New Armies on Parade guidelines

[darkhorse0607]

53 minutes ago, INKS said:

you would think they would want to sell aos kits and 40k kits to people who play and convert. i don't understand why restrict it.

 

Like all those people that wanted wings on the Sanguinary Guard, after GW themselves removed them

 

So they went and bought AoS stuff to put wings on them

 

Now technically disqualified

[Plaguecaster]

So my chaos knight conversions would be deemed illegal for this  due to being converted using the AOS nurgle monsters well that's stupid 

If I'm financially dumb enough to buy an entire chaos knight kit as well as a AOS maggoth lord / glott and kitbash the 2 together why is that not allowed

I've found the AOS range has some of the best nurgle conversion bits it works so perfect.

 

This is really pathetic especially since they still sell multiple models for both systems (daemons and the goats)

 

 

[Redcomet]

This compartmentalization of internal business units is just stupid. Some executive clearly loved to flex his influence to the detriment of everyone else and the company’s customers.

 

What a joke

[Redcomet]

5 hours ago, Magos Takatus said:

I imagine there are a lot of cool Inquisitor/Rogue trader conversions that are going to be invalidated by this. What a short-sighted decision to take. It's not as stupid as the complete segregation between Horus Heresy and 40k model ranges, but it's close.

AoS and Old World too. Entire factions are not in Old World because the minis are in AoS.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

This company makes no sense.

you can make double sales for a single unit at least.

 

like as a 40K player I might already have bits from other 40K universe games, but if I want some dope wings and tridents for my sanguinary guard, I have to buy the prosecutors kit as well.

 

[Jukkiz]

now to dump about 300 skulls on the IG diorama, lets see how many they can identify

[Mithrilforge]

28 minutes ago, Jukkiz said:

now to dump about 300 skulls on the IG diorama, lets see how many they can identify

I’m sorry sir your diorama is invalid… I can see an empire handgunners skull… the one with the scar above the eye… please move to the back of the queue and await a judge… 

[Bouargh]

I present in advance my due apoligies for my total lack of knowledge and understanding about implications of these guidelines, but: is it really a topic?

 

I mean, it applies only to a given challenge/concourse but, how many people participate? And are the ones that participate really that (potentially) affected (to be understood as "number of participant" x "% of the latter that convert with system crossover parts" = "impact factor")?

I´ve tried to look for 2024 stats but I dd not find anything relevant about number of participants. Looks like some stores exhibit 100+ participants on their Facebook pages (based on number of pics), while other barely 4... Is Armies on Parade a really big event (globally)?

 

Based on the "impact factor" that I may eventually wrongly imagine (as being low to negligible), one in one I generaly doubt any economic based counter argument might have any relevancy for such a focussed event of eventually limited participation rate. The same for any relevancy of a potent "creativity" limitation.

 

I would personally tend to see this challenge more as a subcontracted (for free) vitrine of the companies products, than of the hobby in all its dimensions. Something to attract new customers or give taste to the existing ones to keep on spending. If I consider it like that, than the restrictions makes sense as they allow an eased identificacion of the sold products.

On the other hand, if it is another way to celebrate the hobby in its global aspects and embodiments, then such a rule cancels part of the pleasure to kitbash and convert at large. Part of. And in that case such limitations can be seen as a useless burden easy to avoid as in reality its presence or absence as no real weight on the managment of the Challenge. 

 

It is may be not that easy to distinguish between the 2 as the purpose of the challenge may be largely interpretated in any of these ways.

 

In a nutshell, I am not sure this is really a topic...

 

My 2 cents...

 

PS: Interestingly, we as a community are ranting about that norm of quiting the options of crossing over models from the 2 settings, but the use of self designed 3d parts is not even adressed or discussed into the rules ... (Am I pyromanic writting this?)

 

 

[Wormwoods]

I remember when the LotR game came out - and wasted a third of every White Dwarf issue for years - and they made a big deal about not using bits between that and the core games for anything, Golden Demon, tournaments, etc. At least that made SOME sense, given the IP situation, this is just bizarre. 

