,

    Please erase my army from existence within the fluff, annihilate the country they formerly occupied, never update my army again and, for good measure, switch to round bases so that if I want to keep playing I'll have to rebase my whole army."

    I'd like to meet the person who asked for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by logan054 View Post
    While we choose to play larger games, GW has set the suggested point level of game through its throne of skulls events, this was set when the model count was much lower. It isn't just through this but through it's battle reports over the years in WD. I can't think of many times when I saw a 1000pts game of warhammer posted in WD, can you? GW clearly wants us to use larger armies, problem with this is over the year they have been reducing the points cost of models steadily, increasing the price. The long term players continue to play the same sized games and when some blood comes along, being able to build an army to play against the "vets" becomes more and more daunting. They've tried to counter this by introducing larger models, sadly, the rules don't support the use of many of them because of certain mechanics.
    That's funny because what I'll frequently do when a new army book or codex comes out is look at an old battle report featuring that army and figure out how many points it's worth now versus what it was worth back then. It's pretty amazing seeing what was formerly a 1500 point Blood Angels army now costing only a little over 800 points, or a formerly 2000 point Eldar army now running barely over 1000 points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stegadeth View Post
    If they closed their social media because they wanted universal acceptance, it's the worst excuse ever.
    Agreed. I keep using the Wizards of the Coast example because it's an apt one. When 4th Edition D&D hit, it was revilved by a large segment of the community. So what did WotC do? Did they close their message boards? Did they cut off all communication between themselves and the fans on social media? No. They kept the lines of communication going, and when they realized that 4th edition sales were sinking the D&D brand, they brought the community and the fans in. They had them playtest the new rules, suggest options, and fill out questionnaires and submit them for consideration. You could even communicate with the designers across social media. The lead designer for D&D 5th Edition responded to several tweets I sent him, for instance, and one rule option that I'd been particularly hellbent on made it into the D&D 5E Player's Handbook. WotC, rather than running into a bunker and shutting their ears, actually communicated with the fans, and that's how they went from not selling a revilved edition to selling an acclaimed edition of D&D which appealed to both new fans as well as the grognards (A product which appeals to both old and new fans? What a shocking concept...).

    If they wanted a better reception, perhaps they could have, Oh, I don't know, held a contest. Post up 3 sculpts in green, or 3 CAD designs (CAD bothers me not one iota so long as the models look cool) and let people vote. Randomly select ten people who voted for the winner to receive the model for free. Hey presto, you involve the community in the choice, you generate interest hopefully driving sales because now people feel as if they had a part in the choice, and you make nice for the community with a reward.
    Or maybe just even concept sketches. I just looked on Facebook only a few moments after reading your post and so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that the Transformers page I Liked has been running a contest in which fans choose a fan designed combiner which'll then be made into a toy. Hasbro is doing exactly what you just suggested, asking fans to pick a design for a new character, and the fans are loving it. GW could easily do things like that. Post a Facebook page, link to a poll on their website, and ask fans to choose from three concept sketches for a new model. They could take a page from the WotC playbook and have fans take part in a 9th edition playtest process, and actually ask them what it is they like about Warhammer Fantasy, what they don't like, and what changes they'd like to see implemented, with regular articles posted on the website by their game developers on the playtest process. They could bring back the GW GT, with winners receiving cash prizes for winning and their armies being featured in White Dwarf. All of that would go a long way towards drumming up enthusiasm and positive reactions from the fans. Would there be people who still complain? People will always complain. But that doesn't mean that you stop listening to your customer base. And GW's declining profit margins despite increased prices should be a clear indicator that tuning out the customers is not the way to go, particularly when other companies are actively engaging with their fanbase and seeing their profits increase.
    <

  14. #654

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Whilst I think commoner23 you make some good and valid points. I think you're glossing over GW's most critical failing, communication.

    For the record GW does have an Internet presence, a website complete with newsletter,contact us and customer service details. The issue is this is largely an at the point of release information distribution tool and not a communication tool.

    They did have the GW forums but you have a very different recollection of them from me. I was on the boards right up until the day they closed.
    Yes there were complaints.
    However by far the majority of posts were faq queries discussions battle reports and army lists from people seeking pointers.
    A couple of days before they shut I was explaining why menghils manflayers were (and still are) the best skirmish unit in the game and Gav Thorpe joined the discussion he wasnt mobbed by angry dark elf players or trolled.

    It would take no more than a one page article in white dwarf o the website for Gw to respond to the current rumour mill / panic around fantasy to either confirm or deny some of the more contentious anticipated changes and would be seen by the majority as an olive branch to the online community but every day that goes by is another missed opportunity.

    I will judge 9th as a standalone game and play it or not on its own merits. I will also continue/complete my "up to 8th"
    Dark Elves regardless maybe adding some HE / WE because I quite like the idea of distinct but unified elves, but none of this means GW's level of communication is acceptable if I treated my clients like GW treat us I'd be sacked in less than a month.
    Last edited by Kherith; 27-02-2015 at 07:34.
    <

  15. #655
    Chapter Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    1,643

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Karl Franz View Post
    Sooo... we asked for the game world we loved to be blown up and for our armies to be squatted?
    Thankyou for beating me to it. I was about to point out for the benefit of other posters that the word "squatted" should really have two "t"s, otherwise it would be pronounced " sk-way-ted "

    (admittedly, the English language is particularly known for its inconsistent pronunciation rules, but when inventing new words I think we should try to stick to convention)

    Mark.
    <

  16. #656
    Why is the rum gone? Darnok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,797

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    As soon as new rumours show up, a new thread should be opened. This one has been taken soundly off topic - congratulations, again. Not.

    Thread closed.


    Darnok [=I=]
    The WarSeer Inquisition
    <

  17. #657

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    A question? you should save money for the purchase of existing armerna example woodelfvs? or operate them woodelfs available for the ninth Editons rules books?
    <

  18. #658
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    226

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    Ha! Not closed!
    <

  19. #659
    Chapter Master forseer of fates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,395

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    The other unit will have to close the thread....:P
    Age of Sigmar: maruis leitdorf *I see the Vikings are advancing in the same old fashion Daisy*-*wrong horse mate*-*Alas the battle is lost*
    <

  20. #660
    Modinator Lord Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Future
    Posts
    10,209

    Re: Warhammer 9th Edition Roundup - Discussion

    That's weird.

    Thread closed.

    Lord Dan [=I=]
    The WarSeer Inquisition
    <

Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23 31 32 33

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •