Bryan Blaire

B&C will always be the greatest place to me for 40K content no matter what happens with the game itself. Happy 25th, B&C, and many more to you! Many thanks for all the Admins and Mods from beginning to end that have made this place go!

I’ve had similar results with Vallejo primer as well. I would wash the plastic with soap and water, dry it thoroughly, and then assemble. No matter what, the Vallejo would peel off with just a bit of rubbing from a finger or nick with a nail, usually on prominent parts of the model. Like andes, I also made a switch to Stynylrez and Monument Hobbies. I found the Stynylrez was also rubbing off by itself, so I’ve found the best results for me have been a thin primer coat, then a thin matte varnish coat, then another thin primer coat - this seems to either become tough enough or just has enough layers that rubbing/nicks don’t seem to appear. I can’t say if the Monument primer is any better for single coat applications because I’ve taken to applying all my airbrushed primer coats in the above fashion, but no matter what, it works for me and I’m not seeing what I would consider loss of detail, so I am likely to keep doing it.

It’s a nice idea, Idaho, but there’s no “what can be done” from us that GW is going to take, GW will GW and there is zero point to the hypotheticals proposed - GW doesn’t listen to veterans with 25 years+ down the “hobby trumpet” - they have our money, and they want more of it - but they don’t want it if you don’t want/agree with their latest offerings. If anyone wants to be in that situation and give them more, that’s cool, but there does come a point where anyone can just say “They don’t make the product I want any more” and that be okay. Your original post posed the following: ”But I hope to have illustrated a core problem that needs addressing and could likely be done quite easily, relatively.” You are pre-supposing that a “core problem” you have identified is in fact a problem - it is not a problem that needs addressing at all for GW, and their results are what matter for their corporate planning, not you, not me. GW’s current financials are illustrative of this - they are making so much more money than they ever have before, with little sign of it slowing at the moment. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the current game edition, just like it doesn’t matter that I don’t. Trying to say that the company “should be this way” or “care about that” doesn’t matter to the company, because they clearly aren’t operating that way, and given their current state, don’t need to - they don’t need to cater to the disaffected former customers. They aren’t pigeon-holed as a game company, or a collectible company, or anything other than what they say they are - a miniature sales company - and they will sell miniatures any way they can, whether that be as miniatures for a game that they can rules churn to get people to buy more miniatures, or as a company that sells models that are limited edition or collector’s edition or novel tie-ins. Whatever it takes to get people to buy the models, that’s what they are going to do, and they are doing it extremely well, making fat stacks of cash, regardless of what problems those of us with 5-30+ years into the hobby think about what they are doing. GW doesn’t want us “investing” in anything but their company, either as a shareholder or as one of the many opening their wallets to take part in that sweet plasticrack. If you aren’t actively doing that, they have no reason to care - holding onto old models to play a new edition does them no business good. Do I like models going away, not appearing in rules? Heck no. Does that mean anything to GW unless I’m buying the new models they come out with to replace them? Also heck no. Does any of that have any bearing on what type of company GW is, and does “what type of company” GW is have any bearing on what they do (which is sell miniatures)? Nope, not if they are still running full tilt selling those models any way they can. In the end, GW is a miniatures company first - how they maximize those sales is by providing products people want in a way that they can use them in the widest possible application that the purchaser enjoys that keeps the customer coming back and buying more products. If they are achieving that, it doesn’t matter if the sales are for war games, skirmish games, collections on shelves, video game or other media tie-ins, or any other possible way you want to say that GW should or does sell minis, and selling minis for any of those specific purposes or even targeting one specific purpose over others doesn’t mean that the company is labeled as that purpose - they are selling miniatures in multiple ways, and are introducing new ways to continue having people purchase more of the product to maximize their fat stacks of cash. Anything that stands in the way of maximizing those stacks (like customers holding on to old products as long as possible as investments) will get left behind as quickly as they can, in favor of continuing forward sales momentum.

As long as you and the other person you are playing with agree to it, you could proxy them as anything, even non-Space Marines - a proxy for anything in a Games Workshop game is already something that doesn’t have a defined meaning, so there’s no “what could I” to answer, the limit is up to you and your opponent (or Tournament Organizer allows, if playing in a tournament).