 

Like, Stormcast Eternals are meant to be made into Inquisitors. That's the point of those models. May as well be printed on the box. If the issue is 'not mixing the settings' is Old World and AoS really the same setting? Yeah, sure, one was born from the ashes of the other, but once upon a time 40K and Fantasy took place 'in the same setting', even if that was eventually retconned. 

 

Also, what about demons? Unless something has changed without me noticing, aren't the demon models largely the same kits between the two mainline games?

[Wispy]

why did they think this would be a good idea 

 

i expect this will be reversed rather quickly but that it even came up...

 

just... myopic. poor judgement. out of touch. maybe even a little cruel.

Edited Thursday at 09:40 AM by Wispy

[Wispy]

also i'll add there isn't a space wolf army on the planet that hasn't used some sort of fur cloak or axe from Age of Sigmar or fantasy.  

[Emperor Ming]

2 minutes ago, Wispy said:

also i'll add there isn't a space wolf army on the planet that hasn't used some sort of fur cloak or axe from Age of Sigmar or fantasy.  

Off to conversion prison with that person! 

 

Gw: Servitude Imperpituis, too light a punishment for these heinous offenders?

 

[MechaMan]

Kirby level dumb, and I’m normally something of a GW apologist.

As others have said, kit bashing of this kind was once heavily encouraged to create guard regiments. Some even ended up in official lore. Guess they’re really putting the NO in Ventrillian Nobles.
 

And my skitarii/empire greatsword kitbashed blunderbuss guard look great. (And cost a fortune!!) Absolutely inane.  

Edited Thursday at 10:14 AM by MechaMan

[MechaMan]

56 minutes ago, Wispy said:

also i'll add there isn't a space wolf army on the planet that hasn't used some sort of fur cloak or axe from Age of Sigmar or fantasy.  

 

AH now it all makes sense - Games Workshop have finally caved in to PETA's petition to remove plastic fur from their miniatures! 

Edited Thursday at 10:41 AM by MechaMan

[ZeroWolf]

I suppose I never thought about it from the angle that it was yet another book-keeping limitation...GW there is better metrics to use to gauge interest in your systems then who is buying kits! Stop going for the lowest branch!

[Knightsword]

*looks at Chaplain holding an AOS book bit* They might notice that...

 

*looks over at Primaris riding AOS Dracoths*

 

[Progenitor]

A hobby all about creativity, with all kinds of places showing off creativity in the hobby and now the manufacturer choose to curtail that creativity for seemingly arbitrary reasons..... crikey they really are trying to wind people up. 

[Vassakov]

Like quite a few people here, I'm a bit of an apologist for GW. I don't even fundamentally disagree with the decision to separate HH and 40k or TOW and AoS - to a degree, it makes sense for the different game systems to be distinctive and utilise different models, both from a marketing perspective and from an internal accounting perspective.

 

This, though, is completely bonkers. I can understand not wanting people to obviously mix models from different systems as per the first bit, but completely segregating the two is baffling. I hope it gets reversed fairly swiftly.

[Celtic_cauldron]

Utterly stupid, yet not surprising...

 

Remember, my Brothers, we are talking about the very same company which is building a concrete wall between AoD and 40k for those of us who want to combine both into their armies and play with the result.

 

Celtic_Cauldron 

[DuskRaider]

15 hours ago, Marshal Loss said:

GW cop an ungodly amount of often unfair criticism for many reasons...and then they occasionally turn around and do something like this. What a bizarre, stupid decision

I think GW has earned a lot of their criticism over the past few years at the very least, from poor rules to poor distribution to the oversimplification of their models (monopose, hard to convert, etc.). 
 

