PDA

View Full Version : GW did the right thing (from a +10 years veteran)



Pages : [1] 2

Shadow_Steed
09-07-2015, 09:50
Greetings!

I just wanted to chime in with some quick thoughts. I have been into Warhammer since I was 13 (soon turning 26). And have played the 6th, 7th and 8th editions with a good few armies. I have read a lot of books by Black Library as well. So big Warhammer fan no doubt. However, I haven't actually had a game in about a year. And the reason for that is quite simple: A game is too much of a project to get in place. You basically need a whole day off to play a large battle, get there, transport the army etc.
On top of that you need to spend so much time getting the army in the first place (assembling, painting etc, don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed painting and modelling my 4000 points of WoC, but everyone doesn't have the time). This leads me to my point and why I support GW in their decision to more or less destroy Warhammer as I knew it:

For new-comers to the game, it is just too much work and commitment that goes into getting into the hobby, simple as that. I would not be able to get any of my friends into it of that simple reason. However, with the Age of Sigmar, Warhammer at least has a future. Warhammer as we knew it was slowly dying, and I don't think anyone who reads this text would wish for that to happen. So hopefully we will see new players get into the hobby and see GW prosper! I harbour no resentment whatsoever with this decision they made, I think it was a strategically sound choice as a company.

Any one else care to share my excitement? :-)

Lowb
09-07-2015, 09:57
For me, a 2500 point list of 8th edition would have less than the 100 minis recomended on the AoS starter set rules.

How is that lowering the time needed for the project?

On the other hand while I agree the game needed a proper scalability in place for the minor battles to be rightly playable, I don't think that means the game had to go the way of the dodo. If the game is not playable on certain level, you rework that level, you don't throw it out the window.

Crovax20
09-07-2015, 10:04
If this game scales proper, I think GW have done a really good thing. I've sold all my stuff during 8th edition as I just got bored of the game. Was spending more time removing buckets of models than actually enjoying the game (Goblin and Tomb Kings player).

Can't wait to see how the game will change, when more factions get proper AoS rules, and I'm very excited! Warscrolls just seem like a great way to be able to update the game constantly and adress issues with units (like TK vs VC in 8th, boy did VC benefit from the mistakes they made with TK)

Noodle!
09-07-2015, 10:06
It seemed to work ok for all new-comers. I was a new-comer to the game 2 years ago (allthough I had 40k and warmaster background), several of my colleagues however were even new to war games. One of them has a 5000 point army now. The barrier of entry wasn't a problem, their lack of marketing and price hiking was.

I'm not sure why I'd be happy about new players entering a system I find to be terrible instead of entering the system I like. GW could even have released a small skirmish game (using good rules like the lotr rules) alongside WHFB and actually gotten new players which wouldn't take away from the established game and even boosted WHFB. Without slaughtering the IP. Even allowing for smaller point games in a rules update. When we started with started in increments of 250 points and played as we went along. Worked perfectly, everyone got the feel for their army gradually and had enough time to paint/model.

So no, can't say I share it. Sorry.

Mawduce
09-07-2015, 10:10
you all keep talking about points. AoS doesn't have points built in.

Captain Idaho
09-07-2015, 10:11
Trollolololol!

Seriously though, I disagree. I know the rules and get my turns and set up done really quick. Most epic wargames take few hours so GW should have produced a Skirmish game parallel to their existing product, then fixed their existing product. Less resources, brings in the new customer base they want and provides something that they can aim for.

This attempt won't boost massive figures. At best it'll take some 40K players and some youngsters might get starter sets etc. But it won't be bankrupting Mantic etc mark my words.

In fact, have you seen their golden statue they produced mocking GW? The competitors are laughing right now.

Malagor
09-07-2015, 10:11
If cutting off your friend's head when he complains about a headache is the right thing to do then yes, what GW did with AoS is indeed the right thing.

ewar
09-07-2015, 10:21
All warhammer players knew the barrier to entry was too high, however what they have done is a pretty insane 'fix' for that problem.

What should have happened is :
- end times stuff
- Sigmar prevents destruction of the world at the list moment, but disappears for a thousand years
- old world is changed in that time but also recognisable
- Sigmar returns with the golden douche bag brigade and the war continues

AoS is then a skirmish level intro game to feed players into the 8th ed meta. GW continues to evolve the story through campaign releases and EVERYBODY is happy.

Why they needed to **** off so many existing players when the solution to the problem was pretty damned straightforward I will never know.

Commandojimbob
09-07-2015, 10:21
If cutting off your friend's head when he complains about a headache is the right thing to do then yes, what GW did with AoS is indeed the right thing.

Have you ever worked in business ? Have you ever had a fundamental realisation that a part of your business just does not make money and no longer fits with what you have become ? I am sorry but its a silly analogy and not relevant to what GW are trying to do. I am a senior manager at a business and we are currently looking at doing something very similar to AoS in that a chunk of our Business is not making money, and whilst it might be synonymous to us as a business something has to change - we will be doing a drastic shift and its not without a lot of care and attention.

Like AoS or loath it, the majority have said for a long time WFB has had its time - for GW to do what they have done will have required huge planning and investment make the huge shift necessary. Tip of the ice berg so far and I am adamant it will all make a lot more sense going forwards.

Greyshadow
09-07-2015, 10:22
I also agree Age of Sigmar needed to happen. Three weeks ago I would have not said this. It could have been communicated better but our champion rumour mongers had let me know months in advance so I could prepare so that wasn't as much of a problem for me.

Northern_Watch
09-07-2015, 10:25
Well said, Commandojimbob!

Buddy Bear
09-07-2015, 10:30
Have you ever worked in business ? Have you ever had a fundamental realisation that a part of your business just does not make money and no longer fits with what you have become ?

And what if every element of your business is making consecutively less money? What if the entire company across all product lines is losing money? Is that an issue with a specific product, or is that indicative of a failure at the top affecting the sales of the products? Because that's the situation GW's in. We're not talking about a case where GW's making money hand over fist except for Warhammer Fantasy. 40k's losing customers, too. And if declining sales is a company wide phenomena, then the problem isn't Warhammer Fantasy. The problem is GW upper management. In which case the problems which caused Warhammer Fantasy's failures and demise will persist into Age of Sigmar.

Northern_Watch
09-07-2015, 10:31
AoS is then a skirmish level intro game to feed players into the 8th ed meta. GW continues to evolve the story through campaign releases and EVERYBODY is happy.

Well, perhaps not everybody!

Captain Idaho
09-07-2015, 10:38
I also agree Age of Sigmar needed to happen. Three weeks ago I would have not said this. It could have been communicated better but our champion rumour mongers had let me know months in advance so I could prepare so that wasn't as much of a problem for me.

It did and didn't. GW needed an overhaul of their entry level and introduction. For that, Age of Sigmar fits.

But wargaming is a niche business with specific sale habits. People INVEST in the game. They build on their purchases. They interact with people at clubs.

Who do we think those people are? It's existing players who fill a core of your market. Warhammer players with a large army already need an incentive to buy new things. And the End Times proved this does happen when a decent offer has been made.

GW have alienated their existing customers. Not just through changing the armies (going to happen but hasn't quite) or destroying the old world. People keep harping on at us telling us this is the reason. It's not! It's because the game is rubbish! There's no depth, no complexity. It's a game you get from a place mat when you go to a Macdonald's restaurant to satisfy kids, it's got that kind of complexity.

They took the selling points of Fantasy - ranked combat, essential baiting and trapping, movement, magic items and the magic phase - then removed them and created a simpler 40K. Much simpler.

And one last point... if money wasn't in Fantasy anymore, then why are GW competitors doing great?

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 10:39
All warhammer players knew the barrier to entry was too high, however what they have done is a pretty insane 'fix' for that problem.

What should have happened is :
- end times stuff
- Sigmar prevents destruction of the world at the list moment, but disappears for a thousand years
- old world is changed in that time but also recognisable
- Sigmar returns with the golden douche bag brigade and the war continues

AoS is then a skirmish level intro game to feed players into the 8th ed meta. GW continues to evolve the story through campaign releases and EVERYBODY is happy.

Why they needed to **** off so many existing players when the solution to the problem was pretty damned straightforward I will never know.

The answer is pretty obvious, they needed the change to bring in the IP protectable stuff, a world setting that is based on the real world map, race/character names that are lifted straight out of folklore or Tolkien all needed to change, it was easier to just wipe the slate clean and start again. I'm not saying that is a good reason, but it is the reason, litigious GW is here to stay it seems.

Honestly I think we need to take a step back and see how AoS performs, too many people seem to have an our inflated sense of importance, as if them boycotting AoS products is going to cause the company to go into liquidation. :rolleyes:

ewar
09-07-2015, 10:41
Well, perhaps not everybody!

Who wouldn't be happy with that outcome?! Low cost of entry, warhammer exists as it has, background evolves and GW doesn't have to recruit an entire new population of gamers.

Hell, think of the things they could have done with the setting: return of the old ones maybe? That would have been incredible. There was so much unexplored in the old world, especially with the potential to change things after the tumult of the end times.

Captain Idaho
09-07-2015, 10:42
Um, Age of Sigmar performs terribly. It's awful. The games are boring as hell.

So how long do we have to wait before we can criticise it?

heavyheart
09-07-2015, 10:43
Have you ever worked in business ? Have you ever had a fundamental realisation that a part of your business just does not make money and no longer fits with what you have become ? I am sorry but its a silly analogy and not relevant to what GW are trying to do. I am a senior manager at a business and we are currently looking at doing something very similar to AoS in that a chunk of our Business is not making money, and whilst it might be synonymous to us as a business something has to change - we will be doing a drastic shift and its not without a lot of care and attention.

Like AoS or loath it, the majority have said for a long time WFB has had its time - for GW to do what they have done will have required huge planning and investment make the huge shift necessary. Tip of the ice berg so far and I am adamant it will all make a lot more sense going forwards.

Alienating veteran players has never resulted in increased profits what it does is turn the community toxic and stops older players introducing new blood into the hobby.

The only two forms of advertising GW ever had was vets and promotional materials in flgs, well they've angered both of those with their tactics and we've seen that there's no new blood coming in to 40k and now there won't be any for wfb.

A company with sense would of had an external company come in and do market research so they know why they are bleeding out, then worked to address those issues.

Slash prices and people will come back, address game imbalance and people will come back, communicate with your players and their frustration will lessen.

Instead prices stay high balance is thrown out as a concept and they continue to leave us in the dark, it's no wonder people are miffed.

Shadow_Steed
09-07-2015, 10:46
Just to clarify once again: I love Warhammer and even though I haven't been that active as of late (very hectic with YouTube and my company etc) I will still remain in the hobby as it were and my deepest and most sincere wish is that more people get into the hobby because it really is a great hobby to be honest, I have had a lot of great times with it, hopefully more people will get on board now :-)!

Bloodknight
09-07-2015, 10:50
The answer is pretty obvious, they needed the change to bring in the IP protectable stuff, a world setting that is based on the real world map, race/character names that are lifted straight out of folklore or Tolkien all needed to change, it was easier to just wipe the slate clean and start again. I'm not saying that is a good reason, but it is the reason, litigious GW is here to stay it seems.

None of this is going to keep people from legally making stuff that can be used in Warhammer (the Chapterhouse suit kind of defined what you have to do to stay in the green). Not the names, not what the map looks like, and not the miniatures. "Compatible with" is a thing. I don't know what the higher-ups expect from this. The only thing that will stop that is Warhammer or 40K failing and being overtaken by another system, which will then be the one the 3rd party manufacturers will produce alternative minis for.
i.e. IP control would have been the stupidest reason to throw it all onto a heap because it can't really be controlled.

ArgelTal
09-07-2015, 10:50
Speaking as someone who only ever played two games of WFB and not many more of 40k, I was given a demo game of AoS at my club last night by the local GW manager and against my expectations, I really rather enjoyed it.

Now, I take this with the requisite pinch of salt. It was the contents of the starter set and my mate and I were being guided through everything by a man whose job it is to sell the game. I am due to attend a launch event at my FLGS on Friday and I will play a few more and then decide whether I want to buy it or not. I've been playing X wing, Armada and Imperial Assault a lot recently so I appreciated simple rules, the Khornate dudes who I played felt quite characterful (the Lord was like a freight train) and it all took me rather by surprise.

But as I say, I had no real investment in the previous iteration. A friend of mine who works at a GW store said of it that 'it's like someone looked inside my head and made Warhammer something I want to play more than 40k'. I think that's a fairly good summation of my feelings on it last night.

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 10:51
Um, Age of Sigmar performs terribly. It's awful. The games are boring as hell.

So how long do we have to wait before we can criticise it?

in your opinion it performs terribly, that doesn't mean the product will fail because (sorry to break this to you) your opinion is not the deciding factor on whether a product succeeds or fails.

You can criticise it as much as you like (seems to be popular at the moment), just be aware that your criticism is akin to a person who lives in a 5th floor flat criticising a new design of lawn mower, it wasn't designed for you in the first place.

Buddy Bear
09-07-2015, 10:51
Where I live, GW managed to anger the last remaining FLGS carrying their products to the point that he refuses to carry it anymore. That leaves literally no one in the entire city selling Games Workshop products anymore. And I don't live in a small shanty town, but a big city. Why would that store owner be inclined to run Age of Sigmar leagues or tournaments if he no longer carries any GW products? Warhammer Fantasy had problems, yes, but GW addressed things which didn't need addressing while ignoring the real problems which crippled Warhammer Fantasy and which will cripple Age of Sigmar in turn. The difference is that Age of Sigmar doesn't have 30 years of history behind it, so when the sales figures come in and they disappoint, the axe is going to fall on it much quicker than it did on Warhammer Fantasy.

KingDeath
09-07-2015, 10:56
As a potentialy new player, what should entice me to buy Age of Sigmar? Tbh, the answer for me is, currently nothing. The new fluff looks as generic and boring as possible. Oh look, completely unrelatable medievial space marines vs. generic evil hordes, the drama. What do i know about these new realms? Why should i care about them? Future fluff might help in that regard but for now im not overly interested. The miniatures themselfs are halfway decent although i would prefer a more subtle approach. Putting spikes of nastiness everywhere on the bad guys is not the height of creativity nor is the design of the Stormscions something to be realy excited about. Technicaly well done but not particularly exciting to me.

Bloodknight
09-07-2015, 10:56
Speaking as someone who only ever played two games of WFB and not many more of 40k, I was given a demo game of AoS at my club last night by the local GW manager and against my expectations, I really rather enjoyed it.

That makes a lot of sense. However, the starter box probably has been playtested, unlike any of the warscrolls for the other armies. Leave that territory, and it becomes actually quite difficult to build an actually worthwhile game for two players, at least at the moment. I can see how it is fun with the AOS sigmarines vs the AOS Khornates. The game is a little flat, though, and I am not sure how often it will actually be fun to play.

Captain Idaho
09-07-2015, 10:57
in your opinion it performs terribly, that doesn't mean the product will fail because (sorry to break this to you) your opinion is not the deciding factor on whether a product succeeds or fails.

You can criticise it as much as you like (seems to be popular at the moment), just be aware that your criticism is akin to a person who lives in a 5th floor flat criticising a new design of lawn mower, it wasn't designed for you in the first place.

Yeah but that's why it won't achieve what they want out of it. It wasn't written for me?

What business will deliberately alienate it's customers in favour for a new clientele that exists in theory (because it's too early right now).

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 10:57
Speaking as someone who only ever played two games of WFB and not many more of 40k, I was given a demo game of AoS at my club last night by the local GW manager and against my expectations, I really rather enjoyed it.

Now, I take this with the requisite pinch of salt. It was the contents of the starter set and my mate and I were being guided through everything by a man whose job it is to sell the game. I am due to attend a launch event at my FLGS on Friday and I will play a few more and then decide whether I want to buy it or not. I've been playing X wing, Armada and Imperial Assault a lot recently so I appreciated simple rules, the Khornate dudes who I played felt quite characterful (the Lord was like a freight train) and it all took me rather by surprise.

But as I say, I had no real investment in the previous iteration. A friend of mine who works at a GW store said of it that 'it's like someone looked inside my head and made Warhammer something I want to play more than 40k'. I think that's a fairly good summation of my feelings on it last night.

I think if more folk could actually look past their outrage at wfb being cancelled they'd discover that AoS really isn't as bad as they think it is. Glad you're finding it enjoyable.


