Questionable Games Workshop Sales Practices

[Aux]

theevillemon said:

yeah the only people who ruin gws stuff for me are those stupid people who think nids are a rip of of zergs from starcraft come on people nids have been around a hell of a lot longer than zergs have been infact there more of a rip off of nids than nids are of them.

haha your right

[Shas'o Tash'var Kais Pat]

lol yeah there are a few things like that that I've seen... As to the placings of the 3 main GW games I'd say 40k first, then LOTR (from what's been said, although just guessing I'd put Fantasy here) and finally fantasy. 40k is very sci-fi, and that genre is more popular these days than fantasy, making it more popular, plus its easier to play than Fantasy, so gets the less serious and younger gamers.

[Enigma]

Yeah, and IMO, fantasy has weird blocks. I mean, seriously, do you really expect dwarves/elves/chaos to just stand in a block, perfect square, while charging/firing/falling back?

[Assimilator]

Well my local gamestore sells hornby and stuff like that but i actually have noticed that many of the 40k Stuff appears to be not there any more! They dontreally have anything much and i asked the lady who owns it and she said she may be closing down! She also said she would lower everything! So it is not that bad! But i just doont want it to go out of buisiness! But i dont think they will they have some other very good products in there. But that all i have heard!

[lookatmybiglongnam]

theevillemon said:

yeah the only people who ruin gws stuff for me are those stupid people who think nids are a rip of of zergs from starcraft come on people nids have been around a hell of a lot longer than zergs have been infact there more of a rip off of nids than nids are of them.

I believe there is a rumour that the great Andy Chambers, who was the first developer of nids along with Gav Thorpe, left GW and went to work for starcraft, developing the Zerg.

P.S. I am in Nanjing now, it is cold

[flyingspoon]

Would explain alot though fantasy works off medival style of combat in which people did stand in blocks of men to maximize the damage they could cause

[theevillemon]

standing in blocks does maximize the amount of damage you do in close combat its pretty simple really. your more likely to die in close combat if your in a big mess than if you were in a tight group i mean come on it worked for medival people. its one of the reasons the romans were so good at wining.

[lowlygaunt]

Enigma wrote
Yeah, and IMO, fantasy has weird blocks. I mean, seriously, do you really expect dwarves/elves/chaos to just stand in a block, perfect square, while charging/firing/falling back?

Sorry, this is my job. .
Ummm. . this is how wars were fought for 2,000 years by humans. From the ancient Greek hoplite thru the roman legionairre into the pikemen and knights of the middle ages, even thru Napoleonic times. . Go read some history please, and history from before 1812 will pretty much show you "blocks" of troops.
The reason troops blocked up was so that your shield could also be used to protect your comrades, forming a wall. . go look up the roman testudo please.

[theevillemon]

wacth 300 mate the guy says what Lowlygaunt said in his last line if you don't like to read.

[Enigma]

Yeah, but even when you fall back? I mean, who would actually retain the block formation after you're scared out of your wits by a troll?

[carnogaunt]

hivefleetenigma said:

Yeah, but even when you fall back? I mean, who would actually retain the block formation after you're scared out of your wits by a troll?

Falling back does not necessarily involve fleeing in terror. If a fight seems to be impossible to win, the soldiers will tend to avoid it regardless of whether or not they are scared. The unit being overrun during a fallback move would represent them fleeing in terror.

[lowlygaunt]

And fleeing units in fantasy do NOT retain the block formation. If they rally, they spend the turn re-forming into a block formation. While running they scatter. the "wiped-out" rule when fleeing troops are caught clearly states and includes the concept that they are scattered and therefore impossible to reform into an effective fighting formation.
Once again. . do some reading. 90% of the casualties suffered in battles involving hand held weapons from our own history occured AFTER one side or the other's formation was broken, or broke due to panic. A shield wall, greek phallanx, or Roman Testuda was just that, a nearly impenetrable wall of wood/iron/hide shields and armor, making it very hard to hurt anyone inside. . until it broke up.
As to keeping the formation, this is why the Romans conquored most of Europe, the middle East, parts of Africa and Asia. . their soldiers had the training and discipline to keep formation under ridiculous circumstances. . and thus win battles in which they were outnumbered 10 to 1.

[coredump]

In addition to shield protection, a block let you bring a lot of offensive power to bear in a concentrated area. Such as a wall of spears, or chopping gladiuses, etc.

[lowlygaunt]

hehehe I was wondering how long the other history major was going to be ale to restrain from adding to this. . Also, go watch TROY, decent movie, and their fghting scenes, very accurate. Although. . it does not follow the Iliad exactly. . the hector in it is very well done, same with Achilles.

[lookatmybiglongnam]

No, Bana as Hector was great but was the only character I in any way cared about. Pitt was not brilliant as Achilles I have to say, and Gleeson was bloody wasted (great actor), Bloom sucked, overall disappointing, frigging 10 year war in about 1 month film time...