This, however, is extremely justified. Take, for example, the Plague Marines. If you want to build a full CC squad (is that even a thing anymore?), you need to use bits from the Blightking kit to give them the proper weapons to make them work. At least, that’s how it was for 8th and 9th. If I wanted to submit my Death Guard for Armies on Parade, a swath of my models would be disqualified because I used a LOT of the AoS Nurgle bits. Their own damn kits from their own damn company, not even third party parts. That’s absolutely ridiculous. 

[phandaal]

1 hour ago, Progenitor said:

A hobby all about creativity, with all kinds of places showing off creativity in the hobby and now the manufacturer choose to curtail that creativity for seemingly arbitrary reasons..... crikey they really are trying to wind people up. 

 

An idea this bad has to have come from a Brand Manager or similar position there. "We really want to maintain our distinct identity when showcasing blah blah blah..."

 

No one on the sales side is going to complain if people are buying double the kits for their armies.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Bouargh said:

I present in advance my due apoligies for my total lack of knowledge and understanding about implications of these guidelines, but: is it really a topic?

 

I mean, it applies only to a given challenge/concourse but, how many people participate? And are the ones that participate really that (potentially) affected (to be understood as "number of participant" x "% of the latter that convert with system crossover parts" = "impact factor")?

I´ve tried to look for 2024 stats but I dd not find anything relevant about number of participants. Looks like some stores exhibit 100+ participants on their Facebook pages (based on number of pics), while other barely 4... Is Armies on Parade a really big event (globally)?

 

Based on the "impact factor" that I may eventually wrongly imagine (as being low to negligible), one in one I generaly doubt any economic based counter argument might have any relevancy for such a focussed event of eventually limited participation rate. The same for any relevancy of a potent "creativity" limitation.

 

I would personally tend to see this challenge more as a subcontracted (for free) vitrine of the companies products, than of the hobby in all its dimensions. Something to attract new customers or give taste to the existing ones to keep on spending. If I consider it like that, than the restrictions makes sense as they allow an eased identificacion of the sold products.

On the other hand, if it is another way to celebrate the hobby in its global aspects and embodiments, then such a rule cancels part of the pleasure to kitbash and convert at large. Part of. And in that case such limitations can be seen as a useless burden easy to avoid as in reality its presence or absence as no real weight on the managment of the Challenge. 

 

It is may be not that easy to distinguish between the 2 as the purpose of the challenge may be largely interpretated in any of these ways.

 

In a nutshell, I am not sure this is really a topic...

 

My 2 cents...

 

PS: Interestingly, we as a community are ranting about that norm of quiting the options of crossing over models from the 2 settings, but the use of self designed 3d parts is not even adressed or discussed into the rules ... (Am I pyromanic writting this?)

 

 

If the impact on hobbyists is low to negligible, then guess what? It was even stupider for GW to make this rule.

[Tastyfish]

4 hours ago, ZeroWolf said:

I suppose I never thought about it from the angle that it was yet another book-keeping limitation...GW there is better metrics to use to gauge interest in your systems then who is buying kits! Stop going for the lowest branch!

 

It isn't this, because this is the opposite of what they've done with 40K and Heresy and just reblurring the lines that GW has taken pains to set up as they are actively encouraging mixing parts between Heresy/40K and even AoS/Old World. This is to do with what is acceptable or what counts as marketing for specific systems - it's almost certainly going to be another LOTR style situation with licensing deals.

 

Purely hypothetically but then with part of the agreement requiring GW to continue to support and promote 'x' as much as 'y' and Armies on Parade counting as some element of that. With something like Ventrillian Nobles then opening up some legal avenues for dispute as is an Armies of Parade article that includes them truly a fair 50:50 promotion of the 40K/AoS ranges or do you then need some extra slots for 40K, or some "Iron Jaws From Beyond the Stars" army that is an equal balance of 40K bits in a AoS army...

 

 

Edited Thursday at 03:31 PM by Tastyfish

[Joe]

Restriction has been removed.

 

[DemonGSides]

Link for those who are interested in reading all of it; https://citadelcolour.com/armies-on-parade-frequently-asked-questions/