Where I live, GW managed to anger the last remaining FLGS carrying their products to the point that he refuses to carry it anymore. That leaves literally no one in the entire city selling Games Workshop products anymore. And I don't live in a small shanty town, but a big city. Why would that store owner be inclined to run Age of Sigmar leagues or tournaments if he no longer carries any GW products? Warhammer Fantasy had problems, yes, but GW addressed things which didn't need addressing while ignoring the real problems which crippled Warhammer Fantasy and which will cripple Age of Sigmar in turn. The difference is that Age of Sigmar doesn't have 30 years of history behind it, so when the sales figures come in and they disappoint, the axe is going to fall on it much quicker than it did on Warhammer Fantasy.

What exactly did GW do that made your LGs owner angry? Cancelling wfb? You kind of expect these excessive, impassioned outbursts from neck-beard geeks who have poured their life into the game that has been cancelled, but I'd expect someone who has a business to run to have a slightly more level head, GW is still the market leader in wargaming by no small stretch.

duffybear1988
09-07-2015, 11:15
You could have just played smaller points levels - nobody was forcing you to play 2500 point games.

It constantly amazes me that the pro AoS crowd come up with "this game is great because it's small scale" and then when criticised about how bad the actual game is they say "well now you have to talk to your opponent and plan the narrative." As if you couldn't have done that already!?

Were people forcing you to play 2000+ points games with hundreds of figures? Some of my best Fantasy games have been small scale 500-1000 points triumph and treachery games where it's all crazy stuff.



As for a lower entry point to the game, 5 sigmarines costs £30 and 1 hero costs £20. Looking at the contents of the starter set that'll total about £160+ for an army of similar size if you aren't using the starter set as a basis. Yes, that's totally cheaper as an entry point... :rolleyes:

Malagor
09-07-2015, 11:19
Have you ever worked in business ? Have you ever had a fundamental realisation that a part of your business just does not make money and no longer fits with what you have become ? I am sorry but its a silly analogy and not relevant to what GW are trying to do. I am a senior manager at a business and we are currently looking at doing something very similar to AoS in that a chunk of our Business is not making money, and whilst it might be synonymous to us as a business something has to change - we will be doing a drastic shift and its not without a lot of care and attention.

Like AoS or loath it, the majority have said for a long time WFB has had its time - for GW to do what they have done will have required huge planning and investment make the huge shift necessary. Tip of the ice berg so far and I am adamant it will all make a lot more sense going forwards.
Sorry but this assumes that GW operates like a normal business would but they don't.
A normal company would do market research to ensure that the changes would be a good thing since afterall, you want to make money and knowing what the customers want is a sure way to make money but GW doesn't do that, infact they are very proud of the fact that they don't do market research.
And people really need to get it through their heads that Fantasy was not a dead game, it was not unprofitable infact they were still making a profit from Fantasy, 15-20% if I recall.
But the problem was that it was losing each year but this was not a problem related to fantasy, 40k is losing each year as well. This has to do with GW's policies and not the games themselves and again, if GW had done some research then they would have known this rather then just stumbling around in the dark.
Now I can agree that the entry level for fantasy was rough but as Ewar stated, they could have done it so much better then what they what they did and what would have made sense from a business perspective.
They got great rulesets not being used that would have allowed for a entry level game alongside fantasy which probably would have been alot cheaper to do.
But instead they **** off their old customers, the ones doing most of the promoting for their games funny enough.
GW didn't handle this with care and attention, they handled this as well as a bull in a china shop.
My analogy still stands, GW could have handled this so much better that would have been better for veterans, new players and the community as a whole but they didn't.
They cut off the head to cure a headache and if it wasn't for the fact that you can still get the old models for a while longer, I would have said that they did with a rusty spoon as well.

The_Real_Chris
09-07-2015, 11:22
They might have done the right thing, but they did it in entirely the wrong way.

I think a lot of this stems from their belief they are a model company and the games are just non-essential. Their design studio is very different these days to what it was. Virtually everyone who comments on these board enjoys playing games. GW beleive the game doesn't matter as much as the models. They are probaby right for intial purchases, but just don't believe it is worth having a decent game that gets people to continue past this.

The complaints about veterans not buying anything is always very funny. If you were serious you would want a massive ecosystem of gamers playing your game. That would be a factor attracting new players in and they would pick up your toys.

Market data shows no end of interest in games in general currently and yet GW are picking up a declining share of that. Their answer is a flimsier game (yes it can be fun, but it is far less of a challenge than competitors), a different background and a new set of models in a new scale (at a high price - what are they now, £6 per plastic figure?).

heavyheart
09-07-2015, 11:30
When you can get metal figures cheaper than plastic something is really wrong.

Buddy Bear
09-07-2015, 11:51
What exactly did GW do that made your LGs owner angry? Cancelling wfb? You kind of expect these excessive, impassioned outbursts from neck-beard geeks who have poured their life into the game that has been cancelled, but I'd expect someone who has a business to run to have a slightly more level head, GW is still the market leader in wargaming by no small stretch.

Feel free to do a Google search. GW's been a pain for a great many independent retailers, partly because their practices are costing them money, which is what has happened to my FLGS. They dropped GW because those practices were costing them money, not making them money (One example particular to my FLGS. He wanted one Imperial Knight to fulfill an order, but GW said no, you have to buy five. That's just one example of his ongoing frustrations with GW). So much so that they had several 40% off sales on all GW products in the store to recoup the losses they incurred. This is purposeful, as GW wants you to purchase directly from them rather than independent retailers. The problem with that is that by doing so they're strangling their own growth by de-incentivizing independent retailers to promote their products. Why promote GW products through instore events and go through all the hassle of dealing with GW when you can promote other games made by companies which are nowhere near as frustrating to deal with, and whose practices don't threaten to drive you out of business? That's the sort of thing which I think contributed to WFB's demise and 40k's declining sales, and GW's doing nothing to address that.

HelloKitty
09-07-2015, 12:49
I've played close to 20 games now. In the beginning I was upset. Frustrated. Now? There is indeed a game there, and it is actually fun once you divorce the idea from your mind that it is related to warhammer fantasy 8th edition.

Dosiere
09-07-2015, 12:52
in your opinion it performs terribly, that doesn't mean the product will fail because (sorry to break this to you) your opinion is not the deciding factor on whether a product succeeds or fails.

You can criticise it as much as you like (seems to be popular at the moment), just be aware that your criticism is akin to a person who lives in a 5th floor flat criticising a new design of lawn mower, it wasn't designed for you in the first place.

I keep hearing this. "It wasn't designed for you." What? First of all, how do you know that? Did you talk to someone on the design team that said "we are intentionally making Warhammer something that won't appeal to a significant portion of current Warhammer customers..." ? I have a hard time believing they had that intention. Surely they knew some would not jump all-in, but what you are suggesting is more than that.

Secondly, even if this is true, why would they do that? Your analogy doesn't make sense since we are talking about someone already interested and invested in a niche hobby. He's already in the landscaping business, any company that invests heavily in a new mower would surely want as many people who already mow lawns to want it? One would think anyway.

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 13:01
I keep hearing this. "It wasn't designed for you." What? First of all, how do you know that? Did you talk to someone on the design team that said "we are intentionally making Warhammer something that won't appeal to a significant portion of current Warhammer customers..." ? I have a hard time believing they had that intention. Surely they knew some would not jump all-in, but what you are suggesting is more than that.

Secondly, even if this is true, why would they do that? Your analogy doesn't make sense since we are talking about someone already interested and invested in a niche hobby. He's already in the landscaping business, any company that invests heavily in a new mower would surely want as many people who already mow lawns to want it? One would think anyway.

The point I'm making is if you've played the game and don't like it because of x, y, z reasons then maybe that's because it wasn't designed to do x, y or z. Just because the game doesn't scratch your particular itch doesn't make it universally dreadful. Age of Sigmar is very different to every other wargame on the market and that will take some getting used to for some of us, however I also think that may be why GW have done what they have done, they're not trying to compete with Warmachine or kings of war, they're doing their own thing which will attract different customers and carve out a completely new niche.

The old warhammer crowd couldn't support the old game, because they weren't willing to spend enough, GW needed something new to draw in new customers, if that something new doesn't work for all of the old customers that's a shame, but putting out 'more of the same' was always going to fail for the same reasons as wfb did.

I'm going to play AoS for no other reason than my wife likes playing it while she wouldn't touch wfb with its fine-tuned list building and competitive focus with a ten foot pole, of course I'm going to keep playing 8th edition against people who want to, I can see room for both and I see no reason to choose one over the other.

ewar
09-07-2015, 13:06
I think if more folk could actually look past their outrage at wfb being cancelled they'd discover that AoS really isn't as bad as they think it is. Glad you're finding it enjoyable.

I have to admit to being very surprised how sanguine you're being at these changes - having witnessed the... vivacity :) ... which you brought to the Eldar balance discussion a couple of months back I would have thought this system would blow your mind.

I mean, 40k is not very well balanced at the moment, but at least it's possible to have some vaguely even games, even with a stranger. A Wraithknight might be 20% too cheap, but compared to a free Malekith the Eternity King it looks like a paragon of sleek game design and balance!

Regarding the IP protection, I don't think there is anything they've done with the AoS Realms that couldn't have been done with a jump in the timeline of the Old World. 1000 years forward, could have changed the names, the Empire and Bretonnia are gone etc there is huge scope for adjusting the existing factions. Maybe the LM have been in space the whole time and come back down with a fancy new name and some bosses of Order to help the world?

Who knows what might have been! Instead, we have this... thing.

Holier Than Thou
09-07-2015, 13:12
As for a lower entry point to the game, 5 sigmarines costs £30 and 1 hero costs £20. Looking at the contents of the starter set that'll total about £160+ for an army of similar size if you aren't using the starter set as a basis. Yes, that's totally cheaper as an entry point... :rolleyes:

Yeah, I think the fact they are planning to sell a plastic cup and a plastic rod for about £20 each should blow the "GW have tried to make it more affordable and so more accessible." argument out of the water.

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 13:15
I have to admit to being very surprised how sanguine you're being at these changes - having witnessed the... vivacity :) ... which you brought to the Eldar balance discussion a couple of months back I would have thought this system would blow your mind.

I mean, 40k is not very well balanced at the moment, but at least it's possible to have some vaguely even games, even with a stranger. A Wraithknight might be 20% too cheap, but compared to a free Malekith the Eternity King it looks like a paragon of sleek game design and balance!

Regarding the IP protection, I don't think there is anything they've done with the AoS Realms that couldn't have been done with a jump in the timeline of the Old World. 1000 years forward, could have changed the names, the Empire and Bretonnia are gone etc there is huge scope for adjusting the existing factions. Maybe the LM have been in space the whole time and come back down with a fancy new name and some bosses of Order to help the world?

Who knows what might have been! Instead, we have this... thing.

Here's the problem if you have a points system that system has to work to be of any use, 40k's point system is fundamentally broken, certainly in the case of the Eldar and necron codices but because it is there, there is no expectation of players to have to put any effort into balancing their forces other than adding up their point totals and throwing down.

Everyone seems to be asking the question why they didn't just throw out warhammer or 40k with balanced points values instead of AoS, well here's some news for you, GW have been trying to balance wfb and 40k for the last 25+ years and they haven't come anywhere near close, sometimes you just have to give up on plan a and come up with a plan b, and this is pretty much what I think they've done with AoS.

AoS forces players to engage with each other to balance forces, otherwise what is the point in playing, ok you want to bring Malekith, well Nagash is kind of similar so I'll bring him, now you've got 20 DE Spearmen, how about I bring the same number of Skelly warriors etc etc.

I'm certain that AoS will continue to evolve as scenarios and new models become available and as we get more experience of the game and can better judge what balances better against what


Yeah, I think the fact they are planning to sell a plastic cup and a plastic rod for about £20 each should blow the "GW have tried to make it more affordable and so more accessible." argument out of the water.

Or it would do if those things were required to play the game, rather than say, using a 99p tape measure from the hardware store and rolling dice out of your hand ;) Luxury collectors items have always been part of the product range and have always been optional extras.

heavyheart
09-07-2015, 13:16
The old warhammer crowd couldn't support the old game, because they weren't willing to spend enough, GW needed something new to draw in new customers, if that something new doesn't work for all of the old customers that's a shame, but putting out 'more of the same' was always going to fail for the same reasons as wfb did.

People are willing to spend the gaming sectors grown significantly, stop blaming the customer it's not their duty to spend money.

No company has a right to income, if they don't give value for money people go elsewhere and that's what's happening in GW's case.

Wesser
09-07-2015, 13:19
AoS is probably fine as an "lets meet after dinner" kind of game.

However:

- In that capacity it competes with every other board game in the world and is limited to two people.

- It has worse narrative and is more complicated than Mordheim... although it will eventually have more and bigger models to it

- It doesn't allow me to evoke the feeling of an actual battle. I wanted "Braveheart" with monsters/magic. I got "Gangs of New York".


My gaming group usually devotes a day to Warhammer, get off 3 or so games during the day, while those not playing would look on, discuss rules, watch movies, get food etc. I don't begrudge people like you who might only be able to get games after dinner. I'm just pissed that support is withdrawn entirely from the game I like in favor of something complete different that just leeches a bit on the old game.

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 13:23
People are willing to spend the gaming sectors grown significantly, stop blaming the customer it's not their duty to spend money.

No company has a right to income, if they don't give value for money people go elsewhere and that's what's happening in GW's case.

I think you misread me there, I wasn't seeking to attach blame to anyone. From the company's perspective if your product is not profitable then you change it so that it is, which is exactly what GW have done, the side effect of that is that those who liked the former (failing) product may not like the new one (because it has to be different to attract new players).

Whoever's 'fault' you deem the failure of wfb to be, the fact remains that the customer base for the game was not large enough to support it as a viable product so a change in the product to make it more profitable was inevitable.

Wesser
09-07-2015, 13:24
AoS is probably fine as an "lets meet after dinner" kind of game.

However:

- In that capacity it competes with every other board game in the world and is limited to two people.

- It has worse narrative and is more complicated than Mordheim... although it will eventually have more and bigger models to it

- It doesn't allow me to evoke the feeling of an actual battle. I wanted "Braveheart" with monsters/magic. I got "Gangs of New York".


My gaming group usually devotes a day to Warhammer, get off 3 or so games during the day, while those not playing would look on, discuss rules, watch movies, get food etc. I don't begrudge people like you who might only be able to get games after dinner. I'm just pissed that support is withdrawn entirely from the game I like in favor of something complete different that just leeches a bit on the old game.

ewar
09-07-2015, 13:38
they haven't come anywhere near close

Sorry, I just don't buy that. 8th ed was actually very well balanced for a game with 15 armies and literally hundreds of different units. Leaving out the ET craziness, the weakest vs the strongest books could still have very even games straight out of the box. Add a tiny bit of comp and things got even better.

40k is a bit different, but even then I don't think the points system is to blame. An imperial knight is costed about right, the problem is that GW let you bring an army of them. In my gaming group the guy with an IK says "lets play 1850 points, by the way I fancy running my knight today" and hey presto, we have a good game of toy soldiers.

I don't even know where that conversation would start with AoS. The main problem is that people have such varying ideas of what is OP or not. In my very small group of mates, we have the complete gamut of gamers from the push forward/chuck dice/half a laugh guy to the min/maxing powerplayer and other people on a spectrum in between. Sitting down to play AoS would be a massive challenge between those two individuals.

It bugs me that GWs rhetoric, is 'be adult about it'. Yes, we are all adult about it, but when two people have to negotiate a compromise so neither is really happy with, what is the point? And these are two people who know each other!

Holier Than Thou
09-07-2015, 13:42
Or it would do if those things were required to play the game, rather than say, using a 99p tape measure from the hardware store and rolling dice out of your hand ;) Luxury collectors items have always been part of the product range and have always been optional extras.

But that's the point, GW tape measures generally are 99p tape measures which they sell for quadruple that price. The plastic cup 'dice shaker' is a 99p cup that they sell for £20. If they genuinely cared about their customers they would sell such items for a small mark up. If the dice shaker was sold for, say, £3 they would be doubling their money, giving their customers something a bit cooler than a normal cup and at the same time getting some free advertising as many, many more people would consider purchasing the 'dice shaker' so the brand image would be getting shown off.

But please, by all means defend the practice of selling standard quality items at exorbitant prices. Perhaps you'd be interested in my limited edition model-transportation device. It's a cardboard box ive sprayed gold so it must be worth about £30.

Philhelm
09-07-2015, 14:01
Like AoS or loath it, the majority have said for a long time WFB has had its time - for GW to do what they have done will have required huge planning and investment make the huge shift necessary. Tip of the ice berg so far and I am adamant it will all make a lot more sense going forwards.

The game should make sense when it is released, and it should have made sense during the last six months of complete silence from GW. They shouldn't launch a product that leaves customers, and even the damned retailers, confused.