I would say that it’s a false dichotomy to try and pigeon hole GW as a gaming company or a collectible item/model company - I think it really has to be acknowledged that once you are so far down the hobby trumpet that GW doesn’t really mesh with what you are wanting, then it doesn’t matter what GW wants to style themselves as. Everyone has to determine at some point whether what GW produces is really for them any more - if you are fed up with what they are doing, then it might just be time to look at other things? No one has to stay a GW customer forever, and just because you are an “old head” doesn’t mean that their Specialist Games products should be for you - for instance, I have zero interest in playing Horus Heresy no matter how it might light the fires of some that preferred 40K pre-8th/9th/whatever - it might as well not exist as a game to me. No one here or anywhere else is a better person for being a dedicated GW customer. I know that their decisions have certainly curtailed my once substantial spending on their products, and that is pretty much meaningless to me or them (well, to me it means I have more money to spend on things I actually enjoy). We can both be successful in our WH40K pursuits without each other, as I and GW are doing now.

The only thing I could think about the “two games you can’t buy models for are doing badly” would be an interpretation where those game lines don’t have good revenue streams showing up on a report on sales and someone is interpreting that without fully understanding the stock/production situation currently. As others have said, a lot of this reads more like a game of telephone results that may have started with someone within the company that doesn’t have a full company view or some such.

Let’s say there’s a winter release for the Wolves’ ‘Dex - that means we would be looking at about 18 months or so game-play time before the next edition?

We’re going to have to see what exactly GW does with the new Codex, because they have a chance to organize the Primaris along the same lines as the traditional Space Wolves structures, but they have not seen fit to do that so far. I don’t think they know what to do with the Space Wolves, because of the Codex deviancy they have always had, while Primaris are even more extremely adherent to a single structure squad than the Codex Marines were. I feel that the SW unique squad set ups are doomed exactly like the Dark Angels’ unique squads ended up being “squatted” in favor of single load-out type squads.

I agree with pawl - use the PVA again once the initial layer is dry. If you still feel the need to have something sitting atop that, then the varnish sprayed down would be best, and then your primer on top of that should lock everything down completely.

Empty pill bottles with solid lids that don’t rotate on you with a mound of Museum Wax or putty should do well - that’s what I use for my air brush stands/handles for models. For fixing them down to my “Lazy Susan” for airbrushing, I either use the Museum Wax or double sided plastic tape, depending on if I have the latter at hand - been trying not to use it much. Caution though, the Museum Wax does give you a fair waxy build up on the bottoms of bases - will need to thoroughly clean with a towel/sponge.

@Valkyrion It’s on Warhammer Community

It feels like confirmation that GW does not plan on supporting any models for competitive play (or even for fun, regardless of what they say) for longer than a decade, and everyone should assume that your model collection is on borrowed time to contribute to GW’s model churn needs for their continued money-making. Yes, even early Primaris Marines are likely in this category, because the company sells models, not games - which makes you “wonder” (hint, this is sarcasm) why they sell certain things at all, and why they don’t just sell individual models that could be squads if you buy enough instead. At this point, GW really should invest in a degradable or recyclable polymer for their models - chucking (especially in the garbage) several hundred/thousand points worth of models in a 5-10 year old range that last effectively forever is just really wasteful. No one that is good with models going out this quick should have any issue with that either…

With the new army construction rules, would an Imperial Agents supplement have to include elements/units of the Grey Knights, Deathwatch, Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard to allow units selected from those Codexes to be played alongside units from an Imperial Agents book? I was under the impression that they wouldn’t have to, and I thought that GW had indicated that they didn’t want units duplicated across multiple books that had to be updated to keep people from “yelling” at them throughout the ‘Netverse’. This could be a very small supplement with minimal units in it, because it probably can’t be a stand alone army in its own right anyway.

Don’t believe that we are discussing min-maxing, and my choice of words should make it clear where I stand on the concept of enforcing something that isn’t in the rules when there are easy methods to “identify what’s what”, such as army lists, color coded notes, unit markings, etc. In the end, being stuck on WYSIWYG keeps interesting models off the tabletop, like preventing people from using HH forces to play 40K or even using non-GW models that they find cool and can be explained, etc. - so yes, to me, being stuck on WYSIWYG is a bad thing. Now, the question of using HH rules in 40K - that gets really dicey IMO, and has to be decided by the players. Personally, I’d give it a shot, but would talk with my opponent throughout the game and after the game if the unit is obviously over or under powered compared to mine.

Don’t disagree, Noserenda, but it seems like that was always the way it was? So in the end, did the change to the rules really matter that much to folks - a lot of people still seem stuck on WYSIWYG?