PDA

View Full Version : The more I think about it, the more I am convinced GW doesn't know what it's doing.



Pages : [1] 2

lordreaven448
08-07-2015, 23:09
I've been bothered by one simple thought that I cannot shake, let me share this with you.


Why not use a modified LotR system to be the rule set.


I ask myself that question and I cannot fathom the reasoning to go with these......."Rules" over the (now dead) LotR rules. It seemed like a logical jump that would have pleased everyone, it wouldn't have taken time to write. I bet this........"Rules System" they are using took more time to "Write" than it would have been to modify the LotR rules.

I always knew GW had next to no sense in their management, but this just.........this is just sad. :cries:

Buddy Bear
08-07-2015, 23:12
They do no market research, so their not knowing what they're doing is a strong bet. Although as far as these rules are concerned, I get the feeling they were written during someone's lunch break. I don't see any evidence that any serious bought was put into them.

de Selby
08-07-2015, 23:27
I don't understand the strategy but I think it's likely that the people designing and selling the product don't either. GW's information control is staggeringly good these days, to an extent that suggests a very small number of people actually know what's going on. GW is keeping secrets from itself.

Warhammer has a typical release cycle time of 4 years or so. I don't think the people designing the rules, the stories, the miniatures and the art know what the plan is beyond the next thing they're designing, putting them only a year or two ahead of us. Maybe there isn't a long term plan for the games in the sense that a gamer or collector would understand it. The weird compromises in the fluff, the rules and the range may be because the people responsible for those things have not been told what the company is trying to achieve.

NoobLord
08-07-2015, 23:28
It's all about the minis.

One theory that sounds plausible is that they are currently obsessed by the potential threat of 3d printing in the near future and that they have taken their eye off the ball for everything else. This was specificly mentioned in the last financial report which was otherwise vague and full of the usual corporate BS one reads in such reports from many companies. That and the whole IP fortress thing.

So sigmarines are big with lots of awkward bits like the angels making them difficult and/or prohibitly expensive to copy. Seems to me as if they consider copyright protection and trademark protection but very little else when developing new product.

This is of course all pointless if your product is so bad nobody wants to copy it anyway...

duffybear1988
08-07-2015, 23:30
AoS is like a poor copy of Warmachine but without the warjacks.

Spiney Norman
08-07-2015, 23:34
AoS is like a poor copy of Warmachine but without the warjacks.

So it has at least one redeeming feature then ;)

And to be fair, the AoS models are so far above warmachine in terms of quality that the two are really not comparable.

Shandor
08-07-2015, 23:36
AoS is like a poor copy of Warmachine but without the warjacks.

Thats would be a good thing. But it isnt. Warmachine has good rules that work. And i dont like the Centric around Golems.

Aos has no real Rules and is centered around Minigolems with some flesh inside.

Kahadras
08-07-2015, 23:37
And to be fair, the AoS models are so far above warmachine in terms of quality that the two are really not comparable.

Neither are the prices. ;)

Spiney Norman
08-07-2015, 23:43
Neither are the prices. ;)

Ours is a luxury hobby and you get what you pay for. To be fair PP could give their models atwayfor free and I probably wouldn't waste my time putting paint to them, I am willing to pay for good quality models, and AoS doesn't even seem that expensive initially, I'm paying £35 for my AoS chaos army with 29 models in it. Bare in mind I've spent the last year collection a Forgeworld heresy marine army playing AoS is going to be much cheaper.

Tupinamba
08-07-2015, 23:46
As much as I can relate to the comments made, they are not really addressing the OP. I think the question is: why didn´t GW use their already existing and widely acclaimed fantasy skirmish rules: LOTR? With some adaptations, of course, but tested and well liked core mechanics.

Instead, they ignore the existence of said system and come up with the travesty that is AoS.

I can´t understand it either. Maybe it´s the whole "Timmy is our target audience" thing and the abbandoning of their games as tactical wargames to move instead to a MtG/CCG mentality. LOTR is a simple (streamlined and elegant) system, but it´s still a proper wargame, decided on the field by movement, use of heroes and magic and terrain, which for GW seems to still be too complicated for "little Timmy". AoS is more in the line of the "putting your collection on the table move forward and use your special abilities", only there is no tapping...

Voss
08-07-2015, 23:46
And to be fair, the AoS models are so far above warmachine in terms of quality that the two are really not comparable.

I disagree entirely. The quality of the sculpts is about the same.



Personally, I don't buy the 'little Timmy' theory. Partly because I can't remember the last time I saw a 'Little Timmy' in a game store, but mostly because I don't know what is supposed to appeal to a Timmy. Are big gold hammer dudes a thing Timmies want? Half-naked psycho-killers?
Feels more like they're throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.

duffybear1988
08-07-2015, 23:52
So it has at least one redeeming feature then ;)

And to be fair, the AoS models are so far above warmachine in terms of quality that the two are really not comparable.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I detest the sigmarines. I think they look utterly bland, blocky and childish. Barely any effort went in to designing them.

Warmachine has some great figures - mage hunter strike force and steelhead riflemen are my 2 favourite units, but there are plenty more. Plus pretty much every new warcaster that's been released recently is awesome. The jacks themselves are also improving significantly with every release.

Yeah there are some poorer figures, but they are mostly older anyway and need I remind you of pumbagor, those fuggly daemons, the awful minotaurs, the stupid Empire magic engines, the terrible looking chaos monsters. It's not like GW doesn't have some skeletons hidden in its closet.

Besides GW needs to work out what it wants to be. If I was a collector I certainly wouldn't spend £30 on 5 plastic figures that are all the same but in a slightly different pose. Only a gamer drops that kind of money and as GW no longer produces a fantasy game worth a damn I can see a lot of people just moving on to PP.

AoS is like "baby's first wargame". We all know how quickly those kids grow up and move on to new things. In a couple of months any new player will be looking for something that isn't just lining up and running at the enemy to smack them in the face. :)

frankelee
08-07-2015, 23:55
While I read all kinds of borderline conspiracy theories by people who want GW's thinking to not be stupid, yeah it's probably just stupid. This comes across like classic boardroom group think, when people who don't use the product, don't understand the product, and have absolutely no emotional attachment to the product gather around an expensive oversized table and come up with a dumb list of demands to hand to their creative team. Then that creative team balances how much they hate their bosses, against how much they'd rather be somewhere else doing anything else, and they hand them back Age of Sigmar.

Would it have made sense to invigorate their company by taking LotR and making it a 40K/Fantasy hybrid with magic Space Marines and the option to use whatever models you already have to play the game? And then keep WFB right on track with an improved 9th edition rule set that scaled down better and got rid of a need for mega-expensive mage-units? Yes. Yes it would have. So much so, that I still wouldn't be surprised if Warhammer 9th edition dropped in October, even though every rumor and half-official word claims that's not at all what's happening. Because what they actually are doing is just too dumb to fully believe.

Tupinamba
08-07-2015, 23:58
I disagree entirely. The quality of the sculpts is about the same.



Personally, I don't buy the 'little Timmy' theory. Partly because I can't remember the last time I saw a 'Little Timmy' in a game store, but mostly because I don't know what is supposed to appeal to a Timmy. Are big gold hammer dudes a thing Timmies want? Half-naked psycho-killers?
Feels more like they're throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I agree that "little Timmy" is not their real target audience, but from other moves it seems GW HQ thinks it is (adults playing with plastic soldiers? can´t be, right?). At least regarding simplification and impulse purchases. However, your point of half-naked psycho-killers is very valid. Maybe it´s not so much "little Timmys" but what GW perceives as the current youth/video game generation? The whole MOAR, WOW, attention deficit and bulkyness thing? I´m not convinced at all myself, particularly because in my experience the current younger wargamers are not that different at all from the "typical universal wargamer" and GW´s perception is quite wrong there, but there must be somekind of reasoning behind its decisions.

TheFang
09-07-2015, 00:00
Ours is a luxury hobby and you get what you pay for.


Free rules. :p

lordreaven448
09-07-2015, 00:09
Free rules. :p
Please don't call what GW released rules. It's "Rules".

jet_palero
09-07-2015, 00:21
Please don't call what GW released rules. It's "Rules".

How about "rulz?"

Bloodknight
09-07-2015, 00:42
his comes across like classic boardroom group think, when people who don't use the product, don't understand the product, and have absolutely no emotional attachment to the product gather around an expensive oversized table and come up with a dumb list of demands to hand to their creative team

While their creative team probably can't do what it wants to do, I think they're also not as good as the creatives used to be. Halflings on the shoulders of giants. Like...they want to create a narrative game and come up with something that is basically unfit to tell a story because it's just an endless succession of rolling 3s and 4s. Perhaps they noticed that in the old editions a lot of stuff was random, in 2nd edition 40K, for example. In that game, there was a lot of randomness that supported the storytelling aspect without utterly dominating the gameplay. Wacky stuff happened and it was fun. There was a lot of player agency, though. The new guys just slapped tons of random effects into WFB that basically keeps the game from being both a story telling game as well as a tactical game. Spells that can delete entire units. Woods that eat the guys that walk through them (which means that you just don't walk through woods, period). Random charge distances, etc.etc. .

That's not what I think leads to a narrative experience. A dude with a hand flamer igniting the enemy boss who then starts running about on the tabletop until the flames go out or he dies, that's something random and fun. Buggies crashing into buildings and going up in flames because somebody sniped the driver out of them, dragons going mad because the dude on top fell off. Things like that.

And as much as I value guys like Alessio Cavatore, who I count as one of the first of the new generation of GW's designers (yeah, he doesn't work for them anymore and his new opus KoW is pretty brilliant), he didn't understand good randomness in WFB either. Remember the oh-so-dangerous-for-your-own-guys skaven weapons? The effects of rolling a double got successively worse the higher your initial roll was. But you didn't have to announce that you were shooting with 3d6 or so. You rolled them successively and stopped when you had enough. I don't remember a single instance of a Skaven player rolling more than 1d6 if that initial roll was a 5 or 6. Their wacky, narrative stuff just never happened, the army was very powerful and perfectly safe to play with a little thought. I think the newbies are either trying to copy that style or they try to do the opposite, but they don't really get it.

Sorry for the rant, it's late.

Drakkar du Chaos
09-07-2015, 00:47
And whats stopping the community to adapt LotR rules for Battle or AoS if they are that great ? With some involved people it can be done in months.
In France we have few peoples who have adapted 6th and 7th into a fan-made edition : BlackHammer. Now tournament are being played with it and its a good alternative to 8th.

I wonder why english fanbase has never done something similar when i see all the hate (for 8th in the past and for AoS now).
Its good to despise GW or an edition but bring a competitve alternative and have fun with it is so much better, don't you think ?
I know it involve a lot of work but, again, it can be done.

Buddy Bear
09-07-2015, 00:48
Why spend months fixing a game when you can just keep playing 8th?

Malagor
09-07-2015, 00:55
Considering that they just got rid of Slaanesh, no I don't think they know what they are doing :p

Why spend months fixing a game when you can just keep playing 8th?
Yep, which is what I do and works just fine.
I saw some people playing AoS today and all they could talk about is what they should house-rule or not.
Doesn't sound like the makings of a great game.

Kahadras
09-07-2015, 00:55
Ours is a luxury hobby and you get what you pay for.

Sadly what you get isn't a lot when you move beyond the core box set if the rumours are anything to go by over on the GW pricing thread (obviously that discussion is for that thread). The old 'luxury hobby' idea falls flat on it's face if GW is trying to tempt a lot more people into playing the game. Free online rules. Great. Game that doesn't need hundreds of models to play. Great. Game that gets very expencive once you get past the starter set (which isn't cheap by any stretch of the imagination). Not so good.

ehlijen
09-07-2015, 08:22
Age of Sigmar actually does a lot better at being the game it sets out to be than 7th 40k does, in my opinion. It's not a game I like or consider good, but unlike 40k it doesn't pretend to be something it's not.

It's a rules suggestion pamphlet designed to let you play make believe with your war dolls. It's not a wargame, or balanced or all that deep, it's just meant to give you a quick framework to use with some pretty miniatures you've collected. It's got no legacy baggage, not tacked on rules that don't fit its goals but were kept out of habit...
It's just silliness for silliness sake. I can respect that.

I don't get why they treat it as such a revolution or are betting so much of their company on it, though. It's not going to attract the WHFB crowd, it's not even going to attract much of the 40k crowd I think. It didn't come with a RPG or campaign booklet or anything either where this kind of game could have fit. Its not bad at what it wants to be, but GW seemingly thinks what it is trying to be is far bigger than what it can be.

MiyamatoMusashi
09-07-2015, 09:01
And to be fair, the AoS models are so far above warmachine in terms of quality that the two are really not comparable.

"To be fair"? We've got... what... 60 AoS models, most of which are basically the same, and you use them to write off an entire product line? And try to present your own personal aesthetic preferences as "fairness"?

Herzlos
09-07-2015, 09:23
I'm pretty sure it knows exactly what it's doing, but that doesn't line up with what the customers want.

They want secure IP and a consistent revenue whilst the Chairman approaches retirement, with as little investment or effort as possible.

We want cool models and good rules to justify buying those models.

Gorbad Ironclaw
09-07-2015, 16:09
It's not going to attract the WHFB crowd

There are certainly parts of the WFB crowd that won't like it at all. But I also know people who are very enthused about it and have been getting in test games and having fun. There certainly is a segment of the WFB audience that just wanted some framework rules to play with their models, roll some dice and hang out with mates. I think your analysis of what the game is is pretty spot on. That's what it's supposed to be, it should have been obvious that is what GW wants to make, and it's not pretending to be anything else.

The real question is will that style of game generate more revenue than the previous style? GW certainly thinks so, they could even be right about that. I honestly don't know. It doesn't particularly appeal to me, but then, neither did Warhammer 8th so from GW's point of view that possibly doesn't matter?

cornonthecob
09-07-2015, 16:46
The guys at my club have drunk the kool-aid deeply and are happy to jump on this bandwagon.

I was tempted to give it a try but after more research I just feel insulted and went back to my Warmahordes/Malifaux/Bolt Action.

ColShaw
09-07-2015, 17:12
There are certainly parts of the WFB crowd that won't like it at all. But I also know people who are very enthused about it and have been getting in test games and having fun. There certainly is a segment of the WFB audience that just wanted some framework rules to play with their models, roll some dice and hang out with mates. I think your analysis of what the game is is pretty spot on. That's what it's supposed to be, it should have been obvious that is what GW wants to make, and it's not pretending to be anything else.

The real question is will that style of game generate more revenue than the previous style? GW certainly thinks so, they could even be right about that. I honestly don't know. It doesn't particularly appeal to me, but then, neither did Warhammer 8th so from GW's point of view that possibly doesn't matter?

At best, I think it'll split the existing player base in half. And I don't think it'll bring in nearly enough new blood to make that worthwhile.

lordreaven448
09-07-2015, 18:11
All AoS has done for me is make me look into Saga.

BFalcon
09-07-2015, 18:47
Considering that they just got rid of Slaanesh, no I don't think they know what they are doing :p

Wait... Slaanesh is gone??

Anyone wanna run a sweepstake on how long it will be before someone else steps in to produce a Slaanesh-style force? I can't see GW winning any lawsuits on copyright when they just killed off the line... surely?

Poncho160
09-07-2015, 19:12
Raging heroes already do, don't know if they have been released after the kickstarter yet though.

Inquisitor Kallus
09-07-2015, 20:10
Age of Sigmar actually does a lot better at being the game it sets out to be than 7th 40k does, in my opinion. It's not a game I like or consider good, but unlike 40k it doesn't pretend to be something it's not.

It's a rules suggestion pamphlet designed to let you play make believe with your war dolls. It's not a wargame, or balanced or all that deep, it's just meant to give you a quick framework to use with some pretty miniatures you've collected. It's got no legacy baggage, not tacked on rules that don't fit its goals but were kept out of habit...
It's just silliness for silliness sake. I can respect that.

I don't get why they treat it as such a revolution or are betting so much of their company on it, though. It's not going to attract the WHFB crowd, it's not even going to attract much of the 40k crowd I think. It didn't come with a RPG or campaign booklet or anything either where this kind of game could have fit. Its not bad at what it wants to be, but GW seemingly thinks what it is trying to be is far bigger than what it can be.

What does 40k pretend to be?

leopard
09-07-2015, 20:49
I've been bothered by one simple thought that I cannot shake, let me share this with you.


Why not use a modified LotR system to be the rule set.


I ask myself that question and I cannot fathom the reasoning to go with these......."Rules" over the (now dead) LotR rules. It seemed like a logical jump that would have pleased everyone, it wouldn't have taken time to write. I bet this........"Rules System" they are using took more time to "Write" than it would have been to modify the LotR rules.

I always knew GW had next to no sense in their management, but this just.........this is just sad. :cries:

The only reason I can think of for not using the LotR rules is that there is still some contractual reason they can't. AoS seems like a placeholder set of rules, the function of which is to provide a clean break, so when something else is swapped in later it will be welcomed.

Assume since LotR did actually do fairly well apparently when it was released the rules cannot be seen as horrible, indeed having played them they are a very nice skirmish system for smaller games with a focus on narrative battles and characters, even with WoR as a system to add for larger scale games, also already written.

Indeed with a few adjustments to handle vehicles it would make a much better system for 40k as well.. bringing GW full circle to a single set of rules to manage and maintain for both of the games (or two with an adapted WoR for Apoc scale), allowing the wonderful possibility once more of facing the two off against each other... Marines on a low tech world facing the hordes etc.

There will be a 'reason', there are a range of possibilities, this one makes sense to me - they haven't used it, because for now they can't, but they had to do something before WHFB failed under its own weight.

AoS has a few nice concepts, which I'm guessing came from the project of WHFB 9th, which for whatever reasons was aborted, e.g. monster profiles degrading with injury, not a hard concept and its been done before but they have a nice simple and workable way of doing it.

Magic in AoS has the LotR feel to it, wizard has a list of spells, with a casting value and go for it, just without the dice cap for the game.

leopard
09-07-2015, 20:51
What does 40k pretend to be?

40k, started as a squad level skirmish game, and still has a lot of baggage from that era, however GW have tried to turn it into first a platoon level, then company level and now even larger - its essentially what should be 15mm or 10mm, played at 28mm with bits of 28mm level detail, hence its a mess.

Personally, GW would do well to have an actual squad based game, with plenty of detail, but limited to infantry and light man portable support weapons, then have a company level game using the same models, and do what they have done with AoS, essentially start again


Incidentally this is my main issue with Bolt Action as well, it doesn't know what it is, 28mm says squad based, models fire individually, but target units, then the model count is being pushed skywards and vehicles are thrown in with wild abandon resulting in something that feels too detailed for a large game, and not detailed enough for a small one, and at a platoon level lacks the flexibility in the defined army lists (nice if you go free form though)

RandomThoughts
09-07-2015, 20:52
I'm actually starting to think that there could be a target audience for AoS. As laughable as the game looks to me, I've known people that could enjoy it. The kind of people not interested at all in the gaming aspect, in tactics and stuff, who are mostly in the hobby for the models ore the fluff, and who mostly play the game for the company and the spectacle

Also:


I saw some people playing AoS today and all they could talk about is what they should house-rule or not.
Doesn't sound like the makings of a great game.

I know people who like tinkering with house rules more than actually playing the game, so...

I have honestly no clue how big or small this target audience is, but it's definitely there.

...