MalusCalibur
09-07-2015, 14:01
The point I'm making is if you've played the game and don't like it because of x, y, z reasons then maybe that's because it wasn't designed to do x, y or z. Just because the game doesn't scratch your particular itch doesn't make it universally dreadful. Age of Sigmar is very different to every other wargame on the market and that will take some getting used to for some of us, however I also think that may be why GW have done what they have done, they're not trying to compete with Warmachine or kings of war, they're doing their own thing which will attract different customers and carve out a completely new niche.

So...those criticising AoS 'don't get it'? The four pages of rules contain very little depth or emergent complexity, barely reward any player interaction or decision making in favour of random dice rolls, have laughably vague deployment and victory conditions, and are full of holes and exploits that were discovered within hours of them being seen. So what exactly qualifies as 'universally dreadful' if not that?



The old warhammer crowd couldn't support the old game, because they weren't willing to spend enough, GW needed something new to draw in new customers, if that something new doesn't work for all of the old customers that's a shame, but putting out 'more of the same' was always going to fail for the same reasons as wfb did.

So...it's the players' fault that WHFB was failing? Consider the reasons for that lack of spending - high prices/low values, overly complex and random rules, and a high model count requirement I believe are the prevailing criticisms. Instead of addressing those issues with WHFB, or publishing a smaller scale game alongside it (or both) GW have decided to deliberately exclude customers in favour of the theoretical 'new niche' you describe, and throw away the few strong factors the game still had - i.e. it's well developed lore and characters, and its relative ubiquity.


I'm going to play AoS for no other reason than my wife likes playing it while she wouldn't touch wfb with its fine-tuned list building and competitive focus with a ten foot pole, of course I'm going to keep playing 8th edition against people who want to, I can see room for both and I see no reason to choose one over the other.

Except that, since AoS replaces WHFB as a supported product, a lot of people are going to find it much more difficult to get games of 8th. Not everyone has close knit groups of friends who will all stick with an older system with them - many depend entirely on pick up games, that AoS renders impossible.


Here's the problem if you have a points system that system has to work to be of any use, 40k's point system is fundamentally broken, certainly in the case of the Eldar and necron codices but because it is there, there is no expectation of players to have to put any effort into balancing their forces other than adding up their point totals and throwing down.

Everyone seems to be asking the question why they didn't just throw out warhammer or 40k with balanced points values instead of AoS, well here's some news for you, GW have been trying to balance wfb and 40k for the last 25+ years and they haven't come anywhere near close, sometimes you just have to give up on plan a and come up with a plan b, and this is pretty much what I think they've done with AoS.

Just because GW are not able to successfully balance their games does not mean that any attempt to do so should be abandoned. Other games, and other companies, manage to get closer to balance than GW ever has, so there's no excuse for it - they just did not bother to put the effort in.


AoS forces players to engage with each other to balance forces, otherwise what is the point in playing, ok you want to bring Malekith, well Nagash is kind of similar so I'll bring him, now you've got 20 DE Spearmen, how about I bring the same number of Skelly warriors etc etc.

I'm certain that AoS will continue to evolve as scenarios and new models become available and as we get more experience of the game and can better judge what balances better against what.

So...we're supposed to balance the game for them, because they didn't make any effort to do so? Why should anyone invest the time to do that, when there are a myriad of miniatures games available that can just be played as they are? Why would anyone pay money to do GW's job for them?


There is no convincing evidence that AoS is anything but a low effort product in line with GW's releases of the last year or two, lacking in any depth, creativity or originality.
The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported, and sounds alarmingly similar to the excuses given for 7th ed 40k, as well as being outright wrong given that a balanced, clear and concise ruleset serves narrative play far better than a clunky mess.
The suggestion that those who criticise "aren't the target market' doesn't make any sense, given that GW don't advertise outside their tiny niche-within-a-niche, that veteran players (the ones they just greatly annoyed by axing a beloved world and replacing it with vapid nonsense and inane 'jokes' that comes across as contemptuous) are the biggest source of word of mouth, and that any prospective wargamer will very quickly be put off by the practically nonexistant gameplay and lack of even a mechanic for balancing, much less a more successful attempt than the old WHFB.
The notion of doing GW's job for them by playtesting and attempting to balance the game, and paying them for the privilege, is insane. A half finished ruleset is not a feature, and handing over any money for any AoS product is an endorsement for GW to continue the same behaviour, and to treat its dwindling customers base with the same hostility and contempt.

ik0ner
09-07-2015, 14:09
I would agree with the op if I thought the new game actually was easier to set up, faster to play etc. At a hundred minis a side it's even more bogged down than the old system was, very much by the jumping between combat and lack of reference chart. It's a chore flipping around the scrolls. And that at the cost of looking like a mess and feeling like a mess.

Shandor
09-07-2015, 14:10
What i dont understand is: Peoples keeps saying that you need thousands of Euro and millions of models to even start WHF. (Yeah a bit over the top)
We had Minimosh Turneys once a month in my Local store with 500 point or 750 point lists and it was alot of Fun. Thats ALOT less then the 100 model cound AoS was made for.
We played from 13:00 to 19:00 and had 5-6 Games for every player.

Now you can play Armies with a point value of 10000+ points and One on one Battles with one model on each side.
With WHF we had Warbands, Minimosh and Storm of Magic Games.. i played WHF in a range vom 300 to 50000 points.
If you didnt want to paint so many models, or if your Army box is to heavy for you to carry it to your Club/store.. why dont make smaller Games?
AoS didnt do anything better in that case.

Its like i would keep telling everyone: "AoS Sucks because i need to spend 1000€ for an army and need to play 12 hours a Game!!"

Hoffa
09-07-2015, 14:32
What exactly did GW do that made your LGs owner angry? Cancelling wfb? You kind of expect these excessive, impassioned outbursts from neck-beard geeks who have poured their life into the game that has been cancelled, but I'd expect someone who has a business to run to have a slightly more level head, GW is still the market leader in wargaming by no small stretch.

Are you trolling us or do you really not get it. Most lgs owners have over the years worked up a core of loyal customers with predictable spending habits. Now gw have killed a product that was a reliable seller and replaced it with a product that does not appeal to the old customers one bit, in fact it makes the old customers angry. Even worse the new product have no obvious market. Every one keeps harping on about how AoS is just not for the existing veterans but no one has been able to describe just who it is for. If I owned an lgs I would just not know who to sell the game to.


Not veteran wargamers (to unbalanced and to simple)
Not board gamers (They do not want to assemble and paint stuff and have a ton of great games to choose from any way)
Not pre-teens (This is a category that normally does not frequent lgs by the way and AoS obviously does not work for 12 year olds)
Not role players. (They want customizable characters)

So exactly who is our imagined LGS owner supposed to sell AoS to?

(Also note that the release of AoS might hurt the sales of 40k as it proves investing in a GW game is not 'safe'. I have already heard people say that they will not start any new 40k armies due to fear of 40k getting an AoS treatment.)

Agrimax
09-07-2015, 14:35
The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported.

To be honest I do struggle to see how a system where you have the same chance to hit the world’s greatest swordsman as a blind, obese one armed bloke wielding a cucumber and the same chance to wound a dragon as a gerbil lends itself to anything in the slightest bit ‘narrative’.

Coraxis
09-07-2015, 15:13
This, exactly. I don't know why are people using the "narrative" or "just for fun" excuse when Archaon rolls to hit Grimgor as he rolls to hit a goblin. I mean, is this some kind of excuse to get rid of the cognitive dissonance that the "love for GW products" vs the "AoS is a poor game" feelings is causing?? Is the same with things like: "Don't worry guys, AoS is a bad game as it is, but we the players can patch it some way and could be great". Hmm okay...but what's the need of patching a game you consider awful anyway? Just to keep giving your money to GW? Why don't stay with 8th, 7th, 6th or 5th edition? Why don't go to any other company or game?. That's the point, some people have the need to keep playing/collecting something just because is from GW, not because its good. And they will create any possible excuse just to feel better about themselves staying with the company. Is like some kind of Stockholm syndrome... If you like the game as it is okay, you like it. But if you don't like it, why justify it with any excuse that you can imagine?

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 15:21
Sorry, I just don't buy that. 8th ed was actually very well balanced for a game with 15 armies and literally hundreds of different units. Leaving out the ET craziness, the weakest vs the strongest books could still have very even games straight out of the box. Add a tiny bit of comp and things got even better.

Was it really? Ok so balance between armies was within acceptable limits, but there were still grievous imbalances between individual units and characters, how often did you see anyone using Saurus cavalry, Troglodons, skeleton cavalry, Tomb Swarms, Ushabti or Orion (and those aree just a few examples from the armies I collect), all those units wre absolute jokes because their rules were so bad. How often did you see someone bring a monster-mounted character unless they were guaranteed not to see a cannon?

If I've spent weeks doing my best paint job on the phenomenal Orion model, it'd be nice if just once in a while I could use him in a game without effectively giving myself a 500pt handicap, AoS allows me to do that.


40k is a bit different, but even then I don't think the points system is to blame. An imperial knight is costed about right, the problem is that GW let you bring an army of them. In my gaming group the guy with an IK says "lets play 1850 points, by the way I fancy running my knight today" and hey presto, we have a good game of toy soldiers.

I don't even know where that conversation would start with AoS. The main problem is that people have such varying ideas of what is OP or not. In my very small group of mates, we have the complete gamut of gamers from the push forward/chuck dice/half a laugh guy to the min/maxing powerplayer and other people on a spectrum in between. Sitting down to play AoS would be a massive challenge between those two individuals.

It bugs me that GWs rhetoric, is 'be adult about it'. Yes, we are all adult about it, but when two people have to negotiate a compromise so neither is really happy with, what is the point? And these are two people who know each other!

AoS is a different type of game, it has to be approached co-operatively or it doesn't work, I understand that some people don't like that, but others do.

3eland
09-07-2015, 15:24
All the veteran players I know already have their armies and haven't bought anything (other than one or two of the big kits to add to their armies) in a long time.

I keep seeing "alienating vets" or "angering vets".

How do you alienate someone that no longer spends money in your product like new players will/do?

I just spent more in the last week on models I can use in AoS than most of the vets I know have spent in the last year.

I feel that is a lame excuse.

Noodle!
09-07-2015, 15:47
How about alienating the people who started the game in the last 1-4 years?

Spiney Norman
09-07-2015, 15:50
So...those criticising AoS 'don't get it'? The four pages of rules contain very little depth or emergent complexity, barely reward any player interaction or decision making in favour of random dice rolls, have laughably vague deployment and victory conditions, and are full of holes and exploits that were discovered within hours of them being seen. So what exactly qualifies as 'universally dreadful' if not that?

I think when you actually get to start playing the game and combine the four pages of core rules with some of the 378 pages of warscrolls you'll find plenty of 'emergent complexity', I know I did. What a lot of people don't get is that Age of Sigmar needs to be played co-operatively, going in with the intention of grinding your opponents forces beneath your steel-shod boot just isn't going to work well.


So...it's the players' fault that WHFB was failing? Consider the reasons for that lack of spending - high prices/low values, overly complex and random rules, and a high model count requirement I believe are the prevailing criticisms. Instead of addressing those issues with WHFB, or publishing a smaller scale game alongside it (or both) GW have decided to deliberately exclude customers in favour of the theoretical 'new niche' you describe, and throw away the few strong factors the game still had - i.e. it's well developed lore and characters, and its relative ubiquity.

I'm not assigning blame because that isn't appropriate, the issue is too few people were buying models to make wfb financially viable so it had to change, whether GW changed the right things is a perfectly legitimate question, and only the success or failure of the game over a sustained period will ultimately be able to answer that. I don't necessarily think the changes were all bad, I think the new background has tremendous potential and certainly has a wider scope for creating your own stories than the old world setting, on the other hand there is nothing to stop you from using the AoS rules to bring to life a narrative from the old world or using 8th edition rules to simulate a battle from the new setting if you want, it's totally up to you.


Except that, since AoS replaces WHFB as a supported product, a lot of people are going to find it much more difficult to get games of 8th. Not everyone has close knit groups of friends who will all stick with an older system with them - many depend entirely on pick up games, that AoS renders impossible.

That may be true eventually, but if enough people are disatisfied with AoS that they keep playing 8th, then it will be stay just as easy to find games, so this is really only an issue if AoS is a resounding success, which, by your tone you don't seem to think will happen.


Just because GW are not able to successfully balance their games does not mean that any attempt to do so should be abandoned. Other games, and other companies, manage to get closer to balance than GW ever has, so there's no excuse for it - they just did not bother to put the effort in.

I'm not at all convinced that 'any attempt at balancing' has been abandoned, points are gone, but there are other ways to do it (scenarios have been heavily mentioned in regards to AoS), so I'm content to see how it all pans out.


So...we're supposed to balance the game for them, because they didn't make any effort to do so? Why should anyone invest the time to do that, when there are a myriad of miniatures games available that can just be played as they are? Why would anyone pay money to do GW's job for them?

If you're not capable of level of co-operative play that AoS requires then maybe you should investigate one of the 'myriad of miniature games' rather than complaining endlessly about this one, I'm fairly confident that will increase your overall happiness level.

From the games I've played so far I'd say if you want to start a game quickly you can assign a value to each model equal to its starting wounds and come up with a (very) roughly balanced force that should give you a fun game. As we get more experience playing the game I dare say we'll be able to come up with a more precise system if we think that is needed.



There is no convincing evidence that AoS is anything but a low effort product in line with GW's releases of the last year or two, lacking in any depth, creativity or originality.

I've personally seen no evidence as to the amount of effort that went into the rules, neither do I have any objective way of measuring creativity or originality. Unfortunately our entirely subjective opinions do not constitute evidence in favour or against any of those things.


The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported, and sounds alarmingly similar to the excuses given for 7th ed 40k, as well as being outright wrong given that a balanced, clear and concise ruleset serves narrative play far better than a clunky mess.

40k is a clunky mess, principally because it straddles the line between co-operative narrative game and competitive game and does neither very well, AoS is very definitely in the 'co-operative/narrative' camp and does a fairly good job of that, whilst be utterly useless as a competitive wargame.


The suggestion that those who criticise "aren't the target market' doesn't make any sense, given that GW don't advertise outside their tiny niche-within-a-niche, that veteran players (the ones they just greatly annoyed by axing a beloved world and replacing it with vapid nonsense and inane 'jokes' that comes across as contemptuous) are the biggest source of word of mouth, and that any prospective wargamer will very quickly be put off by the practically nonexistant gameplay and lack of even a mechanic for balancing, much less a more successful attempt than the old WHFB.

Guess again, GW is sending reps to gaming conventions to demo and promote the new game, they have also sent a free copy to my local indy stockist to get them to promote the game (even though said stockist is in fact a bookshop) this is something they do finally seem to be getting right.


The notion of doing GW's job for them by playtesting and attempting to balance the game, and paying them for the privilege, is insane. A half finished ruleset is not a feature, and handing over any money for any AoS product is an endorsement for GW to continue the same behaviour, and to treat its dwindling customers base with the same hostility and contempt.

That assessment assumes that AoS is intended to be a tightly balanced competitive wargame, which it isn't, and your impression that GW is treating you with contempt or hostility is unfortunate, but is also nothing to do with them.

SideshowLucifer
09-07-2015, 16:17
I think where balance goes out the window is even if you agree on a force, if your playing an army that summons against one that doesn't, it won't be fun for the other guy as there is really no way to balance summoning as it is written at the moment.
The game has a soul if you look hard enough, but you really do have to look. The lack of any way to balance a game is what is killing it here for us. Already people refuse to play against VC, TK, Lizard Men and Daemons unless they are playing one of these armies. That isn't really balance. It alienates a lot of people who wanted to have fun with those specific armies. I have played undead since they were the same army, and now I find myself unable to play unless my opponents want me to cripple myself into a game that isn't any fun for me.
Americans here don't do beer and pretzel games the way we did in the UK. Here we want to be competitive and push our skills as much as possible and win. We don't want to recreate chess and spend a lot of time debating what game balance actually is.
Every attempt to try and balance a game here has met with failure other than just matching unit for unit, which frankly, leaves army creation as a strategy and skill out flat.
I really do want to like this game, but I don't know how to approach it with other people. As it is written, it's a huge cash grab. After all if I match m,y opponent's army unit for unit, then that means I have to own the same level of stuff as my opponent which may be basic troops, elite troops, monsters, or heroes. That is a lot to have to own to potentially balance a game.

monkey10120
09-07-2015, 16:19
GW did not do the right thing:

First they lost most of their loyal WHFB players. The people that are upset the most are people like me playing for the last 10 years and then watching a game you love taken away and thrown in the trash. As 8th is not a game anymore, AoS will slowly take over as every 10 year old flocks to the game basically leaving 8th players to fade away. The loyal players will make more money than any of these kids who buy the starter kit and never look back.