I've also heard the theory that the game was designed specifically for 13 year old boys who don't really care about complex gameplay (hence the 4-page rulebook), who don't have the money to field entire armies, and for whom it is still acceptable that the guy with the bigger and better toys wins (so no need for army restrictions). Tie this up with the whole idea of GW burning and churning through generation after generation of teenage boys, milking them for as much money as they can before they inevitably leave, and I think the designers might actually have known exactly what they were doing.

Griefbringer
09-07-2015, 21:34
Anyone wanna run a sweepstake on how long it will be before someone else steps in to produce a Slaanesh-style force? I can't see GW winning any lawsuits on copyright when they just killed off the line... surely?

Copyrights last for decades, automatically. Copyright owner choosing not to produce anymore copies of the item in question does not affect their rights, and should not make their case any weaker in court. (How much the copyright owner might be willing to put effort into starting lawsuits might be another issue.)

That said, there is a whole lot of things you can do with tentacles, claws, whips, chains and semi-naked decadents without infringing on anyone's copyrights.

ColShaw
09-07-2015, 22:21
That said, there is a whole lot of things you can do with tentacles, claws, whips, chains and semi-naked decadents without infringing on anyone's copyrights.

Now those are words to live by.

TheFang
09-07-2015, 23:35
The only reason I can think of for not using the LotR rules is that there is still some contractual reason they can't.

LotR was used as the base for the Warhammer Historical Old West rules. If there were conditions they couldn't have used it there.

ehlijen
10-07-2015, 01:32
What does 40k pretend to be?

Leopard gave part of the answer above. 40k pretends to be several scopes of game, but the mix just doesn't make it work well at any level. You always either fiddle too much with pointless infantry or dominate the game with simplistic point and roll superheavies.
The rules are too detailed on the wrong end of the spectrum and too simple on the other.

Compare battletech, where infantry platoons are single, very simple units and the big stompy mecha have all the details in their rules. That game knows what it's about (mechas) and streamlines everything outside that scope to keep the game moving (at least as far as ground combat goes, aerospace...oh dear).

But also, 40k 7th still has the points system and symmetric scenarios pitting players against each other competing for victory. That means it aims to be a balanced competition game. But at the same time, 'seizing the narrative' and obvious lack of balance are rife, meaning it fails at being that and instead pretends to be a freeform narrative game.
It has all the trappings of a balanced game, without actual balance, while claiming to never having wanted to be balanced in the first place.
Make a balanced game, or don't bother with balancing mechanics. Otherwise you're wasting time while annoying a lot of players. By pretending to be both balanced and not, GW is just asking for players with conflicting desires to end up in bad games against each other and lose interest.

But none of these individual approaches is wrong. Squad, platoon, company level...all those can be made into good games. Narrative games, competition games, both can work and have their fans. It's mixing more than one scope or game style by half-assing each part that you are very unlikely to produce anything good.

In short, the core rules of 7th 40k pretend to be a balanced infantry combat competition game, but the faction lists do not support that and the game revels in that fact.

Griefbringer
10-07-2015, 07:57
LotR was used as the base for the Warhammer Historical Old West rules. If there were conditions they couldn't have used it there.

The rules were called Legends of the Old West, I have a copy in my collection.

There was also another Warhammer Historical set with a pirate theme based on the LotR mechanisms, called Legends of the High Seas.

BFalcon
10-07-2015, 09:28
Copyrights last for decades, automatically. Copyright owner choosing not to produce anymore copies of the item in question does not affect their rights, and should not make their case any weaker in court. (How much the copyright owner might be willing to put effort into starting lawsuits might be another issue.)

That said, there is a whole lot of things you can do with tentacles, claws, whips, chains and semi-naked decadents without infringing on anyone's copyrights.

Yeah, didn't mean the name... just the look...

You could probably argue the case better when you have an existing line that's being produced, but having released on in the past and killed it off, it would make the argument much less viable, purely-copyright-based arguments aside... usually they use those with a "impacting sales" or "confusing customers" argument, don't they? Hardly possible when you killed the whole line off...

I agree - that last line of yours is signature-worthy... (especially since I notice you're a Finn and given the Finns I've known in the past...). :D

leopard
12-07-2015, 23:06
LotR was used as the base for the Warhammer Historical Old West rules. If there were conditions they couldn't have used it there.

Didn't know that, thanks for the info, rules that one out I guess :)

Down in flames... again

lanrak
25-07-2015, 08:19
It is difficult to understand the behavior of GW plc as a company .
Because I believe the man calling the shots,(Company chairmanTom Kirby ,) has no idea what GAMES Workshops core product and customers group was and should be.

He does not understand game design and development, and so tried to focus on the main retail line, 'toy soldiers' as he called them .
And in his mind they are for 'children'.
So to him selling toy soldiers to children is what GW plc is in the business of.
Where as creating inspiring art and background, and rules written with clarity brevity and elegance to allow players of all ages and ability to explore these worlds .
Is what GW plc should be in the business of .As this appeals to children adults men and women far more , and would sell far more 'toy soldiers' as it covers much wider demographic than 'aimed at teen age boys'.

It is obvious Tom Kirby does not understand the art of good game design.
Other wise GW plc would not artificially differentiate between new and old players,narrative and pick up games .

They would write a straight forward rule set new players pick up easily.With enough tactical depth to keep older players interested.
And provide enough balance in the games to allow random pick up games.AND sell campaign books with all the cool scenario ideas and wacky stuff the narrative gamers love.

I am sure the GW studio has enough talent to do this, IF they were allowed to try.

GW plc chairman Tom Kirby does not want to do any professional levels of market research because that may prove he has no idea how to grow GW plc.

Herzlos
25-07-2015, 10:10
Or just no interest in growing GW.

RandomThoughts
25-07-2015, 13:29
They would write a straight forward rule set new players pick up easily.With enough tactical depth to keep older players interested.

From all I gathered over the last few weeks I got more and more the impression that AOS is actually the lovechild of their head developer. Apparently he stated in interviews before that he wants to get rid of points, thinks the game is most fun when he and his mates just throw a bunch of models on the table with no consideration for balance, etc.

So, perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree here. (Not that Kirby isn't responsible for other things, like the insane price policy...)

75hastings69
25-07-2015, 13:54
.....
There was also another Warhammer Historical set with a pirate theme based on the LotR mechanisms, called Legends of the High Seas.

and that was an excellent ruleset.

The Marshel
25-07-2015, 13:59
they still technically sell and promote the hobbit sbg though (albeit poorly) and I suspect that, no matter how logical this option seems, running both their IP and one they are contractually required to support on the same rules was unattractive right now. Yes, other gw publications used them, but lets not forget that GW stopped supporting these lines before the hobbit sbg was released. Contract terms might well have changed. add in the AOS is supported heavily and run in store along side the Hobbit, unlike the other pair, and I think its reasonable to say they may have wanted to avoid outright copying or building from SBG

Commissar von Toussaint
25-07-2015, 14:47
It is difficult to understand the behavior of GW plc as a company .
Because I believe the man calling the shots,(Company chairmanTom Kirby ,) has no idea what GAMES Workshops core product and customers group was and should be.

I'm not so sure about that. I have a D&D dungeon from the mid-80s designed by him and it is excellent - one of my favorites. I like it so much, I've even run it in other settings and systems. Say what you will, the man was at one point a gamer.

I think part of the problem is that people think that the natural state of a business is success. We think this because the businesses we generally see are successful.

But that isn't true. Capitalism isn't about succeeding, it is about consequences. The free market gives you the freedom to succeed but also the freedom to fail, which is actually a lot more likely. Even successful capitalists often fail many times before they get their big break.

GW is a business like any other and that means it can make mistakes. An obscure nnews here in the US is that the A&P grocery store chain is in bankruptcy again and this time it is expected to be broken up for good. It used to be the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and in the 1950s was the largest corporation in the United States. It basically invented the modern supermarket.

And yet the demise of this 150-year-old megacorp is barely noted, reduced to a footnote in the business pages.

At its core, GW may simply be too risk-averse to do much of anything other than cash in on licensing and focus on its "core business" which is separating its incredibly loyal customer base from its money. Seriously, the "GW Community" has almost a masochistic relationship with the company. Watching the boards on this Age of Sigmar fiasco, people who trashed it last week are already rationalizing their way to buying more figures and giving it another look.

"Yes sweetie, he really does love you and if you give him another chance, everything will be fine."

You can't deny that this has worked for a long time and elevated Tom Kirby from being a dungeonmaster to a very wealthy man. I wish I could be that stupid.

rmeister0
25-07-2015, 15:52
At its core, GW may simply be too risk-averse to do much of anything other than cash in on licensing and focus on its "core business" which is separating its incredibly loyal customer base from its money.

This was the reason I couldn't believe the rumors about what AoS eventually became - it seemed too drastic a change to actually happen.

It really feels like upper management is just trying to keep the wheels turning until retirement rather than grow a sustainable long term business. Instead of steadily diversifying their product line they keep trimming it down. Cost cutting isn't a strategy, and eventually you run out of fat to cut.

ebbwar
25-07-2015, 22:55
It is obvious Tom Kirby does not understand the art of good game design.

He doesn't need to or be a games designer. He is a manager who needs to manage effectively (which I think he does not), employ good games designers and let them design good games. ;)

Tau_player001
25-07-2015, 23:36
Whenever i read somebody talking about GW's business choices i remember this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

lordreaven448
26-07-2015, 00:23
Whenever i read somebody talking about GW's business choices i remember this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

I'm no expert, but that right there is how I think GW does it's business meetings......just with more plastic crack, and male strippers dressed as Space Marines.

Kahadras
26-07-2015, 00:57
When looking at GW I'm often reminded of a piece of writing in the book Shattered Sword by Jonathan Parshall. In part it looked at the Japanese Empire during the Pacific War and talked about how the Japanese had assembled this amazing fleet of aircraft carriers and forged a brilliant weapon of war from it. The problem was that the Japanese leaders didn't really understand how they had managed to arrive at this success. They didn't understand the fundamentals of how they'd achieved what they managed to achieve and were therefore doomed to lose it all.

In the same respect the current GW management don't seem to have understood how Games Workshop succeeded. They've come to the conclusion that they're the market leaders because they are the best minatures company out there and people buy their products 'because they are GW'. They don't seem to understand that you need 'cheap' games like Necromunda or Mordheim to draw younger people into the hobby. They don't seem to understand that you can't charge £30 for 5 plastic models. The current GW management don't understand the fundamentals of how GW has achieved what it managed to achieve and are therefore doomed.

Commissar von Toussaint
26-07-2015, 03:45
They don't seem to understand that you need 'cheap' games like Necromunda or Mordheim to draw younger people into the hobby. They don't seem to understand that you can't charge £30 for 5 plastic models. The current GW management don't understand the fundamentals of how GW has achieved what it managed to achieve and are therefore doomed.

You say that, but they are making money hand over fist. Tom Kirby is wealthy beyond anything we are ever likely to achieve. Yeah, so GW will likely fall to pieces one day. So what? General Motors went bankrupt. Most companies fade over time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, merely trying to give some perspective. I've long been pessimistic about GW but despite my assuming that they'd be gone by now, here they are, still making money, still producing crappy products.

I've said before, but go over to the WHFB forums and watch them slowly go from unrelenting hatred of Age of Sigmar to acceptance and even enthusiasm. People think themselves immune, but the hold of that company on its customers is like the One Ring on Gollum. People rage and scream, and then buy another box because, well, that's what they do and maybe the next edition will fix it. In the mean time, those new sculpts are quite remarkable and maybe with some house rules the new system isn't so bad... :rolleyes:

You can laugh, but that is exactly what is going on. GW might shed half of its fantasy players but so what? The other half will pay through the nose to buy a game that requires even less support and has a far higher profit margin.

Who is the one who doesn't know what they are doing?

Kisanis
26-07-2015, 05:55
The devils greatest trick was convincing the world he didnt exist.

GW doesnt care because they dont have to. They make a decent profit from space marines, and everything revolves around that.

They then pay dividends to stockholders based on space marine profits.

Their business model revolves around selling more space marines, and licensing out space marine imagery, in the hopes it will sell more space marines.

GW is just a cash cow, and from an investment standpoint that's not bad. It annoys us all because were invested in the hobby, not the company.

The people that make the calls are invested in the company, not the hobby.


Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Kahadras
26-07-2015, 11:22
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, merely trying to give some perspective. I've long been pessimistic about GW but despite my assuming that they'd be gone by now, here they are, still making money, still producing crappy products.

Oh don't worry I know GW is going to stagger on for some time to come as there are still enough people around who are prepared to throw money at the company. While I would disagree that a lot of Warhammer players are changing their minds about AoS but what has suprised me is how some people seem to accept anything that GW puts out. For me AoS seems a very rushed product that deliberatly avoids the 'difficult' part of creating a game (balancing it). IMHO it's not up to the standards that I would expect from a company like GW. Can you imagine FFG or Privateer Press putting out something like this? It would be universally shunned and the company would be panned for making such a poor game.

sorberec
26-07-2015, 12:52
LotR was used as the base for the Warhammer Historical Old West rules. If there were conditions they couldn't have used it there.

Any conditions would likely have been around specifically not using the rules for the LotR fantasy setting for the Warhammer fantasy setting as they wouldn't have wanted GW to just use the LotR game as something to draw people into their stores and get them into WFB

vlad78
26-07-2015, 17:34
You say that, but they are making money hand over fist. Tom Kirby is wealthy beyond anything we are ever likely to achieve. Yeah, so GW will likely fall to pieces one day. So what? General Motors went bankrupt. Most companies fade over time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending them, merely trying to give some perspective. I've long been pessimistic about GW but despite my assuming that they'd be gone by now, here they are, still making money, still producing crappy products.

I've said before, but go over to the WHFB forums and watch them slowly go from unrelenting hatred of Age of Sigmar to acceptance and even enthusiasm. People think themselves immune, but the hold of that company on its customers is like the One Ring on Gollum. People rage and scream, and then buy another box because, well, that's what they do and maybe the next edition will fix it. In the mean time, those new sculpts are quite remarkable and maybe with some house rules the new system isn't so bad... :rolleyes:

You can laugh, but that is exactly what is going on. GW might shed half of its fantasy players but so what? The other half will pay through the nose to buy a game that requires even less support and has a far higher profit margin.

Who is the one who doesn't know what they are doing?

And how many people just left from those very same forum? I'm still here but I won't touch AOS and my space marines are shelved.

I stick to the idea that it is the background which made GW what it is now. AOS has none. and it is the player base which gave GW a unique advantage over all the comptition.

Half GW fantasy players may follow GW but how close are they to the threshold where it will become more difficult for their customers to find another AOS player?

de Selby
26-07-2015, 17:47
I've said before, but go over to the WHFB forums and watch them slowly go from unrelenting hatred of Age of Sigmar to acceptance and even enthusiasm. People think themselves immune, but the hold of that company on its customers is like the One Ring on Gollum. People rage and scream, and then buy another box because, well, that's what they do and maybe the next edition will fix it. In the mean time, those new sculpts are quite remarkable and maybe with some house rules the new system isn't so bad... :rolleyes:

You can laugh, but that is exactly what is going on. GW might shed half of its fantasy players but so what? The other half will pay through the nose to buy a game that requires even less support and has a far higher profit margin.

Well this seems like the same process that accompanied the introduction of 8th edition (complaints at the time: random charges, random terrain, steadfast promoting large costly units, etc.) Lots of people said they were sick of waiting for GW to tighten up the system and they were leaving. Others stuck around and I think the consensus is that at least the army books were quite well balanced.

Now a key reason for the introduction of AoS is supposed to be not enough people playing 8th. But they've doubled down on many things that caused people to give up on 8th, weirdly.

It's not the case that whatever we say on the forums people keep buying WFB the same. If it were we wouldn't have AoS, and GW's revenue wouldn't be falling (see financial reports).

RevEv
27-07-2015, 07:42
From what I can see in my local GW store AoS seems to be reinvigorating a line that was, to all intents and purposes, dead. WHFB sales were minimal despite a manager who's personal interest was WHFB.

On Warseer the Warhammer section has grown from 4 threads to several pages, and the discussion on AoS has extended beyond the Warhammer section. It is clear that AoS has polarised the gaming community, with many gamers going off in a huff because they can't see how the game can be balanced and rage quitting (who hasn't seen the guy burning his army?), and others coming back in because the fun has come back in to the game again (and I'm one of them, painting models I've had in store for years).

GW know full well what they are doing, especially after 30 years in the business of producing high quality models and rule to use with them. Profit is the bottom line with what they need to maintain.

This new set of rules may appear simplistic, but they are far mor complex in reality than they initially appear. As with any game it's how you use the game pieces rather than how the game pieces are regulated that develops the complexity of the game.

So, with such a definite statement being made by the OP I ask a question that has mysteriously disappeared - 'So, you know about Wargaming design because....?'

And this is not a personal attack on anyone!

Ronin[XiC]
27-07-2015, 07:44
Germany seem to have abbandoned WHF and Aos.

MiyamatoMusashi
27-07-2015, 08:30
This new set of rules may appear simplistic, but they are far mor complex in reality than they initially appear.

No... no, they're really not.

They may possibly be the most asinine, guileless, and unsubtle wargames rules ever published. Intentionally so, by all appearances. The only sense in which they are complex is in the unnecessarily laboured warscrolls (such as the by-now infamous 21 varieties of shield), which is not the good kind of complexity.


So, with such a definite statement being made by the OP I ask a question that has mysteriously disappeared - 'So, you know about Wargaming design because....?'

And this is not a personal attack on anyone!

Well, this is a discussion forum, so if we all have to prove our several-decades-of-game-design-experience (including links to our published works on BoardGameGeek and screenshots of our names in the credits pages of said publications, including an affidavit from the ghost of HG Wells, signed in blood, that the name in the screenshot corresponds to our forum handles) before we can even express our opinions, there won't be much discussion going on.

Or to put it another way, argument from authority is a well-known fallacy.

Herzlos
27-07-2015, 08:52
From what I can see in my local GW store AoS seems to be reinvigorating a line that was, to all intents and purposes, dead. WHFB sales were minimal despite a manager who's personal interest was WHFB.

AoS has really invogorated the fantasy gaming scene up here too. The amount of chatter and new warbands being purchased for Frostgrave is crazy. Like drowning everything else out.

RevEv
27-07-2015, 09:43
OK,

Let's put the question another way.

'What do you know about what GW's intent for the design of their wargames?'

And this, again, is not directed at any particular individual but is an expression of my increased frustration that elements of the Wargaming community have simply dismissed AoS without actually giving it a chance and have become even more vehement in their shooting down of people, such as myself, who actually enjoy the game for what it is. A bit of fun.

As far as I can see GW have a clear intent from what they wish to achieve with their AoS ruleset, to make it simpler to understand the basic game play. The complexity of the gameplay comes from exactly the place you see as a weakness, and which obviously annoys you, the warscrolls. Personally I find it a relief that the complex rules are there on the warscroll rather than having to remember where in the rulebook the particular explanation for the minutae of game detail sits. Not all of us are blessed with the ability to memorise reams of detailed rules.

Herzlos
27-07-2015, 09:48
So you're just moving the rules from a standard place to the scrolls? Not that I agree with the overabundance of special rules, but I'm not sure putting them all in the scrolls helps. Especially if there are 21 types of shield.

75hastings69
27-07-2015, 09:52
OK,

Let's put the question another way.

'What do you know about what GW's intent for the design of their wargames?'

I know that GW have openly stated their intent is to make models to sell to collectors and not be a games company, AoS proves they mean business! The complexity of AoS is akin to that of pop up pirates or buckaroo. Sure it's fun for a few minutes when you've had a load of beer. Beyond that it's not really much of a game (unless you're talking strip buckaroo!)