Second its just a cash grab. Seriously, yeah it might get new players in the game but they will soon find out there is no balance, no real goal of the game. In no time they will drop the game. Games that you invest this much money into need depth which AoS has none of.

I really hope GW fails soon so someone can buy the IP and fix this corrupted company.

GrandmasterWang
09-07-2015, 16:34
This, exactly. I don't know why are people using the "narrative" or "just for fun" excuse when Archaon rolls to hit Grimgor as he rolls to hit a goblin.

This is entirely deliberate and I agree with it in AOS. AOS is designed to be a game for new wargamers.

Now I personally prefer the depth and scalability of the 'to hit' system in 8th Fantasy (in 8th a Swordmaster finds it just as easy to hit a grail knight as a goblin keep in mind) however for noobs AOS and its Warscroll system makes a lot more sense.

I'll give you an example of why I think this.

About a year ago I was playing a game of 8th with a mate and he brought a girl along who had never played before (or knew anything about wargaming). To include her we gave her 2 characters to roll for/control. Now obviously we had to tell her what she needed 'to hit' and 'to wound' everything. She would get very confused just as she thought she was getting it "I need a 4+ to hit right" "well actually it's a 5+ now"....as the unit her character was fighting changed. Now we as Warhammer geeks know why the rolls are changing (ie this opponent is better skilled but not as tough as the last one) however for a new player it makes the game much much harder to pick up.

In that same example if we had hypothetically been playing AOS we could just have given her the warscroll for the character she was controlling and she would know exactly what she needed to roll to hit and wound without us telling her.

This is why GW is using Warscrolls, they make it easier for a newbie to understand what they need to roll and saves them from having to look at additional rules which takes time and distracts from the battle at hand.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

EcceNoHomo
09-07-2015, 16:57
just be aware that your criticism is akin to a person who lives in a 5th floor flat criticising a new design of lawn mower, it wasn't designed for you in the first place.

Not really. It's more like you bought a GW lawnmower and used it lovingly for twenty years, and then GW dumped Agent Orange all across the planet ensuring that all that grass dissolves into ugly, stinky sludge, so that you now need to use their new 25 Euro plastic gunk spatulas (TM) instead. Sure, new grass might eventually grow, but its more likely to come from, ahem, a grass-roots movement rather than the next corporate sales-pitch GW dreams up.

In fairness, when people like myself who have been playing for 16 years, and everyone I know offline, all dislike what GW have done with AOS then something's up. And I think the market will reflect this. If us lawnmower aficionados can't complain then who can?

Actually, I really can't see why anyone would play AOS rather than Warhammer 3rd Ed. If you want to play with less models you can roll up a warband which is great fun. Play is narrative, you have to take your opponents enjoyment into account, the fluff is superior, the art is superior, and the game rules are wayyy superior.

ArgelTal
09-07-2015, 16:58
It seems that there is a lot of anger from 'veterans' who insist that they are angry that a 'well developed world' and 'successful game' have been ditched, yet those same people, when confronted with the fact that WFB was in fact, NOT all that successful (seriously - I was at the Warhammer World Re-opening, the BL store that they had just built was three walls, of which two and three quarters were full of 40k stuff and then you had a tiny corner for the Fantasy) then they snarl that it wasn't THEIR fault that it wasn't succesful, it was GW's because they overpriced everything and made everything too complicated etc. Well, which is it? Either you were all buying in droves and enjoying this rich and complex setting or you were refusing to buy because it was all overpriced and wrong.

I get that people were attached to the Old World setting, and it certainly had its charm, but it was hardly massively original really was it? From the stuff that they lifted originally from Tolkien through to stuff like Bretonnians (crusade era French Knights) and the Lizardmen, it was all kinda generic at base. Well-realised in many senses, sure, but not exactly setting the world alight with originality. GW had a choice - they could churn out WFB 9.0, with another iterative update, another round of amending all the army books and getting whinged at that the right ones weren't being done first, OR that they were doing them too quickly, and then the situation would have remained exactly the same. I've sat in seminars for BL where GW employees have explicitly said that they didn't commission as much fantasy as they did 40k because 40k sold better. I've seen the stores where 40k is the main thing everyone is playing, and the main thing that the cabinets are full of. It wasn't a SECRET that WFB was struggling, and that GW wasn't throwing as much effort into it.

That being the case, rebooting the entire thing to be a unique new setting, redecorating HQ, sticking that big gold statue front and centre outside. This speaks to a declaration of intent. This says that here is a company that is determined to make a fist of this. Sure, you may not like it, and I'm sure that many won't. You can write it off as 'for the kids' or 'entry level' but if you want to aim at having Fantasy be a core part of what you do commercially then surely, you start from the ground up? You make a system that WILL intrigue new players and tempt them in. I've played two games of WFB my entire life, both were long, clunky and mostly a mystery to me. I played a demo of AoS last night and it took an hour and was fun.

And as for the warscrolls - it's clear that they have done the best they could to squeeze old stuff in for the benefit of those with existing collections who want to play. I doubt very much that those warscrolls will last very long, as new models are released. The two forces in the box - made for the system itself and tailored to it - seem to work fine, and there is no reason to suppose others won't too.

And if you want alternatives, there are LOADS out there, from Kings of War to LOTR to Warmachine etc etc. We live in a golden age for tabletop. That being the case, it baffles me in the extreme that people want to spend so much energy getting wound up about this. I'm no GW fanboy (not anymore - I've grown old and cynical) but if I've had fun with a thing I will say so. I went into my game of AoS last night with zero expectations and came away pleasantly surprised. Suits me.

Herzlos
09-07-2015, 17:13
...it wasn't designed for you in the first place.

Firstly, why wasn't it designed for him, a wargamer?

Secondly, who *is* it designed for?



The old warhammer crowd couldn't support the old game, because they weren't willing to spend enough, GW needed something new to draw in new customers, if that something new doesn't work for all of the old customers that's a shame, but putting out 'more of the same' was always going to fail for the same reasons as wfb did.

WHFB didn't fail because the customers didn't have the money to spend, WHFB failed because those customers spent that money on other things. That's GW's fault, not the customers. Lots could have been done to revitalize WHFB without this.

If this is such a diversion for WHFB, why not move WHFB to web-only and keep selling it to take advantage of both worlds? Why kill it off and pave the road for Kings Of War?

Konovalev
09-07-2015, 17:15
But that's the point, GW tape measures generally are 99p tape measures which they sell for quadruple that price. The plastic cup 'dice shaker' is a 99p cup that they sell for £20.
But please, by all means defend the practice of selling standard quality items at exorbitant prices. Perhaps you'd be interested in my limited edition model-transportation device. It's a cardboard box ive sprayed gold so it must be worth about £30.

I sure hope you don't own any Apple products. Because they do exactly the same thing. You're paying exorbitant prices for hardware that costs pennies, while their competitors sell at a more reasonable price. Is it wrong that Apple grossly overcharges for their product? Only if people are not buying those grossly overpriced products(they are by the way, people lap them up). Would you be interested in purchasing my new limited edition iPad Air 2Z? It's an iPad Air 2 with a Z on it for an additional £200, quite the deal.

No one needs to defend such practices, if people are buying that stuff then that's all the justification needed to produce it. And such practices are hardly exclusive to Apple and GW alone.

Coraxis
09-07-2015, 17:19
This is entirely deliberate and I agree with it in AOS. AOS is designed to be a game for new wargamers.

Now I personally prefer the depth and scalability of the 'to hit' system in 8th Fantasy (in 8th a Swordmaster finds it just as easy to hit a grail knight as a goblin keep in mind) however for noobs AOS and its Warscroll system makes a lot more sense.

I'll give you an example of why I think this.

About a year ago I was playing a game of 8th with a mate and he brought a girl along who had never played before (or knew anything about wargaming). To include her we gave her 2 characters to roll for/control. Now obviously we had to tell her what she needed 'to hit' and 'to wound' everything. She would get very confused just as she thought she was getting it "I need a 4+ to hit right" "well actually it's a 5+ now"....as the unit her character was fighting changed. Now we as Warhammer geeks know why the rolls are changing (ie this opponent is better skilled but not as tough as the last one) however for a new player it makes the game much much harder to pick up.

In that same example if we had hypothetically been playing AOS we could just have given her the warscroll for the character she was controlling and she would know exactly what she needed to roll to hit and wound without us telling her.

This is why GW is using Warscrolls, they make it easier for a newbie to understand what they need to roll and saves them from having to look at additional rules which takes time and distracts from the battle at hand.



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Well, when I started playing WHFB it was also hard for me to learn that the "to hit" and "to wound rolls" changed. But I didn't need to study an engineer's degree to learn about it. I mean, there's always a learning curve, and yes, first time you play its difficult to understand everything, but simplify the game just for people to learn how to play on their first single game night is, IMHO, a mistake. When I was taught how to play my friends avoided some of the more difficult rules, so I could learn step by step, and I had not played any wargame in my life back then. When I had to teach my girlfriend how to play I did the same thing. We needed more games for she to learn every rule, of course, but for me (and for her) that was part of the fun. She likes the game now, and she likes it because of the depth it has, same as I back in the day. I undestand what you are saying, AoS is easier and faster to get into the game, but it burns out too quickly. When you have learned, and you are ready to play a game with some narrative, and realize that, as I said, Archaon hits a goblin as he hits Grimgor Ironhide, it lose part of the background fun about it. And also it loses part of the strategy and complexity that IMO make this game great. The thinking of where to put your units, it doesn't matter anymore, because you know beforehand that a goblin will have the same hard time hitting and wounding against Archaon than against a gnoblar.

Anyway I think that WHFB rules needed and could had been simplified a little bit without destroying the whole game in the process. This way is just easier for GW than thinking and planning what rules need simplification and what stuff can go away. That way they could have maintained their old players (who anyway are the ones who recruit new ones most of the time) and introduce new wargamers too. Another possible option was to revive some skirmish level game like Mordheim was, so people started with a low cost "army" and expanded it over time. Or Warhammer Skirmish or Warbands, or something like Path to Glory. There were options and they chose the easy way. TBH for me this looks more like lazyness than anything else.

And just to add something to the mix, I've never thought that complex rules were the main problem with starting WHFB. Every single people I've tried to introduce to the game have given me the same problem: "Is too expensive". AoS would not solve anything if instead of buying a 20 Orcs box for 46 euros you need a 5 Sigmarines box for 46 euros. You need less figures in the game, but the price is as hard proportionally as it was. That's another point GW isn't working on, I'm afraid, they even offer less now for the same price.

Herzlos
09-07-2015, 17:27
This is entirely deliberate and I agree with it in AOS. AOS is designed to be a game for new wargamers.

But what's the follow in product to move on to once they are no longer new wargamers, in say, 6 months. Kings of War?



I've personally seen no evidence as to the amount of effort that went into the rules, neither do I have any objective way of measuring creativity or originality. Unfortunately our entirely subjective opinions do not constitute evidence in favour or against any of those things.

The core rules are 4 pages long with almost 4 pages of issues. They have the look and feel of a hobby project someone threw together over a weekend, Vs the rule quality of, well, everything else that isn't feee.




AoS is very definitely in the 'co-operative/narrative' camp and does a fairly good job of that, whilst be utterly useless as a competitive wargame.

There's co-operation like that required to play 40K - "Fancy a game, no unbound or Knights, at 1500pts?" "Sure", and that required to play AoS, where there's no real way beyond experience to identify how balanced the armies are, or how inbalanced. With the best will in the world 2 new players could easily create an even looking match up, gram for gram, and have one player get kerbstomped 10 games in a row, because there's more to the rules than the mini's being used as pawns. In order to get a successful game of anything other than a proscribed scenario requies a huge amount of work.

If the aim is just to have some beers and roll some dice, why not play something that's better suited to that, like Yahzee or Zombie Dice, and spend the other $90 on beer?

The_Real_Chris
09-07-2015, 17:28
Well, best of luck to GW, it will be interesting to see if launching a new game is easier than using an existing network of players to launch something. GW clearly want to have a new background, basing convention and model scale, so starting from scratch was the only answer. I still think it was the wrong question, but hey.

The_Real_Chris
09-07-2015, 17:30
I sure hope you don't own any Apple products. Because they do exactly the same thing. You're paying exorbitant prices for hardware that costs pennies, while their competitors sell at a more reasonable price.

However you are also buying into the iOS ecosystem. AoS lacks that currently.

willowdark
09-07-2015, 17:32
Have you ever worked in business ? Have you ever had a fundamental realisation that a part of your business just does not make money and no longer fits with what you have become ? I am sorry but its a silly analogy and not relevant to what GW are trying to do. I am a senior manager at a business and we are currently looking at doing something very similar to AoS in that a chunk of our Business is not making money, and whilst it might be synonymous to us as a business something has to change - we will be doing a drastic shift and its not without a lot of care and attention.

Like AoS or loath it, the majority have said for a long time WFB has had its time - for GW to do what they have done will have required huge planning and investment make the huge shift necessary. Tip of the ice berg so far and I am adamant it will all make a lot more sense going forwards.

And it starts with the models. The answers are right there in front of us. The new AoS models are fundamentally different than traditional Fantasy sculpts. People who deride them for looking like Space Marines are really missing the point.

40K isn't more successful because it's a better game. It beats fantasy because the standard of the minis is miles ahead. GW has made some amazing and beautiful fantasy kits in the last few years, but when I look at what's coming out in 40k I'm just blown away.

But GW knows that some people just like fantasy more, thematically, so they put a lot of time and effort adapting their 40k style to fantasy, so that the standard of fantasy can live up to 40k and fantasy players aren't asked to buy in to a second class product. But the only way to do that is to burn down the forest to make room for new growth. It's a smart business decision.

These kits that come in the AoS box are outstanding, and there is just no way GW doesn't have 5 years worth of even better ones in progress right now, all at various stages of production. It's no different than Ravening Hordes at the start of 6th. Maybe the rules were further along and more complete when RH came out, but the models were much further behind. So GW is doing it the other way around this time, prioritizing the models over the rules. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. It's give and take. The rules will catch up the way the models did in 6th and 7th.

AoS is basically just a WFB 9th Beta test put out to promote the new generation of GW miniatures.

Lord_Crull
09-07-2015, 17:51
All the veteran players I know already have their armies and haven't bought anything (other than one or two of the big kits to add to their armies) in a long time.

I keep seeing "alienating vets" or "angering vets".

How do you alienate someone that no longer spends money in your product like new players will/do?

I just spent more in the last week on models I can use in AoS than most of the vets I know have spent in the last year.

I feel that is a lame excuse.

Perhaps veterans starting a second army?

I myself have 3000pts of Vampire Counts and I have been playing since 2007. During 2014 I had finally amassed funds to start a High Elf army that I've always wanted to start, alongside an Eldar army for 40k to finally collect a xenos army. Then I first heard the rumors from Darnok during Christmas time on this website. I decided to be cautious and hold off on purchasing that High Elf army right after I had gotten the Army Book for it, just to see what Games Workshop would do. In retrospect I am quite glad I had made that decision. I do not hold any interest in the Age of Sigmar game, and I would have wasted a considerable portion of my money had I bought a High Elf army that would have never seen any sort of use.

Similarly at least, it also might affect players of GW's other game systems, in the ''If they can end Fantasy then what about 40k?''. I myself have cancelled that planned Eldar army and put a further freeze on any future purchases for 40k in the time being. I will be waiting at least a year to see how this pans out for GW as a company.

Kjell
09-07-2015, 17:53
I get that people were attached to the Old World setting, and it certainly had its charm, but it was hardly massively original really was it? From the stuff that they lifted originally from Tolkien through to stuff like Bretonnians (crusade era French Knights) and the Lizardmen, it was all kinda generic at base. Well-realised in many senses, sure, but not exactly setting the world alight with originality.

I would argue that WHFB's rooting in historical and generic fantasy was a strength because you don't have to sell people on *********** "orruks" or "ogors" but instead tap into actual myths and already hugely popular things. Tolkien sure wasn't massively original but still got incredibly popular because he put a lot of care into what he wrote so that it really felt like actual mythology. WHFB's strength was in the feel of it, not in having concepts that no one else had. 40k isn't really all that original, either! There's been plenty of other space adventures, dystopian futures, super soldiers, psychic aliens and so on.