So you prefer that the rules are on warscrolls, for each unit? ....... so a collection of these warscrolls would be a few pages then? kind of like the section in a rulebook or armybook that dealt with theses rules originally? If only they could bind all the warscrolls for a particular force in one handy place and put a cover on it to avoid damage :D

Geep
27-07-2015, 10:16
And this, again, is not directed at any particular individual but is an expression of my increased frustration that elements of the Wargaming community have simply dismissed AoS without actually giving it a chance and have become even more vehement in their shooting down of people, such as myself, who actually enjoy the game for what it is. A bit of fun.

I have no problem with you enjoying AoS. It's great that it works for you, and it's wrong if people try to attack you personally for that.
It's not wrong for so much of the Warhammer community to have dismissed it without trying it though. Why? Simple because what it is is obvious- an overly simplistic skirmish game, set in a background no one cares about. Every element that drew most people to Warhammer has gone.
But why don't I just play it and see if I like it? Simply because I don't need to. I like some skirmish style games, but I have a range of them I already play. I used to play them alongside Warhammer, as they were different and offered different things. Now AoS is playing catch-up to well established systems, and I can't bring myself to care. Maybe if they hadn't killed the background, but no- they thoroughly obliterated everything that made Warhammer in one fell swoop.
As a weird comparison- Warhammer was cake, and other skirmish games I play are biscuits. I have established favourites already. The cake has gone, and in its place is a dodgy-looking biscuit. Why should I try to eat that biscuit alongside my known-to-be-good biscuits?


As far as I can see GW have a clear intent from what they wish to achieve with their AoS ruleset, to make it simpler to understand the basic game play. The complexity of the gameplay comes from exactly the place you see as a weakness, and which obviously annoys you, the warscrolls. Personally I find it a relief that the complex rules are there on the warscroll rather than having to remember where in the rulebook the particular explanation for the minutae of game detail sits. Not all of us are blessed with the ability to memorise reams of detailed rules.
Either you play with very few units, or you need to shuffle through many pages of scrolls just to find the one for the unit you want to use. That would get maddening quickly. I've played with people who had to flip through the book for every unit, but at least a book is set out in a constant fashion- people tend to learn roughly where things are very quickly.

MiyamatoMusashi
27-07-2015, 10:40
It's not wrong for so much of the Warhammer community to have dismissed it without trying it though. Why? Simple because what it is is obvious- an overly simplistic skirmish game, set in a background no one cares about. Every element that drew most people to Warhammer has gone.

Quite. I actually gave AoS more of a chance than I'd have given any similar game without the GW/Warhammer brand, because I played a couple of games to see if it was really as bad as it looked like from reading the rules. (Spoiler: yes, it was.) Had that game come from any other company, I'd have taken one look, said "no" and moved on. AoS's shortcomings are not the fault of the players.

As it is, like you, I've got dozens of other actually-good games I could be playing right now. Why would I waste any more time trying to find something good, in something so self-evidently bad? I mean, maybe - maybe - if they hadn't thrown out the fluff I loved I might have given the crunch even more time, hoping against hope to find something worthwhile hidden therein. But they did, so... yeah.

To RevEv: OK, you enjoy having "just a bit of fun" with AoS (what, have you been playing wargames for the past 10+ years without having fun?). Good for you. Bad movies can be fun sometimes, too - like Sharknado, for example. Objectively terrible movie by any measure, but you can switch your brain off for a couple of hours and roll with it, though you wouldn't want every movie you watched to be like it; very few people make a hobby out of watching terrible films, even if most of us find it "a bit of fun", say, a couple of times a year. Now imagine that the final Lord of the Rings movie, or Star Wars, or Game of Thrones had been made with the production values of Sharknado. You think that would have been a success? You think people would have laughed, and said, "oh, it's just a bit of fun"? Because that's what GW have done. Turning Warhammer into Age of Sigmar is like turning Game of Thrones into Sharknado. Even Peter Dinklage wouldn't be able to save that kind of change.

Kisanis
27-07-2015, 11:11
I'd say more kung fury over sharknado...

But I agree.
I don't hate AoS. I dont overly like it either. As a skirmish game id rather play a small game of 40k or historicals.

As a mass fantasy game? It lacks the depth of stratgey I like, and becomes clunky (moving individuallly based models not in movement trays get slow like a game of 40k at 3000 pts).

and then theres the points; I like points. It allows pre planning, which is important because the older I get the less time I have. It also makes the game feel more mentally challenging knowing the matchup is even.

I know some of my friends want to give aos more of a go because they're far more loyal to gw than myself, so ill be playing it more.

Some people likenit for all the reasons I dislike it; and thats ok! This isnt about convincing each other of pro/con, its about understanding why each other is pro/con



Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

75hastings69
27-07-2015, 11:25
Anyone fancy a game of buckaroo?

Horace35
27-07-2015, 11:29
It's endemic of a company that does not know what its customers want because it is unwilling to interact with its customer base on any level.

75hastings69
27-07-2015, 11:48
I'm talking about new Buckaroo, I'm calling it "Age of Buckaroo", you get warscrolls for each of the items to be placed, and randomly pick the items before the game, if you pick less items than your opponent then sudden death rules apply! Also on one of the scrolls if you act like you are on a horse then your opponent has to take an extra go!

This will revolutionise the Buckaroo community as we know it!

Horace35
27-07-2015, 11:51
Sounds awesome, perhaps you could sell me a hard cover binder to put all those warscrolls in

75hastings69
27-07-2015, 12:04
Yes, and a case to keep all your AoB (tm) goodies in, crafted from finest Buckarooite

The_Real_Chris
27-07-2015, 12:24
This new set of rules may appear simplistic, but they are far mor complex in reality than they initially appear. As with any game it's how you use the game pieces rather than how the game pieces are regulated that develops the complexity of the game.

I agree. They are incredibly complex compared to what has gone before. Whereas before a player had a scenario and a points limit, now they have to fairly create a game with two sides that should be balanced (so requiring a far greater understanding of the possible different formations than before) according to the scenario they are developing. Now that is part and parcel of historical gaming and roleplaying. Both though tend to use a third party unless the two people know each other well and have been doing this for a time. You then tend to have to play it a few times to make sure the balance is correct. of course you can then release it tot he public which makes other players lives easier.

But still, a big ask compared to what people did before.

lordreaven448
28-07-2015, 00:37
From what I can see in my local GW store AoS seems to be reinvigorating a line that was, to all intents and purposes, dead. WHFB sales were minimal despite a manager who's personal interest was WHFB.

On Warseer the Warhammer section has grown from 4 threads to several pages, and the discussion on AoS has extended beyond the Warhammer section. It is clear that AoS has polarised the gaming community, with many gamers going off in a huff because they can't see how the game can be balanced and rage quitting (who hasn't seen the guy burning his army?), and others coming back in because the fun has come back in to the game again (and I'm one of them, painting models I've had in store for years).

GW know full well what they are doing, especially after 30 years in the business of producing high quality models and rule to use with them. Profit is the bottom line with what they need to maintain.

This new set of rules may appear simplistic, but they are far mor complex in reality than they initially appear. As with any game it's how you use the game pieces rather than how the game pieces are regulated that develops the complexity of the game.

So, with such a definite statement being made by the OP I ask a question that has mysteriously disappeared - 'So, you know about Wargaming design because....?'

And this is not a personal attack on anyone!

Do I HAVE to be a games designer to criticize? If so then why am I not allowed to criticize it? Are game designers infallible in their profession? The game designers make games that are designed to be played. If the community is not enjoying said game then the designers failed. AoS does seem to be pulling in gamers, but I've noticed that all ones near me whom play it never played WFB for long, and have never played anything but 40K. I have not seen any dedicated WFB player come back, the LotR guys are staying with their (Heavily modded) rules. So all it did was bring 40k players to AoS.

All in all I see no reason to buy into AoS. The Khorne models look nice, but can models really keep a game alive if the rules barely exist? It's not a historical game so having no points or pre-defined scenarios or formations really knee caps the game. Since it's fantasy and supposed to be about narrating fun and simple battles why are there no points? Why should the gamers have to come up with scenarios every time they meet up. It's way too much work for a supposed simple game.

So what is it then? It's nothing more than GW trying to get people to buy Fantasy Space Marines. And if the rumour of 30k is true, why even call it Warhammer anymore? It's just Space Marines incorporated. So to answer your question. Do I have to be a rules designer to criticize rules? No. For if I had to be, I would be a God among their kind by their standard of writing.

I mean no insult, but your question comes off as apologetic at it's finest. I will concede GW does know what it's doing. However, it's not doing it because of some grand scheme of business genius, it's doing it because GW doesn't know what else to do. They wouldn't have killed WFB if they didn't kneecap it then told it to perform Swan Lake. AoS is here because GW shot itself and they are fixing it the only way they know how, by throwing Space Marines at the problem.

Commissar von Toussaint
28-07-2015, 02:34
From what I can see in my local GW store AoS seems to be reinvigorating a line that was, to all intents and purposes, dead. WHFB sales were minimal despite a manager who's personal interest was WHFB.

I've brought this up before: the seen vs unseen.

What you see is the bustle of people buying and talking and chatting. What you do not see is the people quietly dropping out. That's the way it usually works: people who stay with the system carry on and talk about it, while the ones go do just that. They leave. They may announce a "rage quit" and then...silence.

Let me give you an example. I quit 40k a dozen years ago. You won't see me much in the forum as a result. I still pop in for the 2nd ed. discussions, but otherwise, I am silent. A non-factor. My lack of purchasing makes no noise, but it does affect GW.

The big question is this: After all the chatter calms down and those threads fall off the front page, will GW have gained or lost players? I'm hoping they lose them - to my brilliant but tragically unknown game, Conqueror: Fields of Victory available at Amazon.com in both paperback and digital download. :evilgrin:

And yes, I've made a few sales all of a sudden.

So: Thank you, GW! :D



GW know full well what they are doing, especially after 30 years in the business of producing high quality models and rule to use with them. Profit is the bottom line with what they need to maintain.

I agree. They are milking their players and even with all the rage quitting and hate threads, the GW addicts are starting to gain a foothold in the conversation space. It's not surprising because (as I said above) the people who get disgusted just go away and pretty soon it's only the active players who are left. They'll still post dozens of threads about how much this rule is cheaty or that combo unfair, but so long as they keep buying (and they will), it's a win for GW.

Which is what I fully expect to keep happening.


So, with such a definite statement being made by the OP I ask a question that has mysteriously disappeared - 'So, you know about Wargaming design because....?'

LOL, I love it when people try to play status games. I live in a college town so I know better than most how a slew of titles doesn't matter worth jack. Some of the dumbest people I've ever met had multiple advanced degrees. I mean some levels of stupidity take years of university education to develop.

But to your point, I'm your huckleberry. I'm a game designer with one published design and others in service with parties who will remain nameless.

And by the vastness of my conflict simulation design experience, I hereby announce: AoS is crap! Therefore, go forth and play it no more! :p

Reinholt
28-07-2015, 04:51
CVT made a key point here:

The reason you see people raging but then staying on the forums and trying AoS is because you don't see the people who quit. If they break off, they don't stay to post on the forums about not playing (most of the time). This is the graveyard problem in statistics terms (not seeing the population who did not cross the threshold for some given thing).

The sad but very real truth is that most people who leave don't come back, and leave quietly. GW's falling unit sales confirm this trend. We will see if AoS can reverse it, but I am doubtful.

Ghal Maraz
28-07-2015, 07:54
And we've already seen people going from 'I had a blast! It was very fun!' to 'It's more of the same, every single game: no tactics, no variety'.

Not that there aren't people who still enjoy it, but it's not only a positive trend or a 'GW addicts will buy anything'. Go take a look, for example, to Spiney Norman's, to cite just one, last month posting history.

MiyamatoMusashi
28-07-2015, 08:43
What you see is the bustle of people buying and talking and chatting. What you do not see is the people quietly dropping out. That's the way it usually works: people who stay with the system carry on and talk about it, while the ones go do just that. They leave. They may announce a "rage quit" and then...silence.

Quite. Exactly this could be observed with 8th Ed fantasy. It came out, and there was furore (about random charges, uber spells, etc. etc. etc.). But over the years, the furore died down until eventually everyone in the Warhammer Fantasy forum was wholeheartedly agreed that 8th Ed was the best and most balanced game ever.

Is that because everyone who thought it was rubbish changed their minds? Or because everyone who thought it was rubbish stopped played it and stopped talking about it? The clue is in the fact that its sales were apparently so catastrophic that GW thought it necessary to kill the game and even the fluff and start over - not that I think that was the right choice for what to do next, but it shows how badly Warhammer had collapsed. So ask yourselves again: was the apparent agreement that 8th Ed was amazing really evidence of a consensus, or just another sign that dissenters simply left for pastures new? The answer is pretty clear.

75hastings69
28-07-2015, 10:21
To be fair not in decades had WFB brought anything near the amount of income that 40k does, WFB was still making money, just not enough to A/satisfy management/investors and B/to not have space marines included in its range.

Horace35
28-07-2015, 10:51
Why do you noisy few have to be so damn noisy?

Kisanis
28-07-2015, 11:13
I still dont get one thing.

Whu dodnt they just revamp brets top to bottom into the fantasy space marines?

In the fkuff they have special warhorses, an army of heavy knights, the 40k grimdark peasant society.

Non need to blow up the world.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

NCO
28-07-2015, 12:00
I think GW knows what they are doing, their expected result is a little disconnected from reality.

Making AOS a living rulebook is a nice move for obvious reasons.
Come time to release miniatures they don't have to time it with army books anymore, more like they can some up with stats when it is needed, very much centered on IP protection and possibly cost cutting.
Also if they need to bump sales for a particular miniature it's a lot easier now to change the stats for that miniature to make it more important to the game.
Looking at it this way, getting rid of the point values and their other decisions makes a lot more sense.

I try not to look at it in terms of the target audience, since they said they don't market research they wouldn't be able to target anyone.

75hastings69
28-07-2015, 12:47
I think GW knows what they are doing, their expected result is a little disconnected from reality.

Making AOS a living rulebook is a nice move for obvious reasons.
Come time to release miniatures they don't have to time it with army books anymore, more like they can some up with stats when it is needed, very much centered on IP protection and possibly cost cutting.
Also if they need to bump sales for a particular miniature it's a lot easier now to change the stats for that miniature to make it more important to the game.
Looking at it this way, getting rid of the point values and their other decisions makes a lot more sense.

I try not to look at it in terms of the target audience, since they said they don't market research they wouldn't be able to target anyone.

Seriously 4 pages is a "living rulebook" it's barely acceptable as an instruction on how to light a BBQ!

I still do not see how changing the names of elfs, dwarves, ogres, trolls, orcs etc (but strangely not dragons) protects them in any way shape or form? sure the name changes, but the generic fantasy stereotype and image remains, and is open to be copied by anyone as they are widely used generic fantasy races. If GW made their own UNIQUE races then they could conceivable claim to own their IP. Owning a name to a generic pre-existing image is fruitless. In fact on a sales front I think it is counter productive, any person reading any generic fantasy novel or watching a fantasy movie is likely to come across the terms elf, dwarf, orc etc. if they google those names there's a good chance they might get links to or images of GW products. Who on earth outside of pre-existing GW fans/BL readers is going to come across the term Aealf, Duardin Steamhead, Orukk etc.????

Kisanis
28-07-2015, 12:56
Seriously 4 pages is a "living rulebook" it's barely acceptable as an instruction on how to light a BBQ!

I still do not see how changing the names of elfs, dwarves, ogres, trolls, orcs etc (but strangely not dragons) protects them in any way shape or form? sure the name changes, but the generic fantasy stereotype and image remains, and is open to be copied by anyone as they are widely used generic fantasy races. If GW made their own UNIQUE races then they could conceivable claim to own their IP. Owning a name to a generic pre-existing image is fruitless. In fact on a sales front I think it is counter productive, any person reading any generic fantasy novel or watching a fantasy movie is likely to come across the terms elf, dwarf, orc etc. if they google those names there's a good chance they might get links to or images of GW products. Who on earth outside of pre-existing GW fans/BL readers is going to come across the term Aealf, Duardin Steamhead, Orukk etc.????
Very much this.

You cab say that these are the names of elven states within the bubble worlds.

So the elves are the enclave of aelth or whatever. That makes sense.

Its like renaming a duck to "dukkh"

And then literally using the same bird. Youre just inventing a new word for something already in existence. People can copy that left right and centre still because you haven't invented anything. Just a new word for an existing thing.

I think what it comes down to for me is AoS is a great idea with a terrible execution.

Free rules online that are simple and concise, free rule sin the boxes of models. Totally shaking up the storyline narrative to progress the plot forward and bring new races and characters into the world.

Sounds great.

What we got, is what happens when IP lawyers and accountants build a game based off those parameters.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

de Selby
28-07-2015, 13:25
I still do not see how changing the names of elfs, dwarves, ogres, trolls, orcs etc (but strangely not dragons) protects them in any way shape or form? sure the name changes, but the generic fantasy stereotype and image remains

Have you actually seen the new races? I'm wondering quite how generic they'll be. The only thing I've seen on here is the idea that the new 'duardin' models will be some kind of fire-creatures, which is not entirely original but not exactly standard either. If, for the sake of argument, the new 'aelf' guys have four eyes each and the new 'gwogres' all have their heads on backward, GW might well have races that it would be legally difficult to make compatible minis for.

Katastrophe
28-07-2015, 13:45
Quite. Exactly this could be observed with 8th Ed fantasy. It came out, and there was furore (about random charges, uber spells, etc. etc. etc.). But over the years, the furore died down until eventually everyone in the Warhammer Fantasy forum was wholeheartedly agreed that 8th Ed was the best and most balanced game ever.

Is that because everyone who thought it was rubbish changed their minds? Or because everyone who thought it was rubbish stopped played it and stopped talking about it? The clue is in the fact that its sales were apparently so catastrophic that GW thought it necessary to kill the game and even the fluff and start over - not that I think that was the right choice for what to do next, but it shows how badly Warhammer had collapsed. So ask yourselves again: was the apparent agreement that 8th Ed was amazing really evidence of a consensus, or just another sign that dissenters simply left for pastures new? The answer is pretty clear.

Why confuse people with logic and common sense. Destroys their narrative that 8th was the sliced bread of Warhammer. Just quit making sense and stating the obvious, it's not good for this Forum.

tristessa
28-07-2015, 14:14
Why confuse people with logic and common sense. Destroys their narrative that 8th was the sliced bread of Warhammer. Just quit making sense and stating the obvious, it's not good for this Forum.

Trouble is that lots of people in the know will tell you that 7th edition sales weren't better. Fantasy was on the decline for a while. You could pick a lot of reasons why. I think that somewhere along the line the high fantasy genre (orcs and dwarfs and that) hit a saturation point. The LOTR films were a big success and World of Warcraft was huge and then the WHFB sales began to decline, probably because people had their fill or were getting their fantasy battles somewhere else. It is a generic genre, it is full of tropes and I think a big part of the success of Game of Thrones on TV is that it visualised a different style of fantasy world.

40k remains successful because it is more unique; same for the Heresy. These settings are less well represented on TV or in video games.

I don't blame GW for shunting all in on something that will eventually stand apart. The uniqueness of their new fantasy world(s) makes them more easier to protect.

I might be wrong. We'll see how big the biggest Kings of War tournament is - if it hits the heights of something like the SCGT then we'll know that high fantasy can still kick it.

75hastings69
28-07-2015, 14:42
Trouble is that lots of people in the know will tell you that 7th edition sales weren't better. Fantasy was on the decline for a while. You could pick a lot of reasons why. I think that somewhere along the line the high fantasy genre (orcs and dwarfs and that) hit a saturation point. The LOTR films were a big success and World of Warcraft was huge and then the WHFB sales began to decline.....

Not quite true. WFB held it's own and was making profit. It never generated the kind of profit that 40k did/does, but that was the failing of the huge buy in price and also the fact that people find sci fi with guns etc hugely more appealing than swords & scorcery. This mythical declining death spiral of fantasy wasn't actually that, it simply didn't make as much profit as the management and investors would like for a core range product.

tristessa
28-07-2015, 14:46
There were definitely times when the sales of WHFB looked better than 40k though - the launch of the first big boxed game in 1992 was a huge success compared to the maze that was trying to find what rules you actually needed for Rogue Trader. Using that as point A and AoS as point Z there was a definite decline in the percentage of GW sales that came from WHFB.

75hastings69
28-07-2015, 14:49
Have you actually seen the new races? I'm wondering quite how generic they'll be. The only thing I've seen on here is the idea that the new 'duardin' models will be some kind of fire-creatures, which is not entirely original but not exactly standard either. If, for the sake of argument, the new 'aelf' guys have four eyes each and the new 'gwogres' all have their heads on backward, GW might well have races that it would be legally difficult to make compatible minis for.

Well unless GW are going to scrap each and every elf, dwarf, orc, ogre, troll etc. plastic kit that they have invested hundreds of thousands in to then spend more hundreds of thousands replacing with a brand new race as it were for each then it's not going to leave them much room for profit, especially when AoS has further reduced the GW fantasy fanbase/customer base. How many years at 1 box and 1 clampack per week (amongst the off AoS 40k release weeks) will it take to fill out a range of entirely new races??? The orcs, ogres, etc will remain as is and just the names will change (and the boxes) there is no way on earth GW are going to scrap such new plastic kits as the ogre stonehorn, high elf phoenix, arachnarok spider, river troll, carnosaur etc. If they do I shall come back here and post photographic evidence of me eating a boxed set of AoS!!!

75hastings69
28-07-2015, 14:52
There were definitely times when the sales of WHFB looked better than 40k though - the launch of the first big boxed game in 1992 was a huge success compared to the maze that was trying to find what rules you actually needed for Rogue Trader. Using that as point A and AoS as point Z there was a definite decline in the percentage of GW sales that came from WHFB.


Hence my quote on the other thread of 40k has made more profit than WFB for decades. Don't forget when it all started for GW there was no 40k, just WFB (then a boxed sets with 3 rulebooks and cardboard characters!). Point is WFB did turn a profit, just not enough for what GW/investors want.

Katastrophe
28-07-2015, 15:18
Well unless GW are going to scrap each and every elf, dwarf, orc, ogre, troll etc. plastic kit that they have invested hundreds of thousands in to then spend more hundreds of thousands replacing with a brand new race as it were for each then it's not going to leave them much room for profit, especially when AoS has further reduced the GW fantasy fanbase/customer base. How many years at 1 box and 1 clampack per week (amongst the off AoS 40k release weeks) will it take to fill out a range of entirely new races??? The orcs, ogres, etc will remain as is and just the names will change (and the boxes) there is no way on earth GW are going to scrap such new plastic kits as the ogre stonehorn, high elf phoenix, arachnarok spider, river troll, carnosaur etc. If they do I shall come back here and post photographic evidence of me eating a boxed set of AoS!!!

The 7 million invested in the studio per their report may be evidence of just that, scrapping all the old ranges and creating new races from scratch. Now let's see how they sell.

The_Real_Chris
28-07-2015, 15:29
Well unless GW are going to scrap each and every elf, dwarf, orc, ogre, troll etc. plastic kit that they have invested hundreds of thousands in

If they aren't selling and GW don't want to promote and market them, why would you continue to make them?

Apologist
28-07-2015, 15:40
I'd be interested to know how closely the events of recent weeks/months/years mirror those of Epic.

That ticked along steadily and – anecdotally, at least – performed as well as Warhammer Fantasy Battles. It then had a complete revamp (complete with new bases!) with a much more abstracted, though arguably more modern and innovative, ruleset, and sales dropped off a cliff.

It disappeared as a core game, though returned – briefly and badly supported – under the Specialist Games umbrella before finally being dropped. Shame, as the final version of Epic (and its continued fan-support) was a fantastic game.

hellharlequin
28-07-2015, 15:48
Trouble is that lots of people in the know will tell you that 7th edition sales weren't better. Fantasy was on the decline for a while. You could pick a lot of reasons why. I think that somewhere along the line the high fantasy genre (orcs and dwarfs and that) hit a saturation point. The LOTR films were a big success and World of Warcraft was huge and then the WHFB sales began to decline, probably because people had their fill or were getting their fantasy battles somewhere else. It is a generic genre, it is full of tropes and I think a big part of the success of Game of Thrones on TV is that it visualised a different style of fantasy world.
...

Diffrent? the joke is actually, Westeros and the warhammer world are in a way quite similar in tone, feel and and inspiration.

75hastings69
28-07-2015, 15:55
The 7 million invested in the studio per their report may be evidence of just that, scrapping all the old ranges and creating new races from scratch. Now let's see how they sell.


If they aren't selling and GW don't want to promote and market them, why would you continue to make them?

If this is what they do I'm in deep **** with my big mouth, not because I won't eat the models, they'll be much easier for me to swallow than giving GW 75 quid for the AoS box!!!! :D :D :D

Kisanis
28-07-2015, 15:57
Except westeros was made to feel much better than fantasy did as of late.

I think the old world had great moments, but the fluff was feeling tired. It had its high points, but on the whole the world was very... meh. Especially when looked at alongside lotr/GoT.

The visualisation of the two is also different. GW made fantasy 40k grimdark in 6th edition. And as much as I live the rules, I kinda hate the shift in the world that began there.

It just became grimdark everywhere, instead of the weird funny and fantastic world it was before.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

jtrowell
28-07-2015, 15:59
Have you actually seen the new races? I'm wondering quite how generic they'll be. The only thing I've seen on here is the idea that the new 'duardin' models will be some kind of fire-creatures, which is not entirely original but not exactly standard either. If, for the sake of argument, the new 'aelf' guys have four eyes each and the new 'gwogres' all have their heads on backward, GW might well have races that it would be legally difficult to make compatible minis for.

And the problem is : what if the succeed in making new copyrightable races, and the result is that they by becoming less generic they lose most of their appeal ?

Some players came to the Warhammer world from Tolkien. Others came from D&D or similar games/universes.
If GW still sell generic dwarves, even If I don't play warhammer anymore I can still buy a few to use in RPG (Warhammer RPG and D&D for a start), or to use with other games (Kings of War here I come !), but if they start only making fire dwarves for exemple, those can only be used easily in AoS (or as Azer in D&D I suppose, but not really common material), and not even in older Warhammer editions. So this mean that at the same time that they make them easier to protect, they also make them less valuable for the general public.

Kahadras
28-07-2015, 17:06
I think the old world had great moments, but the fluff was feeling tired. It had its high points, but on the whole the world was very... meh. Especially when looked at alongside lotr/GoT.

To be fair the Old World needed a bit of a shake up. It's been around for ages why not advance the 'plot' ten or fifteen years? Instead of Chaos as the 'big bad' why not focus on something else like the Undead under Nagash? You could drop out old characters and replace them with new ones. You could tell a whole bunch of new stories while still based in the same world.

MiyamatoMusashi
28-07-2015, 17:18
To be fair the Old World needed a bit of a shake up. It's been around for ages why not advance the 'plot' ten or fifteen years? Instead of Chaos as the 'big bad' why not focus on something else like the Undead under Nagash? You could drop out old characters and replace them with new ones. You could tell a whole bunch of new stories while still based in the same world.

Or, y'know, let people tell their own stories. With their games. In the setting. Because it's a setting. Not a story.

Kahadras
28-07-2015, 21:29
Or, y'know, let people tell their own stories. With their games. In the setting. Because it's a setting. Not a story.

Yup but if GW creates a new story it gives people new inspiration for their own stories. Evolve the setting and get people to think about the Old World in a different way.

de Selby
29-07-2015, 04:02
End Times Nagash seeme universally well received. I'd have loved it if they'd used the return of Nagash to revitalize the setting rather than finish it off.

ebbwar
29-07-2015, 08:51
End Times Nagash seeme universally well received. I'd have loved it if they'd used the return of Nagash to revitalize the setting rather than finish it off.

At first I thought that what was happening. Once I realised it was the beginning of canning Warhammer, I left the building. Elvis style.

tristessa
29-07-2015, 13:13
The idea that GW should sell generic fantasy miniatures because they can be used for other games is all fine and well until you realise that such sales account for literally 0.0000000001% of all GW sales.

Free rules = get your models on the tables even sooner now kids. This is definitely a bigger step towards the game being a framework for selling models than previous editions.

Herzlos
29-07-2015, 13:45
The idea that GW should sell generic fantasy miniatures because they can be used for other games is all fine and well until you realise that such sales account for literally 0.0000000001% of all GW sales.

~12p annually?

I know what you're getting at though, but I think it's more than you are guessing at. There's a relatively high proportion of collectors who don't care about rules, and plenty of games (including D&D) GW mini's are being used in. At a wild guess I'd maybe put it in the 0.05-0.5% range @ ~£60-600k. That's still a lot of sales.

tristessa
29-07-2015, 13:53
Haha! Remove either "literally" or a few zeroes.

I bet it's not as high as 0.05 though. Just a guess mind.

Herzlos
29-07-2015, 14:47
Haha! Remove either "literally" or a few zeroes.

I bet it's not as high as 0.05 though. Just a guess mind.

£60k in sales is only about 3000 boxes / mini's @ £20 each. Doesn't seem totally out there.

Kisanis
29-07-2015, 14:54
Free rules = get your models on the tables even sooner now kids. This is definitely a bigger step towards the game being a framework for selling models than previous editions.

We definitely agree here.

I dont hate the concept of what AoS is.

Hell, id love it if it was set in the old world AS CHAOS RIPS IT APART.

Where warp portals spawn and demons, chaos, etc.. are overruning it and THEN sigmar returns with some sigmarines to help push back the tide.

Then Nagash and skaven are also warring over the scraps trying to remake the world in their own images.

But no. We get bubble worlds and no old world.




Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

jtrowell
29-07-2015, 16:02
The idea that GW should sell generic fantasy miniatures because they can be used for other games is all fine and well until you realise that such sales account for literally 0.0000000001% of all GW sales.

Free rules = get your models on the tables even sooner now kids. This is definitely a bigger step towards the game being a framework for selling models than previous editions.

With AoS being a sorry excuse for a game, it might become more and more the case. I know that for myself anything I might buy from GW in the coming year would be to complete my existing armies to use them with Kings of War, and it would probably not be the most recent kits are those are just too expensives even for those that I like the design.

I *might* maybe buy the AoS box to split with a friend, he would take the chaos guy (he has always been a big Khorne player) and I would then find some use for the sigmarines, probably to start a Basilean army, but then I realise that I already have several angels from D&D miniatures and the Bones kickstarters, so even for that the sigmarines won't be my first choice.

Kisanis
29-07-2015, 18:08
I may pick up some models to round out my existing collections.

Some stormvermin, more clanrats maybe. A few bret models before they all die away.

Maybe some wwood elves or high elves, and a few orcs and goblins... maybe...

But likely not. I have aHard time justifying 150$ for 40k which I play monthly at best.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

paddyalexander
30-07-2015, 17:36
One of the things bothering me about the AoS release is all this rhetoric around gwPlc being innovative. Does adopting the practices of the rest of the industry years after your competitors have made them practically standard (and doing a poor job of it at that) really count as innovation these days?

Innovation means doing something new not poorly immatating what your competition have been doing for years.

shelfunit.
30-07-2015, 17:52
Innovation means doing something new not poorly immatating what your competition have been doing for years.

Well, they're definately trying something their competition are not - shrinking sales, market share and decreasing customer base! A sure fire way to show 'em.

ebbwar
30-07-2015, 20:29
Well, they're definately trying something their competition are not - shrinking sales, market share and decreasing customer base! A sure fire way to show 'em.

I have a sneaking suspicion that their competitors will not try to jump on this bandwagon... ;)

vlad78
31-07-2015, 13:43
To be fair the Old World needed a bit of a shake up. It's been around for ages why not advance the 'plot' ten or fifteen years? Instead of Chaos as the 'big bad' why not focus on something else like the Undead under Nagash? You could drop out old characters and replace them with new ones. You could tell a whole bunch of new stories while still based in the same world.

It's only a setting because they let it be so. For the warhammer RPG, initially they designed a wonderful campaign which advanced the storyline quite a bit. Then, nothing had happened for the following 20 years.

vlad78
31-07-2015, 13:44
One of the things bothering me about the AoS release is all this rhetoric around gwPlc being innovative. Does adopting the practices of the rest of the industry years after your competitors have made them practically standard (and doing a poor job of it at that) really count as innovation these days?

Innovation means doing something new not poorly immatating what your competition have been doing for years.

Imho they speak to people who've not been in contact with the competition = new players .

vlad78
31-07-2015, 13:45
Well, they're definately trying something their competition are not - shrinking sales, market share and decreasing customer base! A sure fire way to show 'em.

Would it be selfish to hope they are eventually successful?

vlad78
31-07-2015, 13:47
The idea that GW should sell generic fantasy miniatures because they can be used for other games is all fine and well until you realise that such sales account for literally 0.0000000001% of all GW sales.

Free rules = get your models on the tables even sooner now kids. This is definitely a bigger step towards the game being a framework for selling models than previous editions.

This is why it's hightime to jump ship.

ebbwar
31-07-2015, 21:12
It's only a setting because they let it be so. For the warhammer RPG, initially they designed a wonderful campaign which advanced the storyline quite a bit. Then, nothing had happened for the following 20 years.

They also retconned the WFRP Enemy Within campaign out of existance and then stopped advancing the plot :P

vlad78
31-07-2015, 22:08
They also retconned the WFRP Enemy Within campaign out of existance and then stopped advancing the plot :P

Ironically, I believe everything which made the old world great came from the work they put into the roleplay 25 years ago. The setting described in wfrp 1st edition was incredibly promising.

And then Karl Franz suddenly rode on a griffin and wfb gradually became a bland high fantasy setting, AOS being the ultimate move in that direction.

lbecks
31-07-2015, 22:47
The changing bases thing is nuts.

Mudkip
01-08-2015, 02:20
I don't really count blowing up the setting as "advancing the storyline". If the next season of Game of Thrones becomes a hospital drama then the plot would certainly have gone somewhere, but... Whatever GW says, AoS is practically a new IP.

MiyamatoMusashi
01-08-2015, 08:09
I don't really count blowing up the setting as "advancing the storyline". If the next season of Game of Thrones becomes a hospital drama then the plot would certainly have gone somewhere, but... Whatever GW says, AoS is practically a new IP.

You don't understand. Turning GoT into a hospital drama is the only way to save it. Would you rather there were no GoT at all???

Deadhorse
01-08-2015, 08:24
Nurse, quick! This man has taken a crossbow bolt to the stomach! The police are saying he's been shot by his son!
By god! Give him 50 ccs of Valar Morghulis and prep him for the operating room, stat!

75hastings69
01-08-2015, 08:30
....This man has taken a crossbow bolt to the stomach!....

or an arrow to the knee ;)

Kahadras
01-08-2015, 13:21
or an arrow to the knee

GW used to be a games company untill it took an arrow to the knee :(

blackcherry
06-08-2015, 16:03
To answer the OP, its probably the design team don't have as much control as they want.

Secondly, many things are all about perception. Many a player of GW games has spent the past few years complaining about how LotR has ruined their experience, to the point where even mentioning (the really good) rules sets them off into a frothing rage :p.

GW's marketing department is probably minimal as it is. They probably wouldn't be able to cope with the combined rage over the end of WFB and it being replaced with a games system using the LotR rules. :p

Sephillion
06-08-2015, 16:55
I have a sneaking suspicion that their competitors will not try to jump on this bandwagon... ;)

No but I think a competitor might succeed where GW fails with AoS: providing a simpler, faster paced wargame. It wouldn’t take a lot of work to turn AoS from terrible to workable, the harder would be testing, but with many designers seemingly willing to use a more “living” system, even that shouldn’t be a very hard obstacle. It’s possible to have a well-designed game that is much simpler than 40K, FB, WMH, etc. without having dumb rules like AoS.
Measure from base; don’t allow shooting while engaged, don’t allow shooting at engaged enemies (or with a penalty); remove sudden death; change charge/pile-in rules; clarify a few things; and voila. AoS is almost there. Next, test, test, test.

I’m sure someone in the industry will see that AoS fills a need, and that person will be able to do it more competently.

In the same time, another company (or the same, why not) will see that there is a void left by the death of WHFB and will do it (KoW?).

Sephillion
06-08-2015, 16:58
I don't really count blowing up the setting as "advancing the storyline". If the next season of Game of Thrones becomes a hospital drama then the plot would certainly have gone somewhere, but... Whatever GW says, AoS is practically a new IP.

Nah, the equivalent would be blowing up the world, then having Melisandre bring back the world from its ashes, and she sends super knights without personality fight White Walkers in parallel dimensions, riding bolts of fire to battle.

But, where is Jeffrey?

RandomThoughts
06-08-2015, 18:17
I’m sure someone in the industry will see that AoS fills a need, and that person will be able to do it more competently.

But we already have a bunch of easy, fast-paced skirmish games - almost every wargaming company starts out that way, because it requires less models on the shelf up front and makes it easier for new players o pick it up.

The one need AOS seems to aspire to is a fantasy-themed game with the GW logo on every box.

Sephillion
06-08-2015, 18:56
But we already have a bunch of easy, fast-paced skirmish games - almost every wargaming company starts out that way, because it requires less models on the shelf up front and makes it easier for new players o pick it up.

The one need AOS seems to aspire to is a fantasy-themed game with the GW logo on every box.

Which one are you referring to, out of curiosity? I know some games that require much less models than WHFB/40K/AoS, but none that are as simple as AoS. And none that are fantasy themed.

The simpler games I think of do not have the hobby aspects to it.

Kisanis
06-08-2015, 19:23
1 page rules have a series of rules which are very general. And designed for "wargaming" in general.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

The_Real_Chris
07-08-2015, 03:05
Not fantasy or skirmish but king of the battlefield has all the rules on two sides and after ten years is still fun. And a friends WW1 airplanes game is two sides and brilliant.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

paddyalexander
07-08-2015, 15:10
Which one are you referring to, out of curiosity? I know some games that require much less models than WHFB/40K/AoS, but none that are as simple as AoS. And none that are fantasy themed.

The simpler games I think of do not have the hobby aspects to it.

X-Wings' rules are essentially a pamphlet https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/support/SWX01_XwingCoreRulebook_lowres.pdf

Warmachine/Hordes' quick start rules are a few pages long http://privateerpress.com/files/WarmachineMKII%20Quick%20Start%20Rules%20Front.pdf and are great for playing small battle group games.

KoW is only a dozen pages or so and scales very well from small to very large games http://www.manticgames.com/free-rules.html

Infinitys' basic quick start rules http://static.infinitythegame.com/archivo/descargas/WEBQuickStartRules%20ENG2015.pdf

All of these games are well balanced, scale well from a few models a side to larger games and are a much better jumping off point for creating your own game than the mess that is AoS. (I've used Warmachine to create a Mass Effect skirmish game for example).