It's just such stupid brand worship ideology to think that your troubles will be over because what used to be trolls are now the exact same model and concept but instead called "troggoths".

logan054
09-07-2015, 17:54
So just to recap? GW are doing the right thing by releasing a rule set you can't use for a pickup game? Has barely any rules? Removes the main thing that attracts people to over 40k? Preparing to dump a large amount of the old range, and erm, not really letting you know what was happening!

I think less staff members need to post on here ;)

Avian
09-07-2015, 18:05
That being the case, rebooting the entire thing to be a unique new setting,...
Let's not exaggerate, what we have seen of the new setting thus far consists of Space Marines with some *very* minor tweaks, and the same old fantasy races with slightly different spelling. Not what most people would call 'unique'.
:p

Hoffa
09-07-2015, 18:08
And to add to the recap. It is not possibly to define what group of customers AoS is intended for.

Hoffa
09-07-2015, 18:09
Let's not exaggerate, what we have seen of the new setting thus far consists of Space Marines with some *very* minor tweaks, and the same old fantasy races with slightly different spelling. Not what most people would call 'unique'.
:p

Exactly, what we have seen so far of the new setting is highly derivative and a lot less original than the old setting was.

Reinholt
09-07-2015, 18:15
So a few things to address..

1. Fantasy wasn't selling enough, so it was a product without an audience/wasn't good/people didn't buy enough.

This is all true, factually. However, the statement itself is actually relatively empty of factual content.

I agree that people were not buying enough Fantasy for GW to continue to support it as-is. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that Fantasy is worth supporting or not. You have to take a step beyond this and ask WHY people are not buying Fantasy, as no company has a right to people's money.
Capitalism is a competition; everyone should have to earn their market share and create things their customers are willing to pay for. If you are not doing that, you are wrong. "The customer is always right" is properly applied in this context, not any individual dispute. You cannot force your customers to give you money, and if you do not make things they will buy, that's your fault as a company, not the fault of your customers.

So why was fantasy not selling? This is where the rubber meets the road. There are many possible objections, some of the most common I have seen being:

- Fantasy is not popular in general compared to sci-fi
- Ranked battle games take too many models thus cost of entry deters people
- The rules and balance suck
- Prices are too high (in aggregate, not just to start)
- GW refuses to market or work with indies, and thus they are deliberately marginalized by all non-GW owned outlets
- GW is competing with outside forces beyond their control, like video games and snapchat and ISIS and whatever other flavor of the month kids are into

I am going to leave aside my discussion of the fifth and sixth points for now, as that is a meta point about GW that is equally applicable to 40k. The others are not, other than point one, which I think is mostly false. I believe there are varying degrees of truth to the others (though much less to prices too high in aggregate than people realize, but perhaps much more to the cost of entry; PP is not cheaper on a per-model basis but it is so much easier to start and the games take less models as a base, so the minimum purchase is FAR lower, even if the median purchase is similar, as evidence... and people don't bitch non-stop about PP prices like they do with GW).

So what does this mean? This means that the reason GW got into this situation with Fantasy is largely that GW created a lot of the problems. By not producing a product their customers want at a price their customers will pay, and allowing others to instead make runs at their customers, GW set Fantasy on a slow downward spiral. Now that we are at the bottom, everyone is asking what GW should do and what the right decision is.

The right decision was not to cock it all up in the first place! The problem is not where GW is now; that is the symptom. The problem is how GW has been behaving for roughly the past 5-10 years.

Consider the following analogy: your favorite football team (soccer for those of us in the US) is down 3-1. A striker is fouled in the act of shooting in the box, late in the game, as your team is attempting a comeback... and the ref doesn't call it. Poor refereeing? Certainly. Could it alter the game? Certainly. Is it the main reason your team will lose? Well, what if I tell you they are down 3-1 because they scored 3 own goals earlier?

This is the situation GW was in, and when you view the anger of many of their (now former) customers through this prism, you see the truth of it. The problem is not AoS on a stand-alone basis (that has its own set of issues), the problem is that GW even put themselves in this position in the first place.

In short, there were product qualities AoS would need to have to help recover from this situation. I would suggest it has virtually none of them. I will get to that later.

2. GW had to do something, and blowing up the old stuff and trying something new was the right decision.

If we accept the caveat that GW got themselves into this mess, I actually completely agree with this line of reasoning. Once you have hit bottom, you do have to start over, and GW has all but hit bottom here. There were really only two good options:

1 - Completely re-invent Fantasy as a mass battles game, revise the range, and try to address all of the customer complaints.

2 - Go in a totally new direction game-wise, try to retain enough of the lore to have a meaningful connection, and try to address the relevant customer complaints.

AoS is neither of those products, though closer to the second: it did not address many of the core complaints about the game (though it did get the cost of entry thing correct, in a very narrow but degenerate sense), and it's arguable it went in a direction at all because GW won't tell anyone anything. The balance is still... well, I mean, does it even have it? How can you say if a game where they didn't bother to write half the rules is balanced?

More so, prices remain high, GW still refuses to work with independent retailers (hell, they won't even tell customers what their plan for this game is, and it's a massive relaunch of a beloved line while literally nobody knows if more rules are coming?), and GW did nothing to understand their customer base.

So let us accept, for a moment, that AoS is likely to be a failure with current customers as a given (if you believe it is not, pretend). Let me then ask: if you were a game store owner, as that is where this product is being sold other than by GW direct itself, who would you sell this to? Who is the customer that would walk in the door that you would sell Age of Sigmar to?

This, to me, is the core problem. I wouldn't sell it to kids, because of the price. I wouldn't sell it to vets, because of the simplicity. I wouldn't sell it to former fantasy players, because it's likely to get them to throw the box at my head. It's hard to conceive of who this game is for, as opposed to who it is not for?

3 - AoS itself has core mechanical flaws.

Simple vs. complex rules is an overdone debate. Are big cars or small cars better? Well, it kind of depends what you want.

You know what is not good? Unreliable cars with terrible performance, at any size. Do you know what the problem with AoS is?

There are basic mechanical failures in the rules. If GW believes their customers are collectors (let us take them at their word), how do you then produce a game where having a 12 year old stomping his models with cheetoh-covered fingers all over the lovingly painted bases of your figures is a feature, not a bug? How do you have a game where your model literally doesn't have enough movement to turn around, so your cinematic battle begins when your dragon charges ass-first into a group of sideways horsemen?

This is at the core of the customer complaints with GW: they just don't seem to give a **** about their customers or product quality. The internal inconsistencies in this game are manifold:

- We are premium priced and want a huge community, but everyone should make up rules for themselves locally to balance this and there should be no standard to play by!

- We are a company making models for collectors but it's literally a game rule for little timmy to jam his unpainted goblin on top of your golden demon entry's base!

- We are about forging a narrative and epic scenes but your models aren't allowed to turn around and there is a huge in-game advantage to using completely unrealistic formations that make for laughably stupid visual imagery!

- We want lower cost of entry but also here is your 30 dollar plastic cup!

Even if GW had the correct strategic decision with rebooting Fantasy (and, for the record, I believe they did), they have made a laughable mess out of it by failing on the execution so badly that any group of first-year analysts out of school could have warned them not to do half of these things. Think about that: uninformed jackoffs who have zero experience could have caught a lot of these errors.

This is the real rot at GW, and why this game will fail. Even if it is accidentally a temporary success, I have faith GW management will find a creative way to destroy it.

Agrimax
09-07-2015, 18:31
AoS is a different type of game, it has to be approached co-operatively or it doesn't work, I understand that some people don't like that, but others do.

Those 'others' being a sub-set (likely a relatively small one) of the potential audience for a fantasy wargame. Bearing in mind 'cooperative' is in itself a somewhat oxymoronic concept when we're talking about players with opposed armies at war...

All this talk of 'narrative' and 'cooperative' play is just a smokescreen for GW putting out half a game. Nothing about adding in all the elements that people want, primary being a points system (properly implemented - highlighting GW's inability to do this very well does not somehow excuse them from even trying this time, it shows they need to work harder at it) takes away from that style of play, but it keeps a lot more people happy at the same time. Or you know, if as others say it's a 'beginners' wargame, keeping WHFB going as well, since if they're aimed at different audiences they can't cannibalise each others sales and using nominally the same models it would not cost them anything to do so.

Autumn Leaves
09-07-2015, 18:39
I don't play skirmish games as a rule.
They just don't deliver enough enjoyment.
I'd rather play a board game than a skirmish game.
I prefer ranked up miniature battles.
For me AoS is a non event.
However, in the bigger picture i feel we should support it because if we genuinely want to see a new generation of table top gamers to fly the flag at clubs around the world in the future we need it to succeed where 7th and 8th editions panned so badly.
GW have lowered the entry level cost, lets get the kids in and get them hooked.

Also a cunning move by GW to trademark all the faction names and protect themselves from any further chartreuse issues.

ewar
09-07-2015, 18:42
Haha couldn't agree more, though I do think a middle ground could be found which reinvented the warhammer world, allowed continuity but gave room for enough IP driven spelling changes and new sigmarines to keep Timmy happy.

Avian
09-07-2015, 18:46
However, in the bigger picture i feel we should support it because if we genuinely want to see a new generation of table top gamers to fly the flag at clubs around the world in the future we need it to succeed where 7th and 8th editions panned so badly.
Surely it would be better to find a game you actually enjoy, and getting the next generation of players to try out that instead, no?

Kjell
09-07-2015, 18:50
If they wanted a narrative game they should have written solid campaign rules that provided many varied scenarios and had your available forces fluctuate according to mission and background availability.


I don't play skirmish games as a rule.
They just don't deliver enough enjoyment.
I'd rather play a board game than a skirmish game.
I prefer ranked up miniature battles.
For me AoS is a non event.
However, in the bigger picture i feel we should support it because if we genuinely want to see a new generation of table top gamers to fly the flag at clubs around the world in the future we need it to succeed where 7th and 8th editions panned so badly.
GW have lowered the entry level cost, lets get the kids in and get them hooked.

Also a cunning move by GW to trademark all the faction names and protect themselves from any further chartreuse issues.

Changing the names isn't going to help a single thing when people make miniatures in the same style because the generic term for orruks already exists and is well established.

We don't need to support AoS at all for the sake of tabletop gaming as a whole because there exist other and better written games already. GW games may still be the biggest but it doesn't at all need to continue to be that way for wargaming to grow bigger and better in the future. If this is what GW does in its hour of need when there's no room left for stubbornness or sacred cows then miniature games are better off without GW. Not because they axed a thirty years old setting but because AoS is all they managed to put together. It's frankly embarrassing that the biggest company on the market couldn't do any better.

Teurastaja
09-07-2015, 18:51
AoS is a different type of game, it has to be approached co-operatively or it doesn't work, I understand that some people don't like that, but others do.

This is what I simply don't get. With any other wargame it's simple - I'm packing x points of miniatures, go somewhere, meet someone, agree on points level and have a game. AoS basically forces me to play with people I know well and negotiate before we have a game. Who has time for that? It's just annoying. Also, other wargames have quick-start rules that are more solid than AoS, which is supposed to be a 'full' game.

heavyheart
09-07-2015, 18:56
I don't play skirmish games as a rule.
They just don't deliver enough enjoyment.
I'd rather play a board game than a skirmish game.
I prefer ranked up miniature battles.
For me AoS is a non event.
However, in the bigger picture i feel we should support it because if we genuinely want to see a new generation of table top gamers to fly the flag at clubs around the world in the future we need it to succeed where 7th and 8th editions panned so badly.
GW have lowered the entry level cost, lets get the kids in and get them hooked.

Also a cunning move by GW to trademark all the faction names and protect themselves from any further chartreuse issues.

Sorry I'm confused how is £6 a model lowering the cost of entry? 294 pounds for fifty models is not lowering the price of entry that does not even include the 20 for the leader model.

Tzar Boris
09-07-2015, 19:13
Well if anything it's made it easier to choose how to play.

In a way I feel maybe GW were guilty of promoting the really competitive, everything must be balanced, super chess of Mathhammer until it got to much for thme to handle. It really has been for good while a game of "buy more, win more". And many of its customers, whilst drawn to that, also find it hard to suckle at another teat once fixated.

In a way, AOS could be a genius move. They have 30 years of rulesets of varying difference. At least 9 core rules to choose from - not including Mordheim, Skirmish, Campaigns, Siege, Warmaster, Mighty Empires etc. If you haven't found your "ideal" Warhammer by this stage, they couldn't really add much more without ruining the world.

By killing the furtherance of the Warhammer World, you can contain the myth and legend of it within a manageable chunk, and they can stop adding potentially lore ruining campaigns/characters/units. (Clearly ET was a marmite thing - I choose to ignore it altogether) Blank slate, you're not getting any new Warhammer stuff.

I don't think they should stop making stuff altogether though. In fact, a great way to wave goodbye to Warhammer would be to not just give away the rules for AOS as succour to bring people in, but ALL the previous editions as free downloads. Unless they plan on continuing support, or continue manufacturing the books, there really is no reason not to, and with the rules already written and tested, all it means a potential background revenue from selling through of old kits. Logistics be damned - why help ebay scalpers, when you can make money from them?

Another great "add" would be to once a year, maybe bring out a rescuplt/retool of a classic WFB fantasy unit.

Learn from Specialist Games - don't assign half the studio to minor vanity projects, but don't STOP selling them! If there's anything wrong with making money, I'm sure their shareholders would like to know what that is.

The reason for GWs growth was expansion in its worlds, not the conflated addition of some big monsters and characters that may or may not appeal to all.

Still hurts they never took the armies of Cathay, Amazons, or the multitude of other stuff for more than just additional fluff.

What I'm saying is, they're not binning Warhammer, just moving on. Just as sometimes band members go off and start new projects that sound totally different to their old band. Fine. Doesn't mean you can't plop the old albums on your playlist.

Play AOS, or don't, is the lesson. It took them an afternoon to make and gave it away for free, so it sure as hell ain't gonna hurt their feelings if you don't. Now's the time to discuss, at the end of all things, what your favourite edition is, and how you're gonna play moving forward. I think I'm gonna work with a 6th/AOS//Mordheim/LOTR/WFRP kinda mashup ruleset. Something that works for us. Might even write it all down someday.

ScruffMan
09-07-2015, 19:17
Yeah, I think the fact they are planning to sell a plastic cup and a plastic rod for about £20 each should blow the "GW have tried to make it more affordable and so more accessible." argument out of the water.

More affordable, no. More accessible, yes. Essentially they're going to be charging the same or more for a lot less while telling you it is a good thing. I am optimistic about AoS on the whole but this seems fairly likely to occur.

AngryAngel
09-07-2015, 19:19
Warhammer is dead, all we have left is age of sigmarite. The phrase of lower entry point is a lie, GW doesn't want low model counts they want you buying all the models and rule books they can cram out. The self delusion this will end up cheaper then 8th ed fantasy, is simply not keeping with the GW beast. The system sucks, was done I presume in an afternoon at the pub and once the models start flowing out, you'll see. The game as a skirmish will be poor and I point out, if people don't remember, 40k started out as a skirmish game, hows that doing for 40k now ? Now it is simply 40kpocalypse, GW don't do skirmish, they do horde, except now they will knock out all the old armies, so players will need to get whole new hordes with the new models, which probably was their point all along.

Kjell
09-07-2015, 19:23
Now's the time to discuss, at the end of all things, what your favourite edition is, and how you're gonna play moving forward.

House rules were already possible. They're great for tweaking things to be the exact way your group prefers the game but they don't exactly make it any easier to build a large community. People are going to go as oldhammer as they like but people who like 6th edition with tweaks won't have an easier time playing against people who like 4th edition or 6th edition without tweaks. It's the only thing to do if you want to continue playing some kind of WHFB but it absolutely presents a problem we have to acknowledge.

Tzar Boris
09-07-2015, 19:37
People are going to go as oldhammer as they like but people who like 6th edition with tweaks won't have an easier time playing against people who like 4th edition or 6th edition without tweaks. It's the only thing to do if you want to continue playing some kind of WHFB but it absolutely presents a problem we have to acknowledge.

For sure. But what we gonna do? This "community" at large has been vocal about being "shafted" by GW for years but done little to garner anything save for blindly following the paved road. Maybe if we, as a community, decided to trim what versions we're gonna play - Ye Oldehammer - 1st, HeroHammer - 4th, Warhammer - 6th, BeastieHammer - 8th, NoobHammer - AOS. If we all decide "competitive" pick up games will be played using 6th rules (the reason I focus on sixth is that it was just around 7th that GW started straying away from "Hobby" into "let's sell people lots of plastic") then that is what we play. No odd looks. 6th is the boy.

Cutter
09-07-2015, 19:38
Any one else care to share my excitement? :-)

No.

And because a message must be at least 10 characters long.

No again.

(oh, and 30+ year veteran, for all that it matters these days :-)

Bloodknight
09-07-2015, 19:40
However, in the bigger picture i feel we should support it because if we genuinely want to see a new generation of table top gamers to fly the flag at clubs around the world in the future we need it to succeed where 7th and 8th editions panned so badly.

Nah, I'd rather push a different game that I enjoy and which will also be cheaper to get into for the newbies (no, not WM/H). Tabletopgaming does not equal GW. TBH I'm afraid of this becoming a success because 40K might get the same treatment.


If we all decide "competitive" pick up games will be played using 6th rules (the reason I focus on sixth is that it was just around 7th that GW started straying away from "Hobby" into "let's sell people lots of plastic") then that is what we play. No odd looks. 6th is the boy.

won't work because you won't get newbies to play old systems. At least not in sufficient numbers and they would have to copy the rulebooks because the access to 6th edition stuff is limited. GW was smaller at the time, so the print runs probably weren't giant either, and attrition with have seen a lot of those books going into the trash years ago.

Shandor
09-07-2015, 20:07
Thanks for the post on the last site Reinhold. It was a very good read.

Kegslayer
09-07-2015, 20:08
In my opinion and yes I'm aware no one may care but everyone has one. This is the best thing that's happened to fantasy since forever. 8th was dull, long and boring. As for price of entry £30 for 5 guys is about the standard price. Its still expensive but you can buy then and use them straight away. Thing is models etc are expensive but its cheaper than golfing or my other hobby of archery

logan054
09-07-2015, 20:25
Any one else care to share my excitement? :-)

Why yes, I was very excited the other day when I discovered AoW had actually released the rules in english and seem very open to "thronehammer". It's certainly nice to see a ruleset for models I enjoy that isn't aimed at 2 year olds.

Bloodknight
09-07-2015, 20:29
As for price of entry £30 for 5 guys is about the standard price.

Dunno. Somebody just showed me that for the price of 3 of those dice shakers you can buy a 179 model undead army from Mantic games. Which actually came as a shock to me. 15 models against 180 - I'm a gamer first, so that looks like a really good deal. I might not be a huge fan of the sculpts per se, but at arms length I don't really give a crap.

zoltan
09-07-2015, 20:47
In my opinion and yes I'm aware no one may care but everyone has one. This is the best thing that's happened to fantasy since forever. 8th was dull, long and boring. As for price of entry £30 for 5 guys is about the standard price. Its still expensive but you can buy then and use them straight away. Thing is models etc are expensive but its cheaper than golfing or my other hobby of archery

Tell that to mantic where £30 will buy you 50 models instead of 5, and before the inevitable "but they suck" no they certainly dont. The asthetics are different, and the appealof any is personal choice not a fact. To me AOS sucks compared to mantic.

Agrimax
09-07-2015, 20:58
I might not be a huge fan of the sculpts per se, but at arms length I don't really give a crap.

That's always the thing. However good the model is, you don't really marvel at the detail when you're standing above a table gaming with it. Many people don't have the skill to paint them to a level that really brings out the quality anyway, and even those that do often don't have the time to paint every rank and file trooper to the standard they might take the time to paint characters too. If they get painted at all - a moderate quality miniature painted to a moderate standard will always look better than the most exquisitely detailed miniatures that's just grey plastic which is how so many people seem happy to leave things.The focus on having amazing quality miniatures when most of the time they're unlikely to garner the attention to warrant that isn't something I can really get my head around.

Granted, you don't want some misproportioned monstrosities lumbering around the battlefield, but there's a happy medium where quality is ok for the purpose of actually playing games.

heavyheart
09-07-2015, 21:11
Dunno. Somebody just showed me that for the price of 3 of those dice shakers you can buy a 179 model undead army from Mantic games. Which actually came as a shock to me. 15 models against 180 - I'm a gamer first, so that looks like a really good deal. I might not be a huge fan of the sculpts per se, but at arms length I don't really give a crap.

See if they are just chaff to be removed they don't need to be hyper detailed in my opinion, and they really are not that bad i was looking at dwarves earlier and i thought they look decent.

TheFang
09-07-2015, 21:17
I was at the Warhammer World Re-opening, the BL store that they had just built was three walls, of which two and three quarters were full of 40k stuff and then you had a tiny corner for the Fantasy)

This at the end of a period devoid of fantasy releases.
So just to recap? GW are doing the right thing by releasing a rule set you can't use for a pickup game? Has barely any rules? Removes the main thing that attracts people to over 40k? Preparing to dump a large amount of the old range, and erm, not really letting you know what was happening!

I think less staff members need to post on here ;)Perfect.
So a few things to address..
If anyone from GW is reading this just click on that link and have a think about the points raised. Go on.

However, in the bigger picture i feel we should support it because if we genuinely want to see a new generation of table top gamers to fly the flag at clubs around the world in the future we need it to succeed where 7th and 8th editions panned so badly.
GW have lowered the entry level cost, lets get the kids in and get them hooked.

Also a cunning move by GW to trademark all the faction names and protect themselves from any further chartreuse issues.
The cost of entry with AoS is the highest ever with the most expensive starter set and minis ever released by GW. Accessory prices are in the pants on head stupid range. The rules are unusable.

Get the kids to play Saga, Batman or even 40k. At least there are games at the base of those. Chartreuse -best predictive text ever?

AngryAngel
09-07-2015, 21:27
I agree on some of the sculpts being better for GW over mantic. From ones I've seen/have. The mantic dwarves are in some aspects tons better, less cartoony looking, the GW art style for dwarves is pretty meh, imo that is. Most of the dwarf line is better for mantic, however I like the GW warmachines more.

For the undead, alot of the new undead stuff is ace for GW. Coven throne, zombie dragon, black knights, I even like the blood knights, though they are super expensive, as well I think the GW skeletons for VC are nice, and I love some zombie dogs for dire wolves, even give an honorable mention for crypt horrors. I will say mantic is worlds better for zombies, both cost and look and ghouls I think are better for mantic over GW. I haven't done much with the other races, but alot comes down to art style for the sculpts.

Those saying all the mantic stuff is awful I don't think think are being very genuine, though such statements are all opinion based, I find it hard to believe they don't like any of their sculpts for models as some are pretty good, and inexpensive.

TheFang
09-07-2015, 21:37
Those saying all the mantic stuff is awful I don't think think are being very genuine, though such statements are all opinion based, I find it hard to believe they don't like any of their sculpts for models as some are pretty good, and inexpensive.
Apart from the ghouls and a few of the Forgefather warmachines I find Mantic minis to be uniformly unattractive and much worse than any GW sculpt (obvious stuff like old Nagash and the pumbagor are honourable exceptions here.) People can make their own mind up on the aesthetics. Price in comparison to GW is very good on all Mantic stuff though.

Razios
09-07-2015, 22:29
All warhammer players knew the barrier to entry was too high, however what they have done is a pretty insane 'fix' for that problem.

What should have happened is :
- end times stuff
- Sigmar prevents destruction of the world at the list moment, but disappears for a thousand years
- old world is changed in that time but also recognisable
- Sigmar returns with the golden douche bag brigade and the war continues

AoS is then a skirmish level intro game to feed players into the 8th ed meta. GW continues to evolve the story through campaign releases and EVERYBODY is happy.

Why they needed to **** off so many existing players when the solution to the problem was pretty damned straightforward I will never know.

it was goning to be the same thing you know? a complete diferent game, the idea of a "diferent game but who kept looking the same" is ******** and it always will be.

Granted GW did things very rushly at best, end times feels more like a bullet to the head that a proper finish of the setting, which it dosent help at all


Is like some kind of Stockholm syndrome... If you like the game as it is okay, you like it. But if you don't like it, why justify it with any excuse that you can imagine?

Easy, because people don said this game is bad, they said GW "hurt" them as it someone in GHW was thinking "let see how I can troll this bunch of stupid grow out men with my rules, muahahahahaha!" it going in the other direction "if you liked fine, whatever, if I dont like is a big melodrama because GW are evil" which it make some people here and other part to react.

duffybear1988
09-07-2015, 22:55
Don't forget there's a whole host of other companies making plastic kits much cheaper now as well. Perry Miniatures medieval plastic miniatures are gorgeous and cheap as chips and perfect for Brets ot Empire.

Warlord Games do plastics that work for Empire in their ECW range.

Malagor
09-07-2015, 23:04
Warlord Games do plastics that work for Empire in their ECW range.
And looks amazing as well for a damn good price.

Kegslayer
09-07-2015, 23:05
Dunno. Somebody just showed me that for the price of 3 of those dice shakers you can buy a 179 model undead army from Mantic games. Which actually came as a shock to me. 15 models against 180 - I'm a gamer first, so that looks like a really good deal. I might not be a huge fan of the sculpts per se, but at arms length I don't really give a crap.

Thats cool and all but you dont need the dice shakers to play the game. Yeah you can buy more models from mantic but thats only if you want mass infantry which is something I personally have no interest in. So for me this new AoS being small scale works better for me


Tell that to mantic where £30 will buy you 50 models instead of 5, and before the inevitable "but they suck" no they certainly dont. The asthetics are different, and the appealof any is personal choice not a fact. To me AOS sucks compared to mantic.

Well for one thing mantics models dont suck, while without doubt some are rubbish so are some of GW, so are PP. How they look most of the time doesnt even matter. Yes £30 will buy you 50 models but I dont want 50 models. AoS in my eyes is far superior to mantics offerings of which I have a few. Mantic just dont make good games but thats just my opinion like you have yours. Think is if you and many others are no longer GW fans or dislike AoS thats fine there is no reason for you and many others to keep bombarding these threads with negativity. Let the people that enjoy AoS enjoy it and you enjoy your thing. Everyone can get on with everyone else. The whole (and im not just saying you I mean everyone) my game is better than your game which supposedly isnt a game even though clearly it is, is just petty and some folks really need to get out more

Bloodknight
09-07-2015, 23:10
That was just an example as to why 40 Euros for 5 dudes is not a standard price. I own exactly one Mantic model, and that's an Elf that came on a German tabletop magazine years ago. And I wouldn't touch those Elves with a 10 foot pole because they're, in my eyes, terrible (ok, they were their first miniature line, but still, ew), just like their Goblins. The game is pretty good, though.


That does not change my opinion that AoS is probably going to become GW's Edsel*, which was mostly a terrible marketing blunder, too.


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel

MalusCalibur
09-07-2015, 23:54
I think when you actually get to start playing the game and combine the four pages of core rules with some of the 378 pages of warscrolls you'll find plenty of 'emergent complexity', I know I did. What a lot of people don't get is that Age of Sigmar needs to be played co-operatively, going in with the intention of grinding your opponents forces beneath your steel-shod boot just isn't going to work well.

All I've seen from the the warscrolls is every unit having 'special snowflake' special rules, as opposed to the far superior USR design.
And once again, you suggest that I simply 'don't get it', rather than addressing criticism. A wargame, where two opposing armies fight to achieve a predetermined victory condition, is not co-operative. A co-operative game has all players working toward the same goal against the game itself (such as Pandemic, for example). An RPG can be considered a co-operative experience, since the player goals are far more loose and focused around storytelling. AoS is clearly not an RPG, either.



...too few people were buying models to make wfb financially viable so it had to change, whether GW changed the right things is a perfectly legitimate question, and only the success or failure of the game over a sustained period will ultimately be able to answer that.

Agreed, but as I said, GW should have been finding out *why* people weren't spending money on WHFB, and addressed those issues, instead of taking the far riskier stab in the dark that they have.


I think the new background has tremendous potential and certainly has a wider scope for creating your own stories than the old world setting,

Here I disagree unreservedly. The new background is vapid by comparison to the Warhammer World, and at best reads like fan fiction. Terrible naming schema and whiter-than-white good guys are a tedium, and porting Space Marines practically wholesale into a Fantasy setting is beyond lazy. That's not even to mention the rumours about said good guys capturing/destroying Slaanesh, which in my mind is writing on the same level as ET: Khaine.



I'm not at all convinced that 'any attempt at balancing' has been abandoned, points are gone, but there are other ways to do it (scenarios have been heavily mentioned in regards to AoS), so I'm content to see how it all pans out.

Scenarios are not a valid substitute for a points system in terms of limiting player forces. They either have to be absolutely specific in the units/models used, which makes substituting different armies from those used difficult at best as well as being too restrictive, or they only offer guidelines as to unit types to include which, without points to account for the differing power level of similar units, is useless as a balancing mechanic. The final starter set scenario is a good example of this, since it gives a prescribed list of models to use, but then has 'add whatever else you like' afterward.
We must also consider that, no matter how many scenarios are made, there will never be enough substantially different ones to replicate the granularity of a points-based or slots-based system for army building.



If you're not capable of level of co-operative play that AoS requires then maybe you should investigate one of the 'myriad of miniature games' rather than complaining endlessly about this one, I'm fairly confident that will increase your overall happiness level.

As discussed, AoS is *not* a co-operative game, and claiming it as one is a weak excuse for the game being practically non-functional without substantial modification and pre-game comprimise.
Your insulting, patronising tone is not appreciated. I'm not sure why defenders of AoS seem to keep resorting to trying to silence discussion in this way. For the record, I am not complaining (let alone 'endlessly'), because I left WHFB for Kings of War some four years ago, but I am at liberty to discuss AoS whether I play it or not, and all I see is a poorly made product that fails at being a wargame, with bare-bones, unfinished rules, while at the same time deliberately trying to exclude a large portion of the customers WHFB had and pushing away those already invested.



From the games I've played so far I'd say if you want to start a game quickly you can assign a value to each model equal to its starting wounds and come up with a (very) roughly balanced force that should give you a fun game. As we get more experience playing the game I dare say we'll be able to come up with a more precise system if we think that is needed.

The fact remains that you are doing what the designers should have done; playtesting to establish balance. Having to finish a product to make it useable is not a feature. I ask again why anyone would spend the time to do so, particularly the new players that this reboot is intended to recruit. What is there about AoS over other wargames that is going to appeal to them? Having to work out what's balanced against what is not going to appeal in the face of so many other games that are ready to play (without limiting players to 'starter scenarios' or 'quick-start' rules only) out of the box.



Guess again, GW is sending reps to gaming conventions to demo and promote the new game, they have also sent a free copy to my local indy stockist to get them to promote the game (even though said stockist is in fact a bookshop) this is something they do finally seem to be getting right.

Thus far, we have had been told that one GW rep went to one convention, and what was said cannot be verified. What evidence is there that they are sending reps to further gaming conventions? And is it not 'too little, too late', given how long GW have shunned them? I also cannot imagine AoS being able to compete with the array of wargames, board games, or RPG's, because it offers nothing that each one of those does not do better.



That assessment assumes that AoS is intended to be a tightly balanced competitive wargame, which it isn't, and your impression that GW is treating you with contempt or hostility is unfortunate, but is also nothing to do with them.

The 'comedy' in the PDF warscrolls for existing armies has no place in the mechanics of the game, only the fluff and descriptions. Given that the common consensus seems to be to ignore them, and that no desire for them to exist beyond said PDF's seems to exist, then why are they there? In the context of the release, they feel like an insult, an expression of the contempt GW has for veterans by making the old armies one big joke, a series of jibes at the 'manchildren' they believe those customers to be.

I ask again - who exactly is AoS supposed to be for? If not wargamers, by your own admission, then who?

09philj
10-07-2015, 00:11
My two cents as a 40k player: Warhammer Fantasy used to be something I felt I would get around to. I liked the miniatures, there were an interesting selection of diverse armies, the fluff was cool, and what I'd seen of the rules from battle reports I'd watched or read appealed to me. Then Age of Sigmar happened and killed my interest overnight. The new miniatures, both Stormcast and Chaos are bleh, the fluff is almost (but not quite) Ward levels of bad, and the rules seem to have been pulled out of Jervis Johnson's wastebin. There are manifold things wrong with 40k (and I imagine there were with WFB as well), but at the end of the day I still fork over my cash because as a whole it works. It's not perfectly balanced, and there are clear tiers of codices, but if I go into my local GW store for one of their Saturday 1000 point pick up games, I can expect to go five turns and not have my army run off the board.

Buddy Bear
10-07-2015, 00:47
Why do people keep calling AOS a small scale game? It's not one. It can work small scale, but even the rules describe a game with 100 models a side as the norm, which I don't consider small scale (I have a 2000 point Empire tournament list which isn't even half that). And when you have a game which literally says that you can use any unit you like, until you no longer feel like deploying models or run out of space in your deployment zone, then "small scale" isn't something that GW is going for here. They want players to spend oodles and oodles of money on those 5-man, $50 boxes.