Sephillion
07-08-2015, 16:35
X-Wings' rules are essentially a pamphlet https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/support/SWX01_XwingCoreRulebook_lowres.pdf

Warmachine/Hordes' quick start rules are a few pages long http://privateerpress.com/files/WarmachineMKII%20Quick%20Start%20Rules%20Front.pdf and are great for playing small battle group games.

KoW is only a dozen pages or so and scales very well from small to very large games http://www.manticgames.com/free-rules.html

Infinitys' basic quick start rules http://static.infinitythegame.com/archivo/descargas/WEBQuickStartRules%20ENG2015.pdf

All of these games are well balanced, scale well from a few models a side to larger games and are a much better jumping off point for creating your own game than the mess that is AoS. (I've used Warmachine to create a Mass Effect skirmish game for example).

No contest - they’re all better designed than AoS by a mile, some are quite simple. But AoS is still even simpler. I personally find it too simple for my taste, but there are people who apparently like it. That’s where I was getting at. Simplker than AoS and you get grown-ups making pew-pew sounds! :D

Even in all this simplicity they found the place to insert one of their famous Random TableTM and to describe (badly) the various realms.

I think you could do something just as simple as AoS, with more balance, and less goofs. And I'm not saying using AoS as a base either, that would be a crappy base.

Tupinamba
08-08-2015, 13:52
No but I think a competitor might succeed where GW fails with AoS: providing a simpler, faster paced wargame.

There are already several out there. Just out of my head, take a look at Wrath of Kings.

The problem is that GWs fanbase is really loyal. In another thread, someone said he´d be playing AoS because he couldn´t bother with some "obscure" games, like Warmahordes, INfinity etc.:wtf:

This attitude really is the only thing keeping GW over water. As others have said, had AoS been realeased by any other company, it´d have been laughed at and than been forgotten within a month. Because GW launched it, people desperatly try to keep it alive and give it any meaning, instead of looking around at an already existing top quality competition. With miniatures at least at the same quality level than GW, far better rules and infinitely better cost-benefit relations.

It´s mind boggling.

paddyalexander
08-08-2015, 14:34
The problem is that GWs fanbase is really loyal. In another thread, someone said he´d be playing AoS because he couldn´t bother with some "obscure" games, like Warmahordes, INfinity etc.:wtf:


This is a big advantage gwgPLCs' Hobby Stores give them. It insulates a large number of their customer base from the rest of the table top gaming market. There are some games stores (like the one I frequent) where seeing gwgPLC games played is a bi-annual event.

NCO
08-08-2015, 15:59
Maybe the 4 page rules is answer to warmahorde page 5 :D

I agree that GW stores gives the impression GW is the hobby.
In my case at least, once I've discovered other wargames, miniatures especially sculpting my own all that was left was the fluff.
I didn't need anything GW had been putting out in the last years.
The volume of release actually put me off, there were too many made everything less than special.

itcamefromthedeep
12-08-2015, 15:05
WHFB can be done in maybe 8 pages with a fair deal of rigor, so long as you go the AoS/Warmahordes route and just print the special rules and spells in the unit entry rather than having USRs.

Most of the real complexity and nuance come from the rules for maiing blocks of troops function, which end up being relatively intuitive but take a lot of verbiage to explain thoroughly.

Charges and flee moves are the next biggest offenders in terms of complexity.

Psychopomp
12-08-2015, 17:26
X-Wings' rules are essentially a pamphlet https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/support/SWX01_XwingCoreRulebook_lowres.pdf

Warmachine/Hordes' quick start rules are a few pages long http://privateerpress.com/files/WarmachineMKII%20Quick%20Start%20Rules%20Front.pdf and are great for playing small battle group games.

KoW is only a dozen pages or so and scales very well from small to very large games http://www.manticgames.com/free-rules.html

Infinitys' basic quick start rules http://static.infinitythegame.com/archivo/descargas/WEBQuickStartRules%20ENG2015.pdf

All of these games are well balanced, scale well from a few models a side to larger games and are a much better jumping off point for creating your own game than the mess that is AoS. (I've used Warmachine to create a Mass Effect skirmish game for example).

And these are just a selection of company-backed rulesets with miniature lines attached. There's tons of simple, cheap (or free) miniatures-neutral skirmish games produced by smaller/indie companies as pdf, or even print/POD in some cases. Too many to list here, honestly. I've learned of so many great "pocket change" simply by lurking on the forums over at lead-adventure.de

In fact, as I was reading the AoS rules, I kept thinking, "Why would I want to play this when I could use the Pulp Alley rules I already own to do Realms of Chaos style warband skirmishes?"

Coldhatred
15-08-2015, 18:31
I don't think they could use the LotR rules if they wanted to. I believe it lies in the fine print of the licensing contract.

mrtn
15-08-2015, 20:47
They used it for a Wild West ruleset already.

Coldhatred
16-08-2015, 04:25
They used it for a Wild West ruleset already.

Yeah, but it wasn't fantasy. I think there is something in there about specifically using it for another fantasy game. I could be completely talking out of my ****, but I feel like I heard that from someone when I worked for GW, someone actually credible that is.

mrtn
16-08-2015, 09:26
Well, I wouldn't know about that of course. :) But, hasn't there been discussion about how hard it is to copyright rules? Surely it would be possible to take ideas from the set without making a carbon copy.

Hengist
16-08-2015, 14:08
This new set of rules may appear simplistic, but they are far mor complex in reality than they initially appear. As with any game it's how you use the game pieces rather than how the game pieces are regulated that develops the complexity of the game.
Poor terminology. AoS' rules are indeed every bit as simplistic as they seem. Now it is possible that the gameplay that emerges from them is more complex than those simple rules would suggest, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that. Having played - and attempted to play in the spirit the rules apparently intend - a few small experimental games with them, I have yet to observe any of that supposed depth emerge.


So, with such a definite statement being made by the OP I ask a question that has mysteriously disappeared - 'So, you know about Wargaming design because....?
As others have pointed out already, this is a fallacious argument. I know about wargaming because... I have played games and learned rules for twenty years, and critically analysed both things. And that's actually the only qualification anybody in the games business has.


And this, again, is not directed at any particular individual but is an expression of my increased frustration that elements of the Wargaming community have simply dismissed AoS without actually giving it a chance and have become even more vehement in their shooting down of people, such as myself, who actually enjoy the game for what it is. A bit of fun.
Two more fallacious arguements. Firstly, you are pretending that anybody who disagrees with you is arguing from ignorance. (And, come to think of it, why should we 'give AoS a chance' anyway; we owe the corporate megalith that is GW no more loyalty than any other games publisher.) If you believe those of us who have played AoS (or even just read the rules) have missed some wonderful emergent quality, it is up to you to point to it, rather than to make straw men.

Secondly: 'fun'. Tell me, if you enjoy the game as-is, how would balancing mechanisms like points values reduce that fun? It is a piece of cake to ignore such things and write scenarios, or just chuck models onto the board for a quick brawl; I have been doing that for decades when that is what I and my opponent want. It is not nearly so simple - indeed it is complex beyond the point of feasibility - for the players to invent a general balancing mechanism for a game written without one when they want to play a balanced game.

Finally, ponder this. One of WFB's few strengths as a game (because the rules always have been, in most respects, terrible) was that of network effect, and its positive feedback loop. It had a player base large enough that you could find an opponent - and indeed a community - without hassle in any given city. If AoS' rules really have alienated players in the numbers they appear to, then you too will suffer for the limitations of those rules - even if you enjoy the gameplay that results from them - when you find your supply of opponents drying-up.

ebbwar
16-08-2015, 15:01
As others have pointed out already, this is a fallacious argument. I know about wargaming because... I have played games and learned rules for twenty years, and critically analysed both things. And that's actually the only qualification anybody in the games business has.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut? You mean there is no school for miniature wargames design? :P

rmeister0
16-08-2015, 18:48
Finally, ponder this. One of WFB's few strengths as a game (because the rules always have been, in most respects, terrible) was that of network effect, and its positive feedback loop. It had a player base large enough that you could find an opponent - and indeed a community - without hassle in any given city.

GW had alienated a lot of WHFB players long before AoS came out. While what you describe may have been true for your local community it was not universally true.

Hengist
16-08-2015, 22:43
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut? You mean there is no school for miniature wargames design? :P
Though if there were, Mat Ward would have flunked out of it.


GW had alienated a lot of WHFB players long before AoS came out. While what you describe may have been true for your local community it was not universally true.
Warhammer had been haemorrhaging players for years, thanks to clumsy rules, terrible balance, the aforementioned Ward, comical prices, finecast, et al, but I am inclined to see AoS as the point at which the shark was definitively jumped, and GW's fantasy game (whatever we - or they - call it) spiralled from mere failure into total oblivion. A year or so will tell whether my educated guesswork is correct, of course.

Herzlos
17-08-2015, 07:02
Do you think it's being deliberately killed off by someone?

Kahadras
17-08-2015, 08:39
Do you think it's being deliberately killed off by someone?

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Herzlos
17-08-2015, 09:37
That was my initial thought, but I'm not sure even stupidity is capable of producing something this bad.

It gives me the impression of a middle-manager who dislikes something and have been tasked to revitalize it, so he's doing his best to appear to be revitalizing it whilst sabotaging it. It's a big problem is a lot of companies where management politics kick in, especially where the staff have been there a long time and are hired for attitude.

Of course, it is possible that GW really are inept enough to make so many mistakes whilst thinking they are doing the right thing, but even blind luck has to be correct sometimes.

Sureshot05
17-08-2015, 10:48
AoS is clearly a direct attempt to invigorate fantasy and not done by malice (Malice doesn't erect giant statues outside your HQ). However, it is also a development driven by sales and cost cutting. AoS allows minimal design efforts, no need to balance the rules at all (so design team can be shrunk) and is clearly built around space marines, but for fantasy. It is a classic GW move in that it is not driven by community relations, no market research was done, and doesn't pay attention to what its competitors are doing. Instead of learning from what was wrong with Warhammer, they simply have repeated all the mistakes of warhammer, but on steroids.

If you look at this Christmas, AoS will be directly competing with X-wing and Armada due to the hype. Whilst GW IP is not able to compete with that behemoth, they should then be aiming to compete on a different front, which they haven't. The rules are not deep enough to allow for in-depth game play (imo). The game lacks balance. It is substantially more expensive (£30 a set vs. £10 an expansion set, and similar for starters) and the models require painting. If you are aiming for a casual market, they don't want to paint. If you want people to invest, then the rules should match this. In the end, which would you buy your kid for xmas? A more expensive, but inferior in every way product, or the other product?

The_Real_Chris
17-08-2015, 11:39
Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut? You mean there is no school for miniature wargames design? :P

Off topic - but there is. Various conflict focused masters courses have a section on wargaming and for some that includes designing your own wargame. I also get paid to play them sometimes in my job :)

ColShaw
17-08-2015, 12:58
I suppose the best school for wargame design would be an Army staff college...

That'd be quite the education to apply.

The_Real_Chris
17-08-2015, 13:52
Oddly enough there is very little wargaming in staff college, at least the UK one.

Hengist
17-08-2015, 16:54
Do you think it's being deliberately killed off by someone?
Do I think so? No. On the data available, I see WFB as a game that suffered from some inherent problems (too many armies, insufficient distinctiveness, and antiquated rules - all legacies of its genesis back in the 80s), and some situational ones (being eclipsed by 40k, inconsistent balance, piecemeal attempts to address the former). It probably didn't help that the public's taste for traditional generic fantasy has seriously dried-up in the wider world in favour of superheroes and urban fantasy/new weird stuff (or genre deconstructions like GoT).


Oddly enough there is very little wargaming in staff college, at least the UK one.
The RN still use wargaming as an teaching tool, at least according the the matelots with whom I work.

ebbwar
17-08-2015, 20:10
Though if there were, Mat Ward would have flunked out of it.

Only Mat Ward...? ;)

Russell's teapot
18-08-2015, 08:36
I don't get the Mat Ward hate. His codexes (for 40k) were consistently good rules wise. Generally with good internal balance, and against other Matt Ward codexes pretty well balanced too.

I don't see the fact that his codexes were "better" than other writers as being his issue, rather that there wasn't a joined-up overview of how the armies fitted together. Which is a management balls up or, more likely, the fact that no-one with a management role really cared about the game. This lack of care and attention also allowed Ward to write fluff that wasn't in my opinion (and by anecdote, other's opinion too) particularly good, or well meshed with the rest of the fluff.

If Matt Ward wrote all the codexes, I think the game would be in a better place. In fact, Alessio's simple base rules & Ward's codex writing are a pretty good fit in my opinion - the trouble was that we had a non-Alessio bloated rule book with Ward's bloated codexes tacked on, which made the whole thing a pestilent mess.


Anyway, back to the question - does GW know what it's doing? Yes, they know what they're doing. But they don't appear to know what their customers want, therefore they're doing the wrong thing.

Finnigan2004
19-08-2015, 00:34
I think most of the Matt Ward hate is about the fantasy army book he wrote for daemons that basically "crashed the system". Make no mention of balance to fantasy fans when speaking of Matt Ward. I think that GW has never understood how to create a good and balanced fantasy game, though they have often created fun and not too terrible games. AoS is basically ceding the territory of creating a quality game to their competitors-- hoping their miniatures can carry the day. I think that a great deal of their trouble came from not wanting to pay much for game designers, and letting quality people go after they learned their trade and hit their stride. You see much former GW talent all over the place. Likewise, they ruined their magazine because they did not want to pay people to create rules, take pictures, or write articles for it-- instead opting for putting out an expensive catalog every month. I do not think their "just the models" approach will be enough, but time will tell.

Archaon
19-08-2015, 03:08
I believe GW would have been capable of designing good rules and armybooks but the designers were limited by marketing and the business side of things which apparently believed that bigger/more outlandish was better at selling than consistent design. This is why we always had armybook/codex creep because it was their selling point without actually saying it. I believe people like Jake Thornton, Rick Priestly, Tuomas Pirinen, Andy Chambers and Alessio Cavatore were in general good rules writers but were most of the time overruled by the management or dictated and i also think that's the reason they all left because they realized where all of this was headed (on top of other reasons of course).

As always GW is only playing the short game, rarely looking beyond 2-3 years which is their production cycle apparently but they are also unwilling to really find out what the customers want. In all my 20+ years as a gamer i have never truly encountered an honest to god open and frank conversation with their customers/fans about the direction of their product. Once they kicked their "numbers over game design" habit into high gear in the 00s (shutting down Specialist Games, shutting down the Bitz service, shutting down their own message board) you could easily see that GW was more interested in immediate sales rather than a long term development of their IP which was sorely needed as the 00s saw the rise of competitors such as Warmachine/Hordes that were there to stay as opposed to the 90s where competitors usually died in a few years due to lack of players and thus revenue.

GW is believing to be immune to market influences because it's the big kid in the playground and it doesn't need much effort to stay like this forever. They think that their IP is so god damn awesome that people will never abandon it when in fact it's sometimes secondary for players who want a good game with good rules first (40K may be an exception because of it's truly unique IP which is a draw for many). As GW is not willing to deliver this as it would most likely change their business model and ideology we receive Age of Sigmar which is the distilled version of everything GW has become.. a small rulesset that could have been knocked together by any veteran player that cuts away all pretense at balance (because that requires a big staff that usually works for months developing and playtesting the balance of it) and complexity because to have that costs money which GW is unwilling to spend. It's easier to push out single warscrolls with profiles where you design a model with the principle "It sounds cool and it could roughly work like this" when you don't have to test it too much against all the other warscrolls because it's now a fun/beer&pretzel game that doesn't need any kind of indepth design and testing and is just there to sell miniatures (whose IP is now locked snd protectable by renaming everything so no more generic Dwarves or Elves).

It's a sad state for those of us who have left the game ages ago to play others but still keep an eye on the game and company that brought them into this hobby and is responsible for countless hours of fun and finding some friends whom you would have never met otherwise. I miss these days but then again the wargaming hobby is well and alive and may of those friends made the move with me so it's all good (at least for me.. i don't expect GW to be around in their current state in 10 years or so, they are headed for the cliff and make no discernible effort to veer off course).

MiyamatoMusashi
19-08-2015, 08:56
I think most of the Matt Ward hate is about the fantasy army book he wrote for daemons that basically "crashed the system". Make no mention of balance to fantasy fans when speaking of Matt Ward.

Or Grey Knights for 40K. Equally ridiculous.

And then let's mention the fluff. Pretty much every Ward Codex was an absolute fluff abomination.

Yeah, let's not be revisionist here. Mat Ward wasn't some misunderstood auteur whose genius is only appreciable in hindsight. He really was as bad as everyone said at the time. His books broke the game (whichever game they were for) and abused the background. Good riddance... not that they seem to have replaced him with anyone better.

Hengist
19-08-2015, 13:43
If you look at this Christmas, AoS will be directly competing with X-wing and Armada due to the hype. Whilst GW IP is not able to compete with that behemoth, they should then be aiming to compete on a different front, which they haven't. The rules are not deep enough to allow for in-depth game play (imo). The game lacks balance. It is substantially more expensive (£30 a set vs. £10 an expansion set, and similar for starters) and the models require painting. If you are aiming for a casual market, they don't want to paint. If you want people to invest, then the rules should match this. In the end, which would you buy your kid for xmas? A more expensive, but inferior in every way product, or the other product?
This, by the way, is a very perspicacious analysis of the problems AoS - and by extension GW - will face as a result of the direction they have chosen. What they have wound up putting on the shelves is not nearly enough of a game for wargamers, and still vastly too expensive and fiddly for the casual market.

Gorsameth
19-08-2015, 13:59
Or Grey Knights for 40K. Equally ridiculous.

And then let's mention the fluff. Pretty much every Ward Codex was an absolute fluff abomination.

Yeah, let's not be revisionist here. Mat Ward wasn't some misunderstood auteur whose genius is only appreciable in hindsight. He really was as bad as everyone said at the time. His books broke the game (whichever game they were for) and abused the background. Good riddance... not that they seem to have replaced him with anyone better.
I disagree with some of that. The fluff you are entirely correct, never let him touch any fluff ever.
overarching design, yes the Grey Knight codex was broken as hell.
Internally tho? I would call the Grey Knight codex one of the best ever made. Multiple possible styles, few useless units, pretty good solution to fitting the different ordo's and their many servants in. I would love for more books to have that level of diversity. Tho ofcourse they need to not break the game at the same time.

Spiney Norman
19-08-2015, 14:13
Or Grey Knights for 40K. Equally ridiculous.

And then let's mention the fluff. Pretty much every Ward Codex was an absolute fluff abomination.

Yeah, let's not be revisionist here. Mat Ward wasn't some misunderstood auteur whose genius is only appreciable in hindsight. He really was as bad as everyone said at the time. His books broke the game (whichever game they were for) and abused the background. Good riddance... not that they seem to have replaced him with anyone better.

I dunno, sitting looking at the crapfest of the AoS rules and fluff I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

If memory serves he did the 6E wood elf army book which was excellent, he also wrote the rules part of 8th edition WFB and the LotR mass-battle game War of the Ring (which was mechanically quite a good game, but flopped due to lack of support from the company and LotR in general already being on a steady decline when it came out).

He wasn't very good at fluff I concede, and he did make a few really overpowered books (7th ed wfb daemons and 5th ed 40k GK), but to be completely fair to him every designer has made a few complete screw ups. Phil Kelly did the current Eldar book (he also did the 5th edition Dark Eldar book, which was a masterpiece), Robin Cruddace did 5th ed 'leaf lower' IG, Jervis did at least two of the last three Dark Angel codexes, all of which have been utterly dreadful. I think Jeremy Vetock is probably the only member of the studio who doesn't have a major blemish to his name, but neither does he have a major triumph.

ihavetoomuchminis
19-08-2015, 14:48
Jeremy did the 7th ed. skaven codex.

Finnigan2004
19-08-2015, 14:49
This, by the way, is a very perspicacious analysis of the problems AoS - and by extension GW - will face as a result of the direction they have chosen. What they have wound up putting on the shelves is not nearly enough of a game for wargamers, and still vastly too expensive and fiddly for the casual market.

GW showing us once again that failure to plan is a plan to fail :rolleyes:.

Sephillion
19-08-2015, 14:59
I dunno, sitting looking at the crapfest of the AoS rules and fluff I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

If memory serves he did the 6E wood elf army book which was excellent, he also wrote the rules part of 8th edition WFB and the LotR mass-battle game War of the Ring (which was mechanically quite a good game, but flopped due to lack of support from the company and LotR in general already being on a steady decline when it came out).

He wasn't very good at fluff I concede, and he did make a few really overpowered books (7th ed wfb daemons and 5th ed 40k GK), but to be completely fair to him every designer has made a few complete screw ups. Phil Kelly did the current Eldar book (he also did the 5th edition Dark Eldar book, which was a masterpiece), Robin Cruddace did 5th ed 'leaf lower' IG, Jervis did at least two of the last three Dark Angel codexes, all of which have been utterly dreadful. I think Jeremy Vetock is probably the only member of the studio who doesn't have a major blemish to his name, but neither does he have a major triumph.

Kelly did also the poor 6th edition Chaos Space Marines book.

Yeah, I think every one of them had their moments and their failings. Why they were inconsistent is probably because they were assigned armies they didn’t know/care enough about, or because they were pressured for time or had other internal constraints.

For what it’s worth, the new Eldar books seems a lot of fun… it’s just too bad no army can compete with it! If armies were at the same power level, it wouldn’t be a problem, and probably a great book. Same with 5th edition GK book.

Spiney Norman
19-08-2015, 15:03
Jeremy did the 7th ed. skaven codex.

The fact that you've stopped there suggests your statement should be self-explanatory, personally I have a number of friends who play with the 7th ed skaven book and as far as my experience goes it is fun to play with and against. Granted it had the longest FAQ of any warhammer army book, but in fairness that is mostly explained by the fact that it was a book from a previous edition being used in a version of the game with some fairly significant differences to its predecessor. I don't see 7E Skaven as being particularly OP or UP, I'd say 'solid but unremarkable' like most of Vetock's other work.

itcamefromthedeep
19-08-2015, 15:31
With 5e Grey Knights, the problems could be solved in their entirety by removing psybolt ammunition, fixing turbo-penetrator rounds and swapping the prices on the upgrades for Purifiers and Strike Squads. The balance issues were relatively modest, but had a far-reaching impact (which is how it usually is with "broken" army books).

The Daemons book for Fantasy was a big problem though. Those models averaged perhaps 75% of the price they should have been.

Malagor
19-08-2015, 21:05
Robin Cruddace did 5th ed 'leaf lower' IG,
And he did Tyranids, twice, an army he apperently doesn't even like and he even nerfed his own nerfs. Quite a feat really.
Vetock's books has a tendency to be a bit bland atleast when it came to fantasy but good books overall but few issues naturally.
Slaughtermasters having armor, Dwarfs having an item that no one is allowed to take, Lizardmen has a character that gives a bonus to joining a unit he isn't allowed to join and a few others.
Ward's books were overall decent, Daemons, Grey Knights being the worst offenders but then we have the 3 Elves books and ET Khaine that he confirmed that he wrote which changed fantasy for the worst IMO.

vlad78
19-08-2015, 21:30
Or Grey Knights for 40K. Equally ridiculous.

And then let's mention the fluff. Pretty much every Ward Codex was an absolute fluff abomination.

Yeah, let's not be revisionist here. Mat Ward wasn't some misunderstood auteur whose genius is only appreciable in hindsight. He really was as bad as everyone said at the time. His books broke the game (whichever game they were for) and abused the background. Good riddance... not that they seem to have replaced him with anyone better.

One objection, your honor, 5th edition codex space marines was really good. It had some flaws, mainly the lack of chapter tactics but otherwise it brought new cool and fresh ideas.

The two next SM codicies are just copies of his work. 6th edition SM codex added chapter tactics as I said and the terrible centurions and awful looking flyers and the 7th edition codex just integrated formations to push customers to buy more but otherwise there's nothing new under the sun.

Therefore Ward could do some great things.

vlad78
19-08-2015, 21:33
With 5e Grey Knights, the problems could be solved in their entirety by removing psybolt ammunition, fixing turbo-penetrator rounds and swapping the prices on the upgrades for Purifiers and Strike Squads. The balance issues were relatively modest, but had a far-reaching impact (which is how it usually is with "broken" army books).

The Daemons book for Fantasy was a big problem though. Those models averaged perhaps 75% of the price they should have been.

Concrning codx GK, you had to change how inquisitorial retenues worked and their pricing. In fact, you had to change everything and remove almost all the powerful combinations allowed to make it on par with all other armies.

Yet if played casually without power gaming, it could be really cool.

Gorsameth
19-08-2015, 23:23
Concrning codx GK, you had to change how inquisitorial retenues worked and their pricing. In fact, you had to change everything and remove almost all the powerful combinations allowed to make it on par with all other armies.

Yet if played casually without power gaming, it could be really cool.
No one denies that externally the GK codex was broken. Its the internal balance that is well done. If every 40k codex was as good as the 5th GK dex (minus fluff) the game would be in a much better state.

Spiney Norman
20-08-2015, 00:44
No one denies that externally the GK codex was broken. Its the internal balance that is well done. If every 40k codex was as good as the 5th GK dex (minus fluff) the game would be in a much better state.

That must be why every 5th edition GK army just spammed psycannons and either Paladins or purifiers ;)

Losing Command
20-08-2015, 06:17
Yeah the internal balance of the 5th edition GK codex wasn't that amazing. Specially weapons options weren't really options ; there were one or two good choices, the rest was not worth taking really. I'm still waiting for a reason to ever field psilencers ...

Personally I think GW does know exactly what it's doing, but thinks its actions will have different results than what happens in reality.

NCO
20-08-2015, 13:31
Personally I think GW does know exactly what it's doing, but thinks its actions will have different results than what happens in reality.

Totally agree with this, it's as if GW is being innovative and a steering the business in a different direction, thing is for every Steve Job there are thousands of flops.

HelloKitty
20-08-2015, 13:54
Concerning Grey Knights, I only ever saw a handful of units ever used. They could honestly have cut every page out of the codex except for one page that had those three or so units and that would have been an equally valid codex from what I had to see every week for a while until 6th edition dropped. I don't think it was internally well balanced at all, it was a codex that seemed like it was written for a different game because of how much stronger it was compared to everything else because of its highly broken handful of units that contributed to both its internal and external imbalance.

I would think that if it had actually had true internal balance that you would have seen more than two builds (and maybe people have, but I know here I did not see more than the same two builds spammed over and over. I must have killed Draigo 1000 times)

Sureshot05
24-08-2015, 15:45
The sad part about the casual market statement is that X-wing was released before AoS was committed to. Given their 2 year development cycle (probably longer for AoS) and X-wing being a hit release in 2012 (which has grown and grown) it is clear that they didn't research what a casual game needed beyond smaller model counts. We can only hope that something changes at GW and they start to wise up. However, I doubt that it will happen in the next 4 years, given both their cycle development and lack of research. Pity, because nearly every gamer can see at least one missed opportunity, which means the company is missing a shed load.

Kahadras
28-08-2015, 23:46
Given their 2 year development cycle (probably longer for AoS) and X-wing being a hit release in 2012 (which has grown and grown) it is clear that they didn't research what a casual game needed beyond smaller model counts.

To be fair to GW they did precisely zero research. Simply put GW don't care. They don't care about the games they produce. They don't care about the people they cater towards. Bottom line is that GW wants your cash; as much of it as they can get from you. If you are the kind of person who would buy a limited edition AoS rulebook and a £680 terrain piece then welcome to GW! If you arn't going to pay those prices then you're a bitter veteran who needs to be shown the door (and take your 8th edition Warhammer rule book with you).

Spiney Norman
29-08-2015, 00:04
The sad part about the casual market statement is that X-wing was released before AoS was committed to. Given their 2 year development cycle (probably longer for AoS) and X-wing being a hit release in 2012 (which has grown and grown) it is clear that they didn't research what a casual game needed beyond smaller model counts. We can only hope that something changes at GW and they start to wise up. However, I doubt that it will happen in the next 4 years, given both their cycle development and lack of research. Pity, because nearly every gamer can see at least one missed opportunity, which means the company is missing a shed load.

Except that x-wing is such a hit precisely because it carries the Star Wars brand, there are a whole slew of games that use exactly the same rules as x-wing which are not nearly so successful (Star trek/D&D attack wing & Wings of war), so while I think it's true that having great rules definitely helps, having the Star Wars label undoubtedly helps more. In that respect unless you are suggesting that GW should have sought a Star Wars franchise for AoS (which seems a little ludicrous), I'm not really sure what else they could have taken away from the success of x-wing.

ehlijen
29-08-2015, 00:59
GW had their own version of X-wing once: Aeronautica Imperialis, a short lived specialist game from FW that died with the rest of them.

But while the IP is undoubtedly the biggest draw of X-wing, there is a second big reason as well: the card powers. Using card powers to build potent combos, while not the be all end all of the game, has a big enough impact to attract the kinds of players who enjoy memorisation and combo potential analysis, the way MtG and Malifaux do. Putting specific cards into specific boxes in low quantities to bait purchases beyond just the needed ship models was a marketing stroke of genius.

As far as I know, wings of war and Aeronautica Imperialis didn't use such a card system, X-wing was the first to and it gave it that extra startup kick.

X-wing didn't just target casual wargamers and star wars fans, it targeted the very numerous combo deck builder gamers as well. That's another lesson GW could learn: figure out what the players want, then give it to them (in the form of a game you at least pretended to spend effort to write on). FFG does this and gets away charging the prices they do (which are almost as bad as GW's in Australia, only saved by the smaller average game size).

The real takeaway from X-wing that I can see is: Make a good game, and people will pay the money for it (and that is a lesson GW should love to learn).

scg
29-08-2015, 04:31
The OP is correct in my opinion; more than correct they are not even merely stupid and fumbling in the dark, they are insane. Actually crazy. I am in the process of starting up a LGS, it should be obvious to stock GW but I have had a look at their trade terms and they are really insane, really insane. I can't do business with a company that flipping nuts or I'll end up both as crazy as they are and also broke. Please gamers! Tell me you won't ask me to stock GW. Please... I am begging you..:cries: Mantic is good yes? Avatar of War is good yes? Warmachine? You likey? You buyey? Please...

Buddy Bear
29-08-2015, 05:36
I'd love to get a look at their trade terms, because every anecdotal story I've heard, including from my FLGS owner (who no longer carries any GW product), makes it out to be a horror show. I'm certain that's a major component of why they're not selling as well as they should be.

ebbwar
29-08-2015, 11:28
I'd love to get a look at their trade terms, because every anecdotal story I've heard, including from my FLGS owner (who no longer carries any GW product), makes it out to be a horror show. I'm certain that's a major component of why they're not selling as well as they should be.

I guess one of the terms is that if you ever talk about GW trade terms, the inquisition will be sent round to shoot you for Heresy! Blam! :P

First rule of GW trade terms club, don't talk about GW trade terms club ;)

75hastings69
29-08-2015, 11:50
I had an online store for a short while and will say GW are not the easiest to work with.

itcamefromthedeep
29-08-2015, 12:34
GW had their own version of X-wing once: Aeronautica Imperialis, a short lived specialist game from FW that died with the rest of them.

But while the IP is undoubtedly the biggest draw of X-wing, there is a second big reason as well: the card powers. Using card powers to build potent combos, while not the be all end all of the game, has a big enough impact to attract the kinds of players who enjoy memorisation and combo potential analysis, the way MtG and Malifaux do. Putting specific cards into specific boxes in low quantities to bait purchases beyond just the needed ship models was a marketing stroke of genius.

As far as I know, wings of war and Aeronautica Imperialis didn't use such a card system, X-wing was the first to and it gave it that extra startup kick.

X-wing didn't just target casual wargamers and star wars fans, it targeted the very numerous combo deck builder gamers as well. That's another lesson GW could learn: figure out what the players want, then give it to them (in the form of a game you at least pretended to spend effort to write on). FFG does this and gets away charging the prices they do (which are almost as bad as GW's in Australia, only saved by the smaller average game size).

The real takeaway from X-wing that I can see is: Make a good game, and people will pay the money for it (and that is a lesson GW should love to learn).
This is valuable insight.

itcamefromthedeep
29-08-2015, 12:36
Concrning codx GK, you had to change how inquisitorial retenues worked and their pricing. Why is that?

Ken52682
29-08-2015, 15:38
The OP is correct in my opinion; more than correct they are not even merely stupid and fumbling in the dark, they are insane. Actually crazy. I am in the process of starting up a LGS, it should be obvious to stock GW but I have had a look at their trade terms and they are really insane, really insane. I can't do business with a company that flipping nuts or I'll end up both as crazy as they are and also broke. Please gamers! Tell me you won't ask me to stock GW. Please... I am begging you..:cries: Mantic is good yes? Avatar of War is good yes? Warmachine? You likey? You buyey? Please...


Don't worry, I'm sure you'd do better without stocking GW. Its hard competing with all the ebayers and second hand communities like Bartertown as well as chinese recasters. My flgs just decided to stop working with them and did a massive sale on all GW in which I bought a significant amount. I don't play the game but I do enjoy painting and collecting the minis. However, my rule is that I dont buy GW minis unless they're at least 40% off NIB.

Sureshot05
29-08-2015, 20:41
Except that x-wing is such a hit precisely because it carries the Star Wars brand, there are a whole slew of games that use exactly the same rules as x-wing which are not nearly so successful (Star trek/D&D attack wing & Wings of war), so while I think it's true that having great rules definitely helps, having the Star Wars label undoubtedly helps more. In that respect unless you are suggesting that GW should have sought a Star Wars franchise for AoS (which seems a little ludicrous), I'm not really sure what else they could have taken away from the success of x-wing.

Whilst I would say Star trek failed because the mechanics were not suited to the ships (look at Armada for excellent cap ship rules) there is no doubting that Star wars is easily responsible for every person picking it up and having a look and definitely doubled the sales the excellent mechanics are what have kept the waves selling. Loads of star wars games have come and gone, some have been huge successes (Deciphers CCG for example) others have been abject failures (any other Star Wars CCG that you could mention really ;) ).

Star wars got them to pick up the box, FFg designing a damned good game got them buying the expansions, and multiple copies.


GW had their own version of X-wing once: Aeronautica Imperialis, a short lived specialist game from FW that died with the rest of them.

But while the IP is undoubtedly the biggest draw of X-wing, there is a second big reason as well: the card powers. Using card powers to build potent combos, while not the be all end all of the game, has a big enough impact to attract the kinds of players who enjoy memorisation and combo potential analysis, the way MtG and Malifaux do. Putting specific cards into specific boxes in low quantities to bait purchases beyond just the needed ship models was a marketing stroke of genius.

As far as I know, wings of war and Aeronautica Imperialis didn't use such a card system, X-wing was the first to and it gave it that extra startup kick.

X-wing didn't just target casual wargamers and star wars fans, it targeted the very numerous combo deck builder gamers as well. That's another lesson GW could learn: figure out what the players want, then give it to them (in the form of a game you at least pretended to spend effort to write on). FFG does this and gets away charging the prices they do (which are almost as bad as GW's in Australia, only saved by the smaller average game size).

The real takeaway from X-wing that I can see is: Make a good game, and people will pay the money for it (and that is a lesson GW should love to learn).

I would say AI suffered on multiple fronts, it wasn't as balanced, it lacked variety, and had some needless complexity. However, your summary of x-wing is spot on, the CCG mechanic is very well mixed in.

GW's IP is not Star Wars, but with several top hit computer games its not unheard of either. People do pick up familiar brands when browsing, GW may not have Star Wars, but given it made its name in wargaming, it should be regarded as the best out their for multiple categories. At the moment, with the choices made for AoS and 40k...
- its not regarded as a great pick up game due to balance issues
- its pricing is not regarded as competitive nor the best
- its background to AoS is not regarded as brilliant by the majority (completely subjective, and apologies if you disagree)
- its marketing is not good. It has bad word of mouth and non existent advertising.
- its still complicated to get into! (AoS has made it so that it is impossible to have a game outside the starter set without lengthy debate with an opponent first, 40k has spiralling issues with balance that need addressing)

But
- it does have an excellent background for 40k (and oldhammer).
- it does have some great models.

Russell's teapot
30-08-2015, 12:19
I really enjoyed AI, but it suffered from some really bad design. The worst being a pretty much blanket 6+ to hit. I think AI is a better simulation, but X-wing is a better game.

I still play both, but getting a game of x-wing is easier by multiple factors. Which is as it would be even if you could still buy AI.

vlad78
30-08-2015, 20:10
Why is that?

Same as always for every OP codicies under 5th. Inquisitorial retenues had powerful options which should have cost much much more, and the codex allowed to spam them in their transports allowing to abuse vehicles advantages of 5th edition just like IG did. Codex GK was not just about psybolts and purifiers and draigo.

itcamefromthedeep
31-08-2015, 12:25
A big component of what made GK transports effective was the psybolt ammo on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Without psyflemen at S8, and without passbacks and without messed-up turbo-penetrator rounds, the army loses its teeth in terms of long-range anti-tank. At that point, your ranged anti-tank comes from, what, the odd lascannon on a vehicle? They would have their legs cut out from under them in the 5e environment.

Commissar von Toussaint
01-09-2015, 23:38
Speaking of insanity, I noticed a thread in the fantasy area claiming GW is pulping unsold WHFB books rather than discounting them.

On the one hand, I think it is utter madness, but I guess if you regard the secondary market as a major enemy, you pretty much want to destroy whatever of your old product you can get your hands on.

"We destroyed the hobby in order to save it."

O.G-Palmer
02-09-2015, 00:49
Yep, it literally goes into the bin along with many other things.

What I have seen thrown away would make many weep.

Scribe of Khorne
02-09-2015, 06:15
Staggering levels of stupidity unless they get some kind of money/tax kickback due to this.

ehlijen
02-09-2015, 08:28
They can't really continue selling them in their stores (including the webstore), as those books are outdated product. Doing so would run the risk of confusing customers and hurt their 'premium' self image. And they don't do sales. They don't have a channel for selling older books as collectors items and they believe the newer books surpass them in quality, so they won't create one.

So I can see why they'd not want to keep storing stock they're never going to directly sell. It's a dumb chain of logic in outcome, but it is consistent with its misguided starting point.

Baragash
02-09-2015, 08:41
I would say AI ....... lacked variety

Are you saying that FW/GW's massive Imperial hard-on can be detrimental to people's interest in a game? ;):p

heliodorus04
02-09-2015, 14:39
Except that x-wing is such a hit precisely because it carries the Star Wars brand, there are a whole slew of games that use exactly the same rules as x-wing which are not nearly so successful (Star trek/D&D attack wing & Wings of war), so while I think it's true that having great rules definitely helps, having the Star Wars label undoubtedly helps more. In that respect unless you are suggesting that GW should have sought a Star Wars franchise for AoS (which seems a little ludicrous), I'm not really sure what else they could have taken away from the success of x-wing.