This game is only more advanced in that it's a slightly superior version of a Facebook game, where you can play with what you have a while, but then run into walls to progress, and quick progression can only be achieved by spending money. Sure, you can start small, but there's no limit to what you can take. So how long before Player A gets tired of losing and brings 20 more guys? How long before Player B compensates by bringing 30 more guys? After which Player C compensates by bringing 30 more guys and a giant? And Player D, not willing to take things lying down, brings 40 more guys and a dragon, and so on? That's why the game has neither points nor comp. They want players to get into an escalating arms race where they keep spending money in order to get the win. The only comp in this game is the size of your wallet, and the fattest wallet wins.

Shandor
10-07-2015, 00:57
Why do people keep calling AOS a small scale game? It's not one. It can work small scale, but even the rules describe a game with 100 models a side as the norm, which I don't consider small scale (I have a 2000 point Empire tournament list which isn't even half that). And when you have a game which literally says that you can use any unit you like, until you no longer feel like deploying models or run out of space in your deployment zone, then "small scale" isn't something that GW is going for here. They want players to spend oodles and oodles of money on those 5-man, $50 boxes.

This game is only more advanced in that it's a slightly superior version of a Facebook game, where you can play with what you have a while, but then run into walls to progress, and quick progression can only be achieved by spending money. Sure, you can start small, but there's no limit to what you can take. So how long before Player A gets tired of losing and brings 20 more guys? How long before Player B compensates by bringing 30 more guys? After which Player C compensates by bringing 30 more guys and a giant? And Player D, not willing to take things lying down, brings 40 more guys and a dragon, and so on? That's why the game has neither points nor comp. They want players to get into an escalating arms race where they keep spending money in order to get the win. The only comp in this game is the size of your wallet, and the fattest wallet wins.

This will never happen since Player A, B, C and D are all friends and talk 5 hours pre game holding hands singing Cumbaya, cursing Turnament players and agree they only want to fight 10 Spearman against 10 Spearman! :p

Tzar Boris
10-07-2015, 01:00
Definitely not small scale. No Empire detachments. Minimum size 10+.

I'm out.

Buddy Bear
10-07-2015, 01:01
This will never happen since Player A, B, C and D are all friends and talk 5 hours pre game holding hands singing Cumbaya, cursing Turnament players and agree they only want to fight 10 Spearman against 10 Spearman! :p

Naturally. Everyone who plays Age of Sigmar will play a mirror match. ;)

thegreenknight0
10-07-2015, 01:57
OP is absolutely right and I think we should move onto making the same type of changes to Risk because everyone knows that classic game takes way too long to set up and play as well. Maybe we could use a spinner or cards with the countries colors on them (you know like Candyland) to determine where we attack and just put as many guys as you have in your collection on the spot you spin or draw.
Age of Sigmar is to Warhammer Fantasy Battles as Candyland is to Risk
I leave it to you to determine whether it is a good move or not.

NoobLord
10-07-2015, 02:27
We must also consider that, no matter how many scenarios are made, there will never be enough substantially different ones to replicate the granularity of a points-based or slots-based system for army building.


Disagree with this. ASL has 1872 published scenarios at the last count and I'll only have got round to playing a fraction of them before my time is up :(
(ASL also has a points system but I have never met anyone who uses it or even read about anyone using it - it's superfluous because there are so many good scenarios to play). This not only creates a level playing field but is great for community discussion - 'what did you play with Bob' - 'Rocket's Red Glare as the Germans' - 'classic scenario, what did you do with your Flakpanzer?' - 'oh man, you won't believe this...' etc.

However, the big differences if AoS tries to go down this route are that good scenarios require lots of playtesting which appears to be outside of GW's skill set (and as they don't interact with the community they can't get help there) and it would inevitably require constant model purchases in order to play the latest batch of scens (not a prob for ASL as no expensive models are used and the new maps that get released to keep things fresh are incredibly cheap).

So, in short, it could work but it won't in my opinion because GW.

Ramius4
10-07-2015, 02:39
Disagree with this. ASL has 1872 published scenarios at the last count

What's ASL?

NoobLord
10-07-2015, 02:43
What's ASL?
Advanced Squad Leader - not exactly comparable to WHFB I know but relevant to the point raised as it's the biggest (in some ways but by no means all) scenario based game I'm aware of.

Ramius4
10-07-2015, 02:58
Advanced Squad Leader - not exactly comparable to WHFB I know but relevant to the point raised as it's the biggest (in some ways but by no means all) scenario based game I'm aware of.

Duh! I know about Advanced Squad Leader, I just couldn't figure out your abbreviation. :p In many ways it was amongst the first true tabletop wargames, and a precursor to games like 40K.

AngryAngel
10-07-2015, 02:58
Apart from the ghouls and a few of the Forgefather warmachines I find Mantic minis to be uniformly unattractive and much worse than any GW sculpt (obvious stuff like old Nagash and the pumbagor are honourable exceptions here.) People can make their own mind up on the aesthetics. Price in comparison to GW is very good on all Mantic stuff though.

Thank you for proving my point, even you don't dislike all mantic has to offer, which was all I was saying. However, all personal choice there, the cost is worlds better however.



Thats cool and all but you dont need the dice shakers to play the game. Yeah you can buy more models from mantic but thats only if you want mass infantry which is something I personally have no interest in. So for me this new AoS being small scale works better for me



Well for one thing mantics models dont suck, while without doubt some are rubbish so are some of GW, so are PP. How they look most of the time doesnt even matter. Yes £30 will buy you 50 models but I dont want 50 models. AoS in my eyes is far superior to mantics offerings of which I have a few. Mantic just dont make good games but thats just my opinion like you have yours. Think is if you and many others are no longer GW fans or dislike AoS thats fine there is no reason for you and many others to keep bombarding these threads with negativity. Let the people that enjoy AoS enjoy it and you enjoy your thing. Everyone can get on with everyone else. The whole (and im not just saying you I mean everyone) my game is better than your game which supposedly isnt a game even though clearly it is, is just petty and some folks really need to get out more

AoS is not going to be a smaller scale skirmish game for long, as song as the models role out, and the formations stack up, it'll be clearly evident. GW has nothing to gain by selling you just a box or two of models. Repeating that is simply living in a mental candy land, stuck in the gum drop forest.

As well people has as much right to bash the system, as its supporters do to keep shouting how awesome it is and we should all see it for the beauty it is. Opinions, people have them, so no, we won't be quiet or run away and cry, you so cray cray.



Why do people keep calling AOS a small scale game? It's not one. It can work small scale, but even the rules describe a game with 100 models a side as the norm, which I don't consider small scale (I have a 2000 point Empire tournament list which isn't even half that). And when you have a game which literally says that you can use any unit you like, until you no longer feel like deploying models or run out of space in your deployment zone, then "small scale" isn't something that GW is going for here. They want players to spend oodles and oodles of money on those 5-man, $50 boxes.

This game is only more advanced in that it's a slightly superior version of a Facebook game, where you can play with what you have a while, but then run into walls to progress, and quick progression can only be achieved by spending money. Sure, you can start small, but there's no limit to what you can take. So how long before Player A gets tired of losing and brings 20 more guys? How long before Player B compensates by bringing 30 more guys? After which Player C compensates by bringing 30 more guys and a giant? And Player D, not willing to take things lying down, brings 40 more guys and a dragon, and so on? That's why the game has neither points nor comp. They want players to get into an escalating arms race where they keep spending money in order to get the win. The only comp in this game is the size of your wallet, and the fattest wallet wins.

They keep calling it a small scale game as its one of its good points they hold on to. However, I think most people realize it won't be a skirmish game for long and wasn't really designed as such. Further I point to 40k, it started out that way, and hows that gone for them ? Exactly.


This will never happen since Player A, B, C and D are all friends and talk 5 hours pre game holding hands singing Cumbaya, cursing Turnament players and agree they only want to fight 10 Spearman against 10 Spearman! :p

Sounds like a very loving night of AoS to me.

Darnok
10-07-2015, 03:17
This thread has been a good read so far - keep it like that, folks!

[/modmode]

Reinholt has (again) made the best points so far. Thank you for that, it has been a joy to read. :)

After a week of contemplation about AoS, I think it can actually work well: as a "Warhammer Skirmish". In small-scale games, the rules don't have any big issues, the games are easy to balance, and scenarios really shine. But I don't see the game working at levels that WHF has been played previously. The AoS rules are terrible for larger games.

Having said that: there just are so many other games doing the "small-scale skirmish" thing better, I don't see what the point of AoS is. It compares rather unfavourably to these games, and doesn't do large-scale games well at all (and in that field, there are other games doing it better too!)... so what is it all about again?

If anything, I can see it as an expression of GWs belief in "churn and burn": you get somebody to buy the starterset and/or a few boxes of models, and then don't care about them ever returning. But that is a poor business strategy, even though I think that GW actually believes in the contrary.

Buddy Bear
10-07-2015, 04:10
They keep calling it a small scale game as its one of its good points they hold on to. However, I think most people realize it won't be a skirmish game for long and wasn't really designed as such. Further I point to 40k, it started out that way, and hows that gone for them ? Exactly.

When I started playing 40k, what was then a 2000 point Space Marine army is now probably just under a 1000 point list now. At least with 40k that was an incremental change in which every subsequent edition saw points drop a little more. Here, though, there are no points, so Age of Sigmar games will balloon up in size pretty quickly as people pile more and more models into thier games.

Losing Command
10-07-2015, 04:54
And, at least to my knowledge, you can still play 40k at very low point levels (specially when you drop half of the troops requirement)

Looking at a lizardmen-formation for AoS, the one with skinks starts at 20 skinks, a skink hero and 3 skinks on flying mount. That's more than €100,- already, and not any different from what a low-medium point skink army in 8th edition would look like. Ofcourse you don't have to buy all those models to play AoS, but with a little work (possibly less than it takes patching up AoS rules) the same could be said for 8th edition.
The local GW store even had an ongoing event where a bunch of people bought a single box, painted it and then pitched what they finished against eachother. It seemed popular enough, as quite a lot of the factions were represented each time.
Long story short I don't see how exactly AoS is lowering the entry-cost barrier, to me it looks like it will only go up if the price for a box of Sigmarines is anything to go by and the rumours that most models are going to be replaced.

Wesser
10-07-2015, 06:42
Was it really? Ok so balance between armies was within acceptable limits, but there were still grievous imbalances between individual units and characters, how often did you see anyone using Saurus cavalry, Troglodons, skeleton cavalry, Tomb Swarms, Ushabti or Orion (and those aree just a few examples from the armies I collect), all those units wre absolute jokes because their rules were so bad. How often did you see someone bring a monster-mounted character unless they were guaranteed not to see a cannon?


That's about individual units - not 8th itself, and those units might not be fit for tournament play, but often came up in friendly games, where it became a point to try and get value out of them. It was a fine day for me, when my gaming group declared the Corpse Cart OP...


GW may have botched some units it's true, but what makes you think they aren't going to botch individual units in AoS too?

Ayin
10-07-2015, 07:22
When I started playing 40k, what was then a 2000 point Space Marine army is now probably just under a 1000 point list now. At least with 40k that was an incremental change in which every subsequent edition saw points drop a little more. Here, though, there are no points, so Age of Sigmar games will balloon up in size pretty quickly as people pile more and more models into thier games.

When I first started 40k (and I assume this is likely true of many on Warseer), for example, Rhinos cost +/-55pts. In a few years it was +/-35, and now some forces include them for free (or Razorbacks) as part of their army build.

Small scale naturally evolved into larger scale as the customer base expands and players collections continue to grow. From 6th to 8th Fantasy the same effect happened.


Age of Sigmar, as it stands currently (and this is not to say this is it and there will never be any changes or additional rules put out) scales...instantly. Worse, it starts out (or at least a vocal group online proclaim it does) at 6th ed fantasy while allowing an opponent to bring 8th.

Ayin
10-07-2015, 07:29
GW may have botched some units it's true, but what makes you think they aren't going to botch individual units in AoS too?

The counter argument is that it's impossible to botch unit rules (assuming they function) when units don't have points for their effectiveness to live up to.

The obvious problem with this line of argument, is, instead of "how often did you see anyone using Saurus cavalry, Troglodons, skeleton cavalry, Tomb Swarms, Ushabti or Orion " (in competitive games, because as you've pointed out choices like this often pop up in fun or low powered battles) you could easily replace that line of argument with "how often will you see anyone using (for example) *insert any infantry unit in an army that includes a superiour unit* (ie, skaven Clanrats vs Stormvermin)" in competitive games?


If players were only selecting the best options, they still will in AoS. If house-rules and do-it-yourself fixes uniquely designed and applied by individual player groups are the solution to all problems in AoS, they were equally so in Fantasy, and easier to institute because there was a universal system of measurement that could be easily modified by those groups for simplicity.

Autumn Leaves
10-07-2015, 07:35
On a business level GW have done exactly what any business would do....
WFB has been suffering badly since the end of 6th edition. They were the End Times as after that WFB entered the Dark Ages.
Now GW has finally realised that if they don't drop the price and make the game attractive to kids again they will lose the brand altogether.

AngryAngel
10-07-2015, 08:04
The price isn't getting any cheaper however, the boxes are going to end up more expensive from the ground up. So where is this talk of price drops ? So far, I don't see them.

Chikout
10-07-2015, 08:13
Games workshop messed up. I think that is a pretty uncontraversial statement. The big question is when. For me the problems started in 1994 when the company first became public. Incidentally the Wikipedia page for GW makes for interesting read.

Apperently Games workshop made a big **** towards younger customers in 1991. I was 12 at the time so was completely unaware of this fedpite already being a fairly dedicated fan.

There have more mistakes along the way, especially the doubling down on retail, and the shutting down of any kind of communication. The fact is that Gw are in a bit of a hole right now. So the question is this, will aos help them dig themselves out or deepen the hole. It is too early to say but a good example is the release of the rules. Releasing them for free was a very nice customer friendly move right up until everyone read them. What is amazing is that all these problems could have been fixed by two sentences of PR. 'These rules are in beta. Please try them out and send feedback.' A third sentence could have ben even better. 'We are switching to a living rules format to more quickly respond to the needs of our customers.

The issue of price is much more problematic, GW is a big company with a large retail presence and about 2000 staff. To put that into context GW would need to sell 400,000 copies of aos just to pay their salaries. Of course gw makes many products, but they have to factor in rent on all the shops, manufacturing, shipping etc. The arguement is that by going cheaper you can sell more but there is a line at which going cheaper does not make sense. I am not an economist but it is much complicated than saying cost to sell minus cost to make equals profit. Things like kickstarter have enabled companies like mantic speak directly to the consumer and massively reduce overhead in the process. I bet games workshop looks at them in envy. Of course noone would ever give money to a GW kickstarter.

A lot of people have said that GW should do market research but this is a very difficult process for a company like GW to attempt. With anything artistic like the models, art etc market research has been proven time and time again to fail. Otherwise every big budget film would be a hit. In theory for rules market research mught by useful, but there is a major problem known as the left brain interpreter. Essentially liking or disliking something is usually a gut reaction. When someone is adked why they like something the left hemisphere of the brain attempts to conjure up a logical explanation. Unfortunately this is often wrong. This phenomenon is greatly exaggerated when emotions like nostalgia are involved. Choosing the right questions to ask is extremely difficult.

Finally i think it will be bad for the tabletop game industry as a whole if aos fails. A large part of Mantics business model is tempting dissatisfied customers away from GW a very successful but rather shallow game is probably mantic's dream scenario as it would give them a whole new set of customers to poach.

Vicis
10-07-2015, 08:23
So, I heard that AoS was causing quite a commotion in the Warhammer community, and I decided to browse some forums to see what's up. Having browsed through this post, I felt compelled to make a post.

Now, I'm not a Warhammer player. I'll be picking up my first AoS models next week, and, as such, I don't really have anything to contribute to either side of the discussion. All I'd like to do is say a word or two about why I'm picking up Warhammer at this point in time, and how I, as a complete newbie, feel about some of the rather complex opinions being expressed on here.

One of my close friends works at a Games Workshop, and he's been trying to get me into 40k for quite a number of years now (he wasn't alone in this either). Despite knowing that 40k/Fantasy was something I could get into, I could never push myself to get into it due to how complicated, and expensive, everyone made it out to be. I didn't want to have to invest $200+ to build a decent army, or to be forced to buy the rules (this always seemed very silly to me). Then came AoS. I'll be honest, it's still not as casual as I'd like it to be. Given all the rage that these changes have caused, it's of my belief, that GW should have gone a different route, and released a whole new set of miniatures specifically targeted at casuals such as myself (something closer to X-Wing, with pre-painted models, and a quick release schedule). Yet, AoS does appear to be casual-friendly enough for me to pick it up. This is coming from someone who's been under heavy pressure to get into Warhammer for quite a few years.