Misleading analysis.
X-Wing has THE BEST pre-painted miniatures in the industry. People who were loyal to Star Trek switched to X-Wing because of the miniatures and because the rules were more concise (by virtue of fewer factions to balance, at the very least).

X-Wing also outsells Star Trek and D&D because it's a simple matter of brand awareness/affiliation/loyalty.
Star Wars is the more popular cultural phenomenon, yes. But the quality of the game and its models can not be overlooked in its success story. Star Trek was released quite a bit sooner than X-Wing (also by the same company - it would seem X-Wing self-cannibalized Star Trek) but X-Wing is the new phenom.

Once upon a time, the LotR games by GW were flying off shelves based on brand, too. Somehow GW failed to retain those new entrant customers (any guesses on how?)

O.G-Palmer
02-09-2015, 14:51
Officially, it all goes into the bin. Unoffically? Destroying a book is a sin to many of us:)

rmeister0
02-09-2015, 17:32
X-wing didn't just target casual wargamers and star wars fans, it targeted the very numerous combo deck builder gamers as well. That's another lesson GW could learn: figure out what the players want, then give it to them (in the form of a game you at least pretended to spend effort to write on). FFG does this and gets away charging the prices they do (which are almost as bad as GW's in Australia, only saved by the smaller average game size).

One problem though - it assumes that all players want the same things. If WHFB 8 vs AoS has demonstrated anything it's that the market is very divided and different players want different things.

X-Wing also has something that no GW game has. Spend $15, here's a complete thing you can put into play RIGHT NOW. Pre-painted spaceships seem acceptable to a lot more people than pre-painted anything else, probably because it's easier to do well.

HelloKitty
02-09-2015, 17:50
Not everyone is into tabletop gaming to build and paint models. A lot of people hate it.

Niall78
02-09-2015, 18:09
Not everyone is into tabletop gaming to build and paint models. A lot of people hate it.

Very true. And even many of those who like to build and paint don't have the time. Anyone working full time, involved in a relationship, with kids or with various competing hobbies will find it difficult to clear their schedule to assemble and paint a lot of miniatures. It eats into already limited gaming time.

rmeister0
02-09-2015, 19:20
Very true. And even many of those who like to build and paint don't have the time. Anyone working full time, involved in a relationship, with kids or with various competing hobbies will find it difficult to clear their schedule to assemble and paint a lot of miniatures. It eats into already limited gaming time.

I don't have the time or the talent and, frankly, my eyesight is not as good as it used to be and GW's models are insanely detailed.

So yea...

Kyriakin
02-09-2015, 21:37
I don't have the time or the talent and, frankly, my eyesight is not as good as it used to be and GW's models are insanely detailed.

So yea...
I'm glad I'm not the only one intimidated by their new releases... which are intended for people new to the hobby (i.e. the much stated target market)...

ehlijen
02-09-2015, 23:46
One problem though - it assumes that all players want the same things. If WHFB 8 vs AoS has demonstrated anything it's that the market is very divided and different players want different things.

X-Wing also has something that no GW game has. Spend $15, here's a complete thing you can put into play RIGHT NOW. Pre-painted spaceships seem acceptable to a lot more people than pre-painted anything else, probably because it's easier to do well.

Absolutely. The card aspect is actually what made me not start X-wing. My point was: magic is doing very well (much as I don't get it), so tapping into that crowd is a good move. If something else is popular, tapping into that will also be.
There will always be different players, the key is figuring out how many there are of each type, what they want and how to give it to them while making a profit. That requires market research. GW is dooming itself in that respect.

Commissar von Toussaint
03-09-2015, 02:29
Officially, it all goes into the bin. Unoffically? Destroying a book is a sin to many of us:)

Yeah, I wonder how many boxes of product will be listed as officially destroyed and mysteriously find their way onto ebay in mint condition a few months down the road.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say. :D

Greavous
03-09-2015, 12:55
x-wing will die in a year, the hype is because of the new star wars movie and the star wars label, pretty much everyone at ym club boguh tit because of the star wars logo then spent 2 weeks learning how to play and now spending alot of money on more models. which personally arnt very detailed and are abit basic in all regards.
same with AoS everyone went mad for the starter box and bought one now its slowed and is continously slowing down, it will just reach pre end-times sales levels in a couple of years.

big hype everyone buys, hype dies, people get bored, something new appears, no rinse just repeat and that will happen forever more in every industry. only the most lucrative and broad ranging things stand the test of time e.g. call of duty - simple, basic, appeals to the masses, doesnt need to change. (i hate CoD btw but you cant deny its success). star wars is more come and go same with star trek.

Gorsameth
03-09-2015, 13:19
x-wing will die in a year, the hype is because of the new star wars movie and the star wars label, pretty much everyone at ym club boguh tit because of the star wars logo then spent 2 weeks learning how to play and now spending alot of money on more models. which personally arnt very detailed and are abit basic in all regards.
same with AoS everyone went mad for the starter box and bought one now its slowed and is continously slowing down, it will just reach pre end-times sales levels in a couple of years.

big hype everyone buys, hype dies, people get bored, something new appears, no rinse just repeat and that will happen forever more in every industry. only the most lucrative and broad ranging things stand the test of time e.g. call of duty - simple, basic, appeals to the masses, doesnt need to change. (i hate CoD btw but you cant deny its success). star wars is more come and go same with star trek.
X-wings start up hype has long since passed. It became a thing well before the new movie was a serious thing and it is still going strong.
I think your seriously underestimating it (and thats coming from someone who doesnt really like x-wing).

Jim30
03-09-2015, 14:19
I think you massively underestimate just how popular Xwing is, and has been for several years now. They are pushing expansion waves out roughly every 6 months - the most recent one is just not staying in stock at FLGS - it flies off the shelves, then the restocks fly out too.

Its got huge appeal, has tournaments which routinely gather more players than most GW tournaments in my local area, and is taking the former GW players and making them huge addicts. Xwing is here to stay.

Herzlos
03-09-2015, 14:41
X-Wing is on wave 7 (?) now, which means it's been on the go for about 3-4 years now, with no sign of slowing down. FFG have had to ramp up production at least twice to handle the demand, and the stuff is still flying off the shelves.

It's certainly not going to pull a Hobbit and disappear once the film is out of the cinema. If anything, the film being in the cinema is going to drive LOTR sized growth. It's probably the most anticipated film of the decade.

ehlijen
03-09-2015, 15:05
Star wars survived the prequels, so I don't think interest in the franchise is going to die anytime soon. Likewise, Magic has been going strong for what, twenty years now? The deck building gamer niche is still pretty big, and X-wing tickles that itch in addition to giving the space laser kick.

I don't know for a fact that X-wing is going to last long. But I'd guess it's going to last for a good while yet.

Herzlos
03-09-2015, 15:10
I'll put $10 on X-Wing outlasting 40K in the current incarnation.

Buddy Bear
03-09-2015, 15:12
Yeah, I can't imagine how anyone can seriously call X-Wing a flash in the pan. It didn't just spring up out of nowhere. It's been around for a while, now, and has grown massively in popularity to the point it's now the second highest selling miniature game on the market, right behind 40k (With Armada at #3). Saying it'll disappear is like saying 40k, Warmachine, or Hordes will disappear overnight. And it became popular before The Force Awakens was even announced. Check this out:

http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/25378/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-lines-fall-2012

It was already the 2nd best selling game in Fall 2012. Disney didn't buy Lucasfilm until October 2012, and the announcement and hype for Episode VII didn't come until after that. So X-Wing was already a major hit before anyone even knew there would be an Episode VII, and has sustained that popularity over time. With The Force Awakens, though, X-Wing will likely be rocketed into the stratosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up eclipsing 40k in sales before long.

As for the topic at hand, I commented on this earlier in another thread, but I thought the point was worth repeating here. The AOS roll out, IMO, is absolute proof that GW doesn't have a clue what it's doing. Think about it. You introduce a brand new game with a brand new world and new factions, and what do you do? Churn out week after week after week with nothing but a handful of Sigmarines here and there, with the occasional Khorne guys or old repacks. The setting includes Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, Orruks, Red Slayers, and other stuff which sounds wholly new, but where is all that stuff? Where's the stuff to catch the attention of anyone who'd be interested in a new faction, but isn't interested in Sigmarines? It's not there. To this day we still have no idea what these new factions look like or what they're all about. Sigmarines and Khorne, that's all we've gotten.

If GW had had any sense, then the roll out for AOS would've included units for each of the new factions every single week. Sigmarines, Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, etc. Something for each every week. For crying out loud, we don't even have a clue what a regular human in Age of Sigmar looks like. Not a single example of what a regular human in Age of Sigmar looks like. This has been a terribly botched roll out for their new system, and I can't imagine how anyone at GW ever thought it would succeed. They're quite literally hanging all their hopes on Sigmarines. Well, what if you're not interested in Sigmarines? Well, they've given you nothing, because you have no idea what the new factions look like. All you've got access to are old factions which likely don't exist in anything resembling their Old World form in Age of Sigmar.

Gorsameth
03-09-2015, 15:44
Yeah, I can't imagine how anyone can seriously call X-Wing a flash in the pan. It didn't just spring up out of nowhere. It's been around for a while, now, and has grown massively in popularity to the point it's now the second highest selling miniature game on the market, right behind 40k (With Armada at #3). Saying it'll disappear is like saying 40k, Warmachine, or Hordes will disappear overnight. And it became popular before The Force Awakens was even announced. Check this out:

http://icv2.com/articles/games/view/25378/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-lines-fall-2012

It was already the 2nd best selling game in Fall 2012. Disney didn't buy Lucasfilm until October 2012, and the announcement and hype for Episode VII didn't come until after that. So X-Wing was already a major hit before anyone even knew there would be an Episode VII, and has sustained that popularity over time. With The Force Awakens, though, X-Wing will likely be rocketed into the stratosphere. I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up eclipsing 40k in sales before long.

As for the topic at hand, I commented on this earlier in another thread, but I thought the point was worth repeating here. The AOS roll out, IMO, is absolute proof that GW doesn't have a clue what it's doing. Think about it. You introduce a brand new game with a brand new world and new factions, and what do you do? Churn out week after week after week with nothing but a handful of Sigmarines here and there, with the occasional Khorne guys or old repacks. The setting includes Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, Orruks, Red Slayers, and other stuff which sounds wholly new, but where is all that stuff? Where's the stuff to catch the attention of anyone who'd be interested in a new faction, but isn't interested in Sigmarines? It's not there. To this day we still have no idea what these new factions look like or what they're all about. Sigmarines and Khorne, that's all we've gotten.

If GW had had any sense, then the roll out for AOS would've included units for each of the new factions every single week. Sigmarines, Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, etc. Something for each every week. For crying out loud, we don't even have a clue what a regular human in Age of Sigmar looks like. Not a single example of what a regular human in Age of Sigmar looks like. This has been a terribly botched roll out for their new system, and I can't imagine how anyone at GW ever thought it would succeed. They're quite literally hanging all their hopes on Sigmarines. Well, what if you're not interested in Sigmarines? Well, they've given you nothing, because you have no idea what the new factions look like. All you've got access to are old factions which likely don't exist in anything resembling their Old World form in Age of Sigmar.
The entirety of AoS and the post release schedule can be explained with 1 simple premise.

Space Marines sell.

AoS was created to bring space marines to Fantasy and all releases have been Marines because "people love Space Marines".
Now one can argue that Space Marines are in fact not enough to keep a game afloat on their own (and I would agree with you) but this is GW we are talking about. Their head is stuck so far up their ass they can see the back of their teeth.

Buddy Bear
03-09-2015, 15:50
That's exactly my thought. That they figured "Putting Space Marines into Warhammer is all we need to do to sell this thing" and stopped there, and didn't give any thought to properly rolling out the other armies. Except that Sigmarines aren't even Space Marines, they're obvious cheap knockoffs without any of the traits which made Space Marines so popular. Not to mention that if you're not interested in Sigmarines, what does AOS have to offer you? Only Khorne has gotten anything new out of it. And if you are interested in Sigmarines, the absurd prices for models which never needed to be that big (and which are still overpriced for their size, anyway) will probably end up putting off most people who might be interested in them, so what does that leave you with?

A failed game, that's what.

Kyriakin
03-09-2015, 18:53
Yes, a million times yes. Here is the thought process:

Space marines sell
V
Sigmarines are just like space marines (minus the quarter-century of lore)
V
Sigmarines sell

Then release khorne, so they have something to beat up, but don't bother with the other armies as nobody buys tyranids, tau, etc.

MusingWarboss
03-09-2015, 19:54
Space Marines do sell. Mostly because they're easy to paint*, you don't need many and they have in game profiles which makes them usually better than most other stuff. They also seem to have infinite amounts of chapters even though they're supposed to be elite troops.

Sigmarites look a bit like marines, seem to be pushing NMM (not so easy to paint and gold spray won't achieve the same effect)** you seem to need quite a few (several times I've read about 100 models ??? Really?) and they may well be good in game but who cares about that, you can take what you like anyway.

Ergo, they're badly copied Space Marines. Epic fail. GW have got fed up with "borrowing" other people's ideas and twisting them into their IP and have just stolen their own idea and twisted it to... Be not as good and look like a rip off that they just spent a fortune in the courts trying to prevent. Way to go GW!!

*For a beginner you don't have to exceed the one colour they're usually represented in. Add in a bit of spot colour, like edges to shoulder pads and it looks ok enough. Obviously if you want to go further then you'll need lots of practice and learn the techniques. But seeing as the eavy metal team seem to just min/max the highlights and shade these days it's easily copied.

** I imagine WD will be pushing the spray, wash, drybrush techniques for these guys if they've not done so already.

Skargit Crookfang
03-09-2015, 20:02
That's exactly my thought. That they figured "Putting Space Marines into Warhammer is all we need to do to sell this thing" and stopped there, and didn't give any thought to properly rolling out the other armies. Except that Sigmarines aren't even Space Marines, they're obvious cheap knockoffs without any of the traits which made Space Marines so popular. Not to mention that if you're not interested in Sigmarines, what does AOS have to offer you? Only Khorne has gotten anything new out of it. And if you are interested in Sigmarines, the absurd prices for models which never needed to be that big (and which are still overpriced for their size, anyway) will probably end up putting off most people who might be interested in them, so what does that leave you with?

A failed game, that's what.

I've always felt, just from personal experience, that WHFB has a very different demographic than that of 40k. The latter seemed to have broader appeal (age and walk-of-life) whereas the prior always seemed to have a greater proportion of "older" (25+) gamers, with less of the younger folks getting involved (for various financial and gameplay reasons, I'm sure). Whether this is purely anecdotal or not, who knows?

Regardless, putting Space Marines alongside Boris Todbringer just feels.... shallow?

Gorsameth
03-09-2015, 21:12
Space Marines do sell. Mostly because they're easy to paint*, you don't need many and they have in game profiles which makes them usually better than most other stuff. They also seem to have infinite amounts of chapters even though they're supposed to be elite troops.

Sigmarites look a bit like marines, seem to be pushing NMM (not so easy to paint and gold spray won't achieve the same effect)** you seem to need quite a few (several times I've read about 100 models ??? Really?) and they may well be good in game but who cares about that, you can take what you like anyway.

Ergo, they're badly copied Space Marines. Epic fail. GW have got fed up with "borrowing" other people's ideas and twisting them into their IP and have just stolen their own idea and twisted it to... Be not as good and look like a rip off that they just spent a fortune in the courts trying to prevent. Way to go GW!!

*For a beginner you don't have to exceed the one colour they're usually represented in. Add in a bit of spot colour, like edges to shoulder pads and it looks ok enough. Obviously if you want to go further then you'll need lots of practice and learn the techniques. But seeing as the eavy metal team seem to just min/max the highlights and shade these days it's easily copied.

** I imagine WD will be pushing the spray, wash, drybrush techniques for these guys if they've not done so already.
The 100 number comes from an event at Warhammer World which limited the size to 100 models per army (from the infinite in the base rules)

Captain Marius
03-09-2015, 21:16
I don't really understand the complaints about GW just releasing Sigmarines for two months, they did this with dark elves a couple of years ago and it was great! It looks like releases will continue to be put out in cycles like they have for a long time. I personally prefer a series of themed releases to putting out random models devoid of context.

Herzlos
03-09-2015, 21:23
I don't really understand the complaints about GW just releasing Sigmarines for two months, they did this with dark elves a couple of years ago and it was great! It looks like releases will continue to be put out in cycles like they have for a long time. I personally prefer a series of themed releases to putting out random models devoid of context.

It's because there's literally nothing else in the range, and the Sigmarines are so derivative. 2 months of Dark Elves when there is a full line up, and they are presumably different. All of the sigmarines look essentially the same, and we don't even know what an Aelf is meant to look like at this stage.

Gorsameth
03-09-2015, 21:23
I don't really understand the complaints about GW just releasing Sigmarines for two months, they did this with dark elves a couple of years ago and it was great! It looks like releases will continue to be put out in cycles like they have for a long time. I personally prefer a series of themed releases to putting out random models devoid of context.
1) Not a new game (which AoS is)
2) Back then GW did not have a weekly release schedule I believe. But mostly reason 1

As others have said, GW needs to get people interested in AoS. For that you want to appeal to a broad group to get them to try the game. You dont want to throw all your darts at Space Marine players.
By the time they get to the other races those players will have moved to KoW ect.

Herzlos
03-09-2015, 21:25
The 100 number comes from an event at Warhammer World which limited the size to 100 models per army (from the infinite in the base rules)

It's also in the rules/marketing pitch IIRC (paraphrasing) "The game is intended to be played with about 100 models per side, for an evenings game"

Skargit Crookfang
03-09-2015, 23:09
I don't really understand the complaints about GW just releasing Sigmarines for two months, they did this with dark elves a couple of years ago and it was great! It looks like releases will continue to be put out in cycles like they have for a long time. I personally prefer a series of themed releases to putting out random models devoid of context.

I think it has to do with many players have little to no connection to the SCEs.

We know next to nothing about them. The Lore is a weird mishmash of Matt Ward Ultramarine worship and uninteresting mystery (to many, not all) and we don't have much emotional attachment to this new world, thus far. Two months worth of releases for something many just don't really care about (and certainly nowhere near the level that DEs would garner- lore, history of the books/models and popularity).

Kyriakin
03-09-2015, 23:15
Space marines had 25 years to accumulate diversity and character as they grew organically with company.

Sigmarines won't be given that kind of time nor shareholder patience, and will therefore inevitably feel forced and contrived as GW tries to bypass the quarter-century of organic development. Those SCE "chapter" descriptions have been, in my opinion, the single most laughably bad single thing I've seen in this whole debacle.

Buddy Bear
03-09-2015, 23:27
The problem is with multiple new factions being described as existing in the setting, and most of them not having the barest smidgeon of an appearance. What does a typical Aelf look like? A typical Steamhead Duradin? An Orruk? Or even a human? If GW were releasing units for all of them every week then players for each army would have something to look forward to and they could all build their armies together. Instead anyone who might be interested in the game but isn't interested in Sigmarines has literally nothing to catch their attention. They know these other new factions exist but know next to nothing about them because the focus is all Sigmarines all the time with a tiny kernel for Khorne and a handful of repacks. And supposedly the production schedule is going back to 40k after the Sigmarines are done, so who knows when those Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, Orruks, and new humans are going to make an appearance. That's why it's a mistake. Even potential players are left hanging wondering if it's worth trying the game out or not of if the previously existing models they're buying now will be obsoleted by new units down the line.

Skargit Crookfang
03-09-2015, 23:29
Space marines had 25 years to accumulate diversity and character as they grew organically with company.

Sigmarines won't be given that kind of time nor shareholder patience, and will therefore inevitably feel forced and contrived as GW tries to bypass the quarter-century of organic development. Those SCE "chapter" descriptions have been, in my opinion, the single most laughably bad single thing I've seen in this whole debacle.

Whole-heartily agreed on that final point, especially.

GW is giving the Sigmarines the Poochie from Itchy & Scratchy treatment (for those of you who didn't grow up with the Simpsons, it really is quite an apt comparison- look it up!)

Kyriakin
03-09-2015, 23:31
The problem is with multiple new factions being described as existing in the setting, and most of them not having the barest smidgeon of an appearance. What does a typical Aelf look like? A typical Steamhead Duradin? An Orruk? Or even a human? If GW were releasing units for all of them every week then players for each army would have something to look forward to and they could all build their armies together. Instead anyone who might be interested in the game but isn't interested in Sigmarines has literally nothing to catch their attention. They know these other new factions exist but know next to nothing about them because the focus is all Sigmarines all the time with a tiny kernel for Khorne and a handful of repacks. And supposedly the production schedule is going back to 40k after the Sigmarines are done, so who knows when those Aelfs, Steamhead Duardin, Orruks, and new humans are going to make an appearance. That's why it's a mistake. Even potential players are left hanging wondering if it's worth trying the game out or not of if the previously existing models they're buying now will be obsoleted by new units down the line.
Absolutely, but GW's assumption was that the STE would sell like hotcakes during the wave of euphoria that greeted AoS

That assumption may well have been almost biblical in its wrongness, but it would explain - from their frame-of-reference at least - the release cycle so far.

Buddy Bear
03-09-2015, 23:32
Hopefully the Sigmarines meet the same fate as Poochie, and climb back into their space ship to return to their home planet only for their ship to explode along the way and all the Sigmarines suffer an agonizying, flaming death in the cold reaches of space.

itcamefromthedeep
04-09-2015, 00:18
That's awfully harsh.

I'd just like them retconned into something more interesting.

Kisanis
04-09-2015, 02:09
That's awfully harsh.

I'd just like them retconned into something more interesting.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AubI194pTxI

I'd say thats a reasonable treatment for sigmarines.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Voss
04-09-2015, 04:52
in my opinion, the single most laughably bad single thing I've seen in this whole debacle.
I find that stance unreasonable. After all, things have been described as being 'clad in purest sigmarite,' Sigmar bought off a star dragon with a shiny necklace, and... really. There are just too many things to find a single laughably bad thing to hang a hat on. :D

Buddy Bear
04-09-2015, 05:02
Sigmarines were a huge wasted opportunity. Space Marines in Fantasy? I could get behind that (especially if they were based off of Grail Knights). But they're just so awful in comparison in nearly every level:

1. Why are they so big?!? They're bigger than Terminators for no good reason, and naturally they overcharge for these guys based off their size.
2. Their death masks. If they were going to rip off Space Marines, rip off the Black Templars, not the Sanguinary Guard. They'd look so much better if they looked less like Blood Angels and more like knights. And at least give them some variety. Even the Sanguinary Guard have more variety, as they have the option of death mask, Mark VII helmet, or bare head.
3. Personality black holes aren't interesting. A character isn't interesting unless he has... well... character. And they were specifically created as having next to no character. Space Marines have character, and they're interesting as a result. These guys, on the other hand, may as well be 4th edition Necron Warriors (you'd think GW would've learned their lesson with the Necrons, but I guess not).
4. They respawn. Why do they respawn?!? There are no stakes, consequences, or interest if your protagonists have no reason to fear death.
5. The notion that elves, dwarves, orcs, and human women were all turned into giant human men by Sigmar. There's something really fascistic and misogynist about the whole thing, with their old race and gender cast aside so they can be the superior human male ("So I selected you because you're one of the greatest heroes of the realms, but you have that pesky vagina, so here's a penis instead"). If women, elves, dwarves, and orcs were part of the Sigmarines, then there should be female Sigmarines and elven, dwarven, and orcish Sigmarines. If not then they should be human males and that's it. I don't understand why they made that part of their background if it wouldn't be reflected in the miniatures.
6. And of course, they exist in a really terrible and uninteresting setting. They'd be infinitely more interesting if they were part of the Old World rather than cheap Einherjar knockoffs running around their cheap imitation Norse 9 Realms.

Losing Command
04-09-2015, 05:40
I kinda suspect that part of why Sigmarines are so large because GW is going to increase the minature scale of all Fantasy models. Now ofcourse I'm not an expert, but the new Khorne models are also very large compared to older models, even the Marauders seem to be around the size of space marines.
The general plan probably being making the models a little bit larger and increase the price even more larger ;)

Scribe of Khorne
04-09-2015, 05:48
I kinda suspect that part of why Sigmarines are so large because GW is going to increase the minature scale of all Fantasy models. Now ofcourse I'm not an expert, but the new Khorne models are also very large compared to older models, even the Marauders seem to be around the size of space marines.
The general plan probably being making the models a little bit larger and increase the price even more larger ;)

Yep, this seems about right. Its actually why I didnt bother getting even reseller bits of the Khorne guys. They will dwarf my 40K and Heresy models.

de Selby
04-09-2015, 06:17
5. The notion that elves, dwarves, orcs, and human women were all turned into giant human men by Sigmar. There's something really fascistic and misogynist about the whole thing, with their old race and gender cast aside so they can be the superior human male ("So I selected you because you're one of the greatest heroes of the realms, but you have that pesky vagina, so here's a penis instead"). If women, elves, dwarves, and orcs were part of the Sigmarines, then there should be female Sigmarines and elven, dwarven, and orcish Sigmarines. If not then they should be human males and that's it. I don't understand why they made that part of their background if it wouldn't be reflected in the miniatures.

To me the sigmarines don't look that much like humans, in size and proportions they look as much like their own species as dwarves or elves. Basically they look like golems, although I still can't work out if that is really the idea. Do they have penises??? Can anyone who has made it through one of the books confirm (I'm afraid to ask).

The masks look male. It would have been interesting if GW had given them a choice of masks in the kit, and allowed you to personalise your Sigmarites that way. Even better would have been dropping the re-forging idea altogether and just making lots of different heroic fantasy warriors, handpicked by Sigmar, for skirmish scale battles like in the old Realm of Chaos books (see your points 1-3). I might have bought a set then.

Scribe of Khorne
04-09-2015, 06:31
Is that actual fluff? The whole race/gender thing?

If so thats really surprisingly tone deaf to the shifts in popular culture...then its GW...so not that surprising? :/

Baragash
04-09-2015, 08:19
(Putting aside I have no interest in playing a game where the company expects me to balance it, I don't have the time.....)

I actually don't mind the world setting - I get the cheap Norse knock-off comparison, but I find the justification for doing it (realms of the 8 lores + one other) perfectly acceptable.

The Sigmarines kill the setting for me. Space Marines already get all the attention in 40k, and although the setting might be "humanity is 1 second to midnight" that never comes through in the direct fluff or the games for me because Space Marines are so popular and ubiquitous and get most of the attention.

The Old World was a great foil for that because the collective fluff, balance of army popularity and the games themselves actually felt much more knife-edge for the good guys. Now it's just unoriginal 40k concept + look at how super-bbq-awesome our new good guys are + those scary Chaos guys who used to be amongst the best infantry model-for-model just suffered massive villain decay.

Having a massive SM hard-on across your entire offering guarantees I'm not interested, before I even have to think about other common complaints like price and rules quality.

Coraxis
04-09-2015, 10:16
Sigmarines were a huge wasted opportunity. Space Marines in Fantasy? I could get behind that (especially if they were based off of Grail Knights). But they're just so awful in comparison in nearly every level:

1. Why are they so big?!? They're bigger than Terminators for no good reason, and naturally they overcharge for these guys based off their size.
2. Their death masks. If they were going to rip off Space Marines, rip off the Black Templars, not the Sanguinary Guard. They'd look so much better if they looked less like Blood Angels and more like knights. And at least give them some variety. Even the Sanguinary Guard have more variety, as they have the option of death mask, Mark VII helmet, or bare head.
3. Personality black holes aren't interesting. A character isn't interesting unless he has... well... character. And they were specifically created as having next to no character. Space Marines have character, and they're interesting as a result. These guys, on the other hand, may as well be 4th edition Necron Warriors (you'd think GW would've learned their lesson with the Necrons, but I guess not).
4. They respawn. Why do they respawn?!? There are no stakes, consequences, or interest if your protagonists have no reason to fear death.
5. The notion that elves, dwarves, orcs, and human women were all turned into giant human men by Sigmar. There's something really fascistic and misogynist about the whole thing, with their old race and gender cast aside so they can be the superior human male ("So I selected you because you're one of the greatest heroes of the realms, but you have that pesky vagina, so here's a penis instead"). If women, elves, dwarves, and orcs were part of the Sigmarines, then there should be female Sigmarines and elven, dwarven, and orcish Sigmarines. If not then they should be human males and that's it. I don't understand why they made that part of their background if it wouldn't be reflected in the miniatures.
6. And of course, they exist in a really terrible and uninteresting setting. They'd be infinitely more interesting if they were part of the Old World rather than cheap Einherjar knockoffs running around their cheap imitation Norse 9 Realms.

That's what I think too. Compare the Sigmarines to the Empire State Troops and they lose completly. The empire humans had personalities, fears, hopes, human emotions! These are just walking armours. The empire troops (Or Bretonnians or whatever other race back in the Old World) were just common people, in a world full of dangers, of monsters that could kill them in an instant, yet they were brave enough to go out there and fight back. These are so much shiny and awesome that nothing can stop them, and even if something can, they will be back. The empire humans defended fortresses against an unstoppable horde of chaos warriors, these guys just knock the door of a chaos castle in the heart of the realm of chaos. They are made to be awesome, to attract people who don't care about personalities and just want the more awesome guy possible to kick bad guys asses. Even the Space Marines lose from time to time, and they have personalities, and they are defending human race, not some...stuff.

You know, I've seen people saying: "The rules are bad, but if GW changes that then I will totally play AoS". But IMO the rules are just the tip of the iceberg: The setting is exaggerated, the new race is lacking personality, the prices are increasing to absurdity... I can't find any reason to play AoS by itself, even more if I compare it with the old setting, races, rules, prices, etc...

Kisanis
04-09-2015, 12:08
If sigmar had the ability to make these guys (who never can be killed) then he's a pretty ****** god for letting chaos destroy the world.

Seriously, I feel like 20 of these sigmarines could have stopped archaon.

But no. He lets chaos win... THEN tries to save whats left.

they just literally lack a soul. They're plain, bland, and soulless automatrons of a mediocre god. They dont die, they're all powerful...

Space marines have that history of the great crusade and the heresy, this overhanging feeling that while the best of humanity, they can be tempted away by chaos. They have this dark side thats constantly being tempted.

THEY ARE STILL HUMAN despite everything done to make them Astartes.

Sigmarines lack that. They may as well be thousand sons inside that armour...

but even they have a story.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

RandomThoughts
04-09-2015, 17:19
These guys, on the other hand, may as well be 4th edition Necron Warriors

Funny, I just had the very same thought... :)

Deadhorse
04-09-2015, 19:58
The Sigmarine fluff is disturbing on so many levels...

It starts with necromancy (spirits of greatest warriors)
Then we have racism and sexism (everyone gets changed into human male)
Cursed to wage eternal war (reborn to fight again after death)
Cursed to become automatons (emotions/character decaying with each incarnation)
Dictatorship, absolute power (serve the god-king that made them so without question).

I mean seriously these are the "good" guys? Their fluff, once broken up into parts, reeks of Necron or Nagash. Serving chaos doesn't seem such a bad deal when the alternative is to become a slave war golem for eternity. I seriously wonder what disturbed person's imagination cast these as the champions of light?

RandomThoughts
04-09-2015, 20:51
The same guys that convinced us that the Imperium of Man are the good guys?

Gorsameth
04-09-2015, 21:10
The same guys that convinced us that the Imperium of Man are the good guys?
That's the thing tho. The Imperium is not sold as the good guys.
Corruption and oppression everywhere. Billions of lives wasted every day on the front lines. The Emperor sustained by feasting on psykers.

The Imperium of Man is a dark and depressing place

Sephillion
04-09-2015, 21:23
Sigmarines were a huge wasted opportunity. Space Marines in Fantasy? I could get behind that (especially if they were based off of Grail Knights). But they're just so awful in comparison in nearly every level:

1. Why are they so big?!? They're bigger than Terminators for no good reason, and naturally they overcharge for these guys based off their size.
2. Their death masks. If they were going to rip off Space Marines, rip off the Black Templars, not the Sanguinary Guard. They'd look so much better if they looked less like Blood Angels and more like knights. And at least give them some variety. Even the Sanguinary Guard have more variety, as they have the option of death mask, Mark VII helmet, or bare head.
3. Personality black holes aren't interesting. A character isn't interesting unless he has... well... character. And they were specifically created as having next to no character. Space Marines have character, and they're interesting as a result. These guys, on the other hand, may as well be 4th edition Necron Warriors (you'd think GW would've learned their lesson with the Necrons, but I guess not).
4. They respawn. Why do they respawn?!? There are no stakes, consequences, or interest if your protagonists have no reason to fear death.
5. The notion that elves, dwarves, orcs, and human women were all turned into giant human men by Sigmar. There's something really fascistic and misogynist about the whole thing, with their old race and gender cast aside so they can be the superior human male ("So I selected you because you're one of the greatest heroes of the realms, but you have that pesky vagina, so here's a penis instead"). If women, elves, dwarves, and orcs were part of the Sigmarines, then there should be female Sigmarines and elven, dwarven, and orcish Sigmarines. If not then they should be human males and that's it. I don't understand why they made that part of their background if it wouldn't be reflected in the miniatures.
6. And of course, they exist in a really terrible and uninteresting setting. They'd be infinitely more interesting if they were part of the Old World rather than cheap Einherjar knockoffs running around their cheap imitation Norse 9 Realms.

Bravo. That’s a very « on-the-spot » analysis. They could be improved a good deal. They do have potential.

1. I think there should have been the Sigmarines and their “supporters” – mortals that help the super-big heroes of legends. Because since everything is big… well everything is small. Also, since GW wouldn’t charge a decent amount for terminator-sized models, having foot-soldiers alongside them could have opened up the way for a more wallet-friendly kit.

2. Absolutely! Give them different mask and shoulder options, including bare heads! That’s important because if I hadn’t asked people here, I would have no idea if there were even humans under that. Also, helmet options are popular, hell I’ve read regularly people buying two of a kit to get more helm options!

3. Named characters. Why does Sigmar give his hammer to a nameless, faceless dude? I don’t care. Named characters would help. They should have made a deal with a comics book company and made a comic about someone becoming a Sigmarine.

4. I don’t mind that they respawn, but there should be a catch. Every time they respawn, it takes longer for them to do so (LoL-style, or Vampire Diaries style); or it takes Sigmar some of his power, so if Chaos destroy enough Sigmardudes at once, they can threaten inner realms. Or something. Also, with the inclusion of human characters alongside the Sigmarines, you have mortals who cannot respawn.

5. Sigmardwarves – stout Sigmarines with dwarven tropes – hammers, runic shields, things like that. Sigmarelves – Human-sized sigmarines, with a lighter armor and a more guerilla tactic. Possibilities are infinite. It’s sad that they chose to homogenise the Sigmarines like that. Oh, and definitely include females. That would help build character. My DE Wyches have more character.

6. Absolutely. Or at least, make the fluff cheaper. You create a new world and charge 90$ for fluff? That’s bloody ridiculous. Let’s say for a minute it’s interesting, it’s not affordable. So there’s this new setting… which you don’t describe in much detail in your free publications… and you want me to pay more than an RPG book to find out? No. *******. Deal.

Sephillion
04-09-2015, 21:25
That's the thing tho. The Imperium is not sold as the good guys.
Corruption and oppression everywhere. Billions of lives wasted every day on the front lines. The Emperor sustained by feasting on psykers.

The Imperium of Man is a dark and depressing place

Oh yes. That could give some Sigmarines character – strife. Right now they’re too united. We’ve moved from a world where even in-faction there are uneasy alliances and intrigue to one where it’s good guys vs bad guys, in a way that’s even simpler than a Disney movie.

This can be built over time… but right now, that’s what it is.

MarcoSkoll
04-09-2015, 22:46
3. Personality black holes aren't interesting. A character isn't interesting unless he has... well... character. And they were specifically created as having next to no character.
<snip>
5. The notion that elves, dwarves, orcs, and human women were all turned into giant human men by Sigmar.
YES.

I mean, the idea of the Eternals would be much more interesting if they retained who they were. I have little attachment to the heap of faceless automatons they basically are turning up to save the world. If these are genuinely legendary warriors reborn, every one of these guys should have a fascinating story... but doesn't.

Your comments inspired this image in my mind of a tall, short-haired (blonde) woman clad in golden armour wielding a massive two handed hammer, with tales of a hundred battlefields to tell. She's a character I'd be interested in, it's something the Eternals could have been - so why are they the blandest thing on the menu?


4. They respawn. Why do they respawn?!? There are no stakes, consequences, or interest if your protagonists have no reason to fear death.
I've heard this kind of argument before, but I feel it lacks a little imagination regarding what stakes might exist in a story.

One of my characters is immortal, with no clear limits to her regenerative healing - although vaporising her head will keep her down for a few hours. I was once asked what the point of a story I was (and am still) writing was if she couldn't die.
The answer is that she can't die. (And, in any case, it'd be abnormal for a first person protagonist to not survive their story anyway :p). Her friends can die, innocent people can die, she can lose treasured possessions, she can fail mission objectives, she can be too late ... she has to cope with absolutely every other concern a normal human could have in the circumstances, and more besides. (Imagine being in a scenario where you know you're the only one who'll survive. I think that would be phenomenally difficult).

So I think it's entirely possible for an immortal protagonist to have stakes and consequences, and find ways to make them an interesting story.

That said, the idea that perhaps these legendary warriors had been brought back, sacrificing their immortal afterlife and condemning themselves to a true and final death in order to buy the mortal realms a few more days? That has potential.

Losing Command
05-09-2015, 05:04
One of my characters is immortal, with no clear limits to her regenerative healing - although vaporising her head will keep her down for a few hours. I was once asked what the point of a story I was (and am still) writing was if she couldn't die.
The answer is that she can't die. (And, in any case, it'd be abnormal for a first person protagonist to not survive their story anyway :p). Her friends can die, innocent people can die, she can lose treasured possessions, she can fail mission objectives, she can be too late ... she has to cope with absolutely every other concern a normal human could have in the circumstances, and more besides. (Imagine being in a scenario where you know you're the only one who'll survive. I think that would be phenomenally difficult).

The difference between your character and sigmarines is that your character has personality and reason to care.
Sigmarines don't have any attachment to what they were, and can't get emotionally invested in anything because they have no emotions. That's why people keep bringing that up : it makes how little character they have stand out even more.

Buddy Bear
05-09-2015, 05:37
Yeah, not to mention that there's an army of them, and they all live in Sigmarheim where they only hang out with other Sigmarines and Sigmar in their Sigmariffic halls. They're pretty much unbeatable because Sigmar can hurl the full force, every Sigmarine he has, at any opponent at full strength and suffer no consequences for it. Even if they all lose and die, they'll just respawn and he can chuck them into the meat grinder all over again until they get the win. There's nothing heroic nor interesting about that.