Some of the posts on here have both nearly dissuaded me from getting into the game, and have also greatly encouraged me to get into it. I can understand where both sides are coming from, and can't really say that anyone appears to be absolutely right or wrong. All that I can say, is that AoS has managed to pull in someone who would have otherwise probably never gotten into Warhammer so, at the very least, it must be doing something right.

Avian
10-07-2015, 08:30
I didn't want to have to invest $200+ to build a decent army, ...
$200 only gets you 20 Sigmarines nowadays...

vlad78
10-07-2015, 08:41
Duh! I know about Advanced Squad Leader, I just couldn't figure out your abbreviation. :p In many ways it was amongst the first true tabletop wargames, and a precursor to games like 40K.

Yep, and maybe there'll be a chance to compare AOS to ASL if AOS lives through at least 20 years of playtests with a hard core dedicated fan base. Chances are slim there'll even be a AOS within the next 4 years. (maybe even 2) Furthermore ASL was meant to recrate real life platoon skirmishes, not a fantasy game aimed at kids.

Funny how GW is willing to silence any dissenting voice and how AOS followers are playing that game. So GW never took into account what the vets wanted or why so many left wfb and yet they want them all to remain quiet nonetheless.
Prices keep rising, lore keep getting worse, and the ruleset .. well we don't really know how the game will work yet. Usually GW did produce bearable rulesets but have always ruined them with terrible codicies both unbalanced and so full of exceptions that it made the main ruleset irrelevant.

Here they've taken a short cut. The ruleset seems poorly designed from the start and the warscrolls are already full of silly rules. I'll take a short cut too, I'll pass.

During the last 30 years, it's been always possible to hope GW would improve the rules and in the end release a good ruleset (BRB + codicies). Now we now GW just doesn't care. I started to stop caring too with AOS. Given how bloated 40k has become, what will prevent 40k from having the WFB fate?

And I can't in all honesty give a dime to someone who destroyed the Moot. (well I still buy the big Horus Heresy books from forgeworld, I'd like them to reach the battle for Terra, but the miniature pricing is ridiculous and the new miniature designs doesn't please me, the new GW order to produce something original at any cost and the increase pace of release and cad designs and of course prices kill the range imho, same causes, same consequences)

vlad78
10-07-2015, 08:44
So, I heard that AoS was causing quite a commotion in the Warhammer community, and I decided to browse some forums to see what's up. Having browsed through this post, I felt compelled to make a post.

Now, I'm not a Warhammer player. I'll be picking up my first AoS models next week, and, as such, I don't really have anything to contribute to either side of the discussion. All I'd like to do is say a word or two about why I'm picking up Warhammer at this point in time, and how I, as a complete newbie, feel about some of the rather complex opinions being expressed on here.

One of my close friends works at a Games Workshop, and he's been trying to get me into 40k for quite a number of years now (he wasn't alone in this either). Despite knowing that 40k/Fantasy was something I could get into, I could never push myself to get into it due to how complicated, and expensive, everyone made it out to be. I didn't want to have to invest $200+ to build a decent army, or to be forced to buy the rules (this always seemed very silly to me). Then came AoS. I'll be honest, it's still not as casual as I'd like it to be. Given all the rage that these changes have caused, it's of my belief, that GW should have gone a different route, and released a whole new set of miniatures specifically targeted at casuals such as myself (something closer to X-Wing, with pre-painted models, and a quick release schedule). Yet, AoS does appear to be casual-friendly enough for me to pick it up. This is coming from someone who's been under heavy pressure to get into Warhammer for quite a few years.

Some of the posts on here have both nearly dissuaded me from getting into the game, and have also greatly encouraged me to get into it. I can understand where both sides are coming from, and can't really say that anyone appears to be absolutely right or wrong. All that I can say, is that AoS has managed to pull in someone who would have otherwise probably never gotten into Warhammer so, at the very least, it must be doing something right.

I hope you'll have fun, whatever happens.

Chikout
10-07-2015, 08:44
$200 only gets you 20 Sigmarines nowadays...

While $250 will buy you 35 sigmarines plus a spare cat thing and 50 chaos guys to flog on ebay. I undertand you dislike what GW is doing Avian but there is no need to derail the conversation by taking cheap shots
To vlad78 GW is not trying to silence anyone, they are literally saying nothing at all which is kind of the whole problem.

Vicis
10-07-2015, 08:46
$200 only gets you 20 Sigmarines nowadays...

Let me reiterate, I don't own any Fantasy/40k pieces as of right now, and have no idea what this means or entails. From what I've been told, I can split the AoS starter set with a friend ($70 CAD here, per person), or I can buy a battalion box, and be ready to play. Is this wrong? =S

Avian
10-07-2015, 08:52
While $250 will buy you 35 sigmarines plus a spare cat thing and 50 chaos guys to flog on ebay. I undertand you dislike what GW is doing Avian but there is no need to derail the conversation by taking cheap shots

I'm pointing out that the cost of entry is going UP and not down. The starter set is still good value (even if it costs more and contains fewer models than before), but if you were worried about having to pay $200+ to get a decent army, you should STILL be worried.

I don't think that's derailing at all.




Let me reiterate, I don't own any Fantasy/40k pieces as of right now, and have no idea what this means or entails. From what I've been told, I can split the AoS starter set with a friend ($70 CAD here, per person), or I can buy a battalion box, and be ready to play. Is this wrong? =S
No, but you could do that previously as well. For less money.

Chikout
10-07-2015, 08:52
Let me reiterate, I don't own any Fantasy/40k pieces as of right now, and have no idea what this means or entails. From what I've been told, I can split the AoS starter set with a friend ($70 CAD here, per person), or I can buy a battalion box, and be ready to play. Is this wrong? =S

No. Though i am not sure how many battalion sets are still avaible. The cheapest option is probably to go on ebay and buy an army from someone who is quitting.

Herzlos
10-07-2015, 09:29
Naturally. Everyone who plays Age of Sigmar will play a mirror match. ;)

Just like 40K, it'll be Marines Vs Marines 90% of the time. Though to be fair at this stage it's the only way to get balance.

turtle123
10-07-2015, 09:33
I took so long typing my thoughts I timed out:(

I'm going Sigmarines all the way. Genius on the part of GW Space Mahreens in Fantasy!!!

I'll call my chapter the Sigamanders and paint them green.

Shandor
10-07-2015, 09:33
No. Though i am not sure how many battalion sets are still avaible. The cheapest option is probably to go on ebay and buy an army from someone who is quitting.

But you still dont know if you can use them when your Army gets an update. The Scroll Rules and word from GW.. they really dont want to you use the Old models on the long shot. So if you buy an "old" Ebay Army, it might be you have to buy it new again in a couple of month.

turtle123
10-07-2015, 09:39
GW did succeed here. We are all interested in the game again whether it be negative comments or positive ones. As much as many people are disappointed, they'll be carefully watching what the Aelfs, Red Slayers and Seraphon look like when released and what their fluff will be.

Herzlos
10-07-2015, 09:39
I guess it helps that they've still got mind share, but I'm not sure if they will gain anything is most of the discussion on the new game is overwhelmingly negative. It's probably doing wonders for Mantic right now, though.


Let me reiterate, I don't own any Fantasy/40k pieces as of right now, and have no idea what this means or entails. From what I've been told, I can split the AoS starter set with a friend ($70 CAD here, per person), or I can buy a battalion box, and be ready to play. Is this wrong? =S

No, that's not wrong, you can get a good start by splitting the starter set with a friend, and it seems to be pretty balanced.

The risk is that, whilst the rules will be free, any additional units will cost at least as much as new units in 40K. Of course, there's always discounters, ebay and proxies to bring the cost down. You may not want to do that if your friend works in a GW store though, as it might be a bit unfair.
But that's the same with most games - you can spend as much or as little as you want on them.

In any case, welcome to the fold and above all; have fun :)

scruffyryan
10-07-2015, 10:16
GW did succeed here. We are all interested in the game again whether it be negative comments or positive ones. As much as many people are disappointed, they'll be carefully watching what the Aelfs, Red Slayers and Seraphon look like when released and what their fluff will be.

For a business interest only = success if it leads to spending money on the product.

I don't know if it will succeed or fail tbh, I don't care to make any bets on it. I'm not a fan of the ruleset. Realistically though, this is the cycle i've seen every time the "hot new game" has passed through our area:
Stage 1: There is an initial surge of interest, especially for the dilettante casual gamers of the area, occasionally some veterans as well.
Stage 2: There's a frenzy of game playing, about 1/3 of the players drop off after the bare minimum investment and within the first couple of weeks and go back to their main game system.
Stage 3: 2 or 3 people go full bore into the new system, but if the rules aren't high and tight the game continues to hemorrhage players over the next few months.
Stage 4: Only those 2 or 3 who went full bore are left..occasionally they do a demo, or get a game in with one of the players who basically stopped but kept a handful of models but play like every other month or so.
Stage 5: Seeing a pile of stock that isn't really moving, the FLGS of the area choke off purchases on new releases to the bare minimum. The full bore players buy them and the GS doesn't restock.
Stage 6: A new "hot new game" comes out, the cycle begins again with the last hot new game collecting dust on the stores shelves.

GW broke that cycle with time+money investment inertia, coupled with the idea that you could play with your old models. Whether they can break that cycle without that inertia remains to be seen.

heavyheart
10-07-2015, 10:19
Five sigmarines for £30 is not cheap by any standard, and the fact is games will be bigger than fifty models a side it's going to be no cheaper playing AoS than 40k.

And I'm sure once the new armies come out you'll no longer be welcome to use old models in GW stores.

Inquisitor Kallus
10-07-2015, 10:38
AoS is probably fine as an "lets meet after dinner" kind of game.

However:

- In that capacity it competes with every other board game in the world and is limited to two people.

Where does it say it is limited to two people? You could easily have a friend share your army or have 2 vs 2 games...


- It has worse narrative and is more complicated than Mordheim... although it will eventually have more and bigger models to it

The 'worse narrative' is subjective. On that though, I would probably enjoy the original fantasy fluff more


- It doesn't allow me to evoke the feeling of an actual battle. I wanted "Braveheart" with monsters/magic. I got "Gangs of New York".
Can't units be the same size as before? Can you rank up units to play or is that expressly forbidden?

Malagor
10-07-2015, 10:46
A lot of people have said that GW should do market research but this is a very difficult process for a company like GW to attempt. With anything artistic like the models, art etc market research has been proven time and time again to fail. Otherwise every big budget film would be a hit. In theory for rules market research mught by useful, but there is a major problem known as the left brain interpreter. Essentially liking or disliking something is usually a gut reaction. When someone is adked why they like something the left hemisphere of the brain attempts to conjure up a logical explanation. Unfortunately this is often wrong. This phenomenon is greatly exaggerated when emotions like nostalgia are involved. Choosing the right questions to ask is extremely difficult.

Hmm funny enough if GW did do research I wouldn't be surprised one bit if they indeed ask questions relating to those areas and would miss the problems entirely.

Wesser
10-07-2015, 11:54
Can't units be the same size as before? Can you rank up units to play or is that expressly forbidden?

AoS have as much to do with WFB as chess does at this point. The game isn't meant to played in way like WFB or to try and emulate medieval battles (whether or not we think it does that well).


AoS is closer to a Steven Seagal movie. Fast, intense action between a bunch of individuals

heavyheart
10-07-2015, 13:01
AoS have as much to do with WFB as chess does at this point. The game isn't meant to played in way like WFB or to try and emulate medieval battles (whether or not we think it does that well).


AoS is closer to a Steven Seagal movie. Fast, intense action between a bunch of individuals

You haven't been watching his latest movie's clearly :)

Wesser
10-07-2015, 13:24
You haven't been watching his latest movie's clearly :)

Even in the eighties he was pretty fat, his talent made Stallone look like Oscar-material and all his movies had the same "plot", but it was mildly amusing because it was so corny

Do I really need to watch his newer movies?


You can interpret the analogy as you will :)

TheFang
10-07-2015, 19:49
Disagree with this. ASL has 1872 published scenarios at the last count and I'll only have got round to playing a fraction of them before my time is up :(
ASL is a proper game. Scenarios work because the rules for the units are well balanced and they perform much as they would in a real engagement. Terrain means something and the scenarios are well designed. They are extremely specific. You can't swap British for Japanese or Shermans for Tigers. Because you're playing with counters you don't have a problem providing enough US infantry.

If the AoS scenarios are well designed they still only work for the units specified. Swapping Chaos for Skaven won't work. If you don't have the five specified units of Marauders it won't work.
GW did succeed here. We are all interested in the game again whether it be negative comments or positive ones.
What they've done is put up big warning flags to everyone invested in 40k. They've treated fantasy players with contempt and 40k could well be next.
Can't units be the same size as before? Can you rank up units to play or is that expressly forbidden?
Ranked up large units are actually very potent.

Cèsar de Quart
10-07-2015, 20:33
They have managed one thing: a lot of old Fantasy players are coming back, either to see what's what or to collect, play and paint again because of the "they'll take this from us soon" effect. I have bought a bit more than usual myself because of that; my unit of Ogre engineers with their cannon battery would have never come to be if it wasn't for this effect.

But they've also alienated a lot of players who have tried the new game. A simple game for 10-year-olds, so that they get the kicks in a fast action game. And the problem with a very simple game made for 10-year-olds is that it's shallow and you tire of it very fast. It's the CoD of tabletop miniature games (not even a wargame anymore): you play for the kicks, it's fast, it's dumb and you don't have to think much. AoS might not be able to create enough of a hobby tissue around it to support it. It doesn't have the tactical interest 40k had or the strategical depth WHFB used to have, and it has neither the background nor the appeal, fluff-wise, of any of them.

AoS might grow, it might be a hit, but I don't think it will last. I may be wrong and GW might create a business model centered around campaign boxes and special offers and events that keep players hooked (if they do, they'll have successfully translated the videogame DLC policy into tabletop games, and that is bad for us in my opinion), but I think people won't be sucked into it, and they won't grow to love it, because it's super shallow, there's nothing to love underneath the neat models.

In 40k there's a mystery plot in every corner, a darkness lurking in every shadow, a sense of danger, siege and despair. There's the infinity of worlds from which you can carve your own piece and call it yours. It's recognisable and it's inspiring.

In Fantasy we had a familiar world filled with interesting characters, conspiracies, mercenaries, miserable stretches, beggars, princes, thieves and knights, gunpowder, steelplate armour and cynicism.

In AoS we only have cool looking dudes clad in golden armor ruled by the epithome of good government and badass battle prowess. That's all for now. How is that interesting? It's precisely the kind of setting no one should ever base any "human" story on. A myth, sure. But a story, no. If anything, How can we relate to these Sigmarines then?

Ender Shadowkin
10-07-2015, 20:34
Ranked up large units are actually very potent.

Well, Big units with special ruls for being big are potent. Its good to be packed in for the first pile in... but Combat with them turns into a puddle of troops as everyone piles in get into the range of thier weapns. It looks messy, and its hard to keep the models from falling over, as you movethem back and forth with various units piling in.

Davidian
11-07-2015, 11:21
Haha, gw did the wrong thing when they let it get to 7th edition.

I'm glad they dropped every other specialist game because now they belong to the community and they can't touch her anymore!

The same will happen with whfb.

heavyheart
11-07-2015, 11:53
Haha, gw did the wrong thing when they let it get to 7th edition.

I'm glad they dropped every other specialist game because now they belong to the community and they can't touch her anymore!

The same will happen with whfb.

Yeah you may be right getting out of that house and into the battered games shelter is probably for the best.

Just a shame GW got custody of the kids.

Galain
13-07-2015, 17:53
So a few things to address..

And address them you did, I'm still laughing. Thank you for giving AoS at least some glimmer of a silver lining; I get to watch you pick it apart.

AngryAngel
13-07-2015, 19:30
AoS have as much to do with WFB as chess does at this point. The game isn't meant to played in way like WFB or to try and emulate medieval battles (whether or not we think it does that well).


AoS is closer to a Steven Seagal movie. Fast, intense action between a bunch of individuals

Which is oddly the exact reason people would be best served avoiding AoS. I don't think comparing anything to a Steven Seagal movie is a good idea, but I agree, AoS is just that, I'll even be sure and remember that line if people ask me about it.

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 20:16
No, they did the wrong thing, this from a 16 year vet.

What they should have done is release an entry level game, that could be played with a few boxes of models. The Path to Chaos or Kill Team type approach. They should have supported it fully, and encouraged it at both the casual, and tournament level.

They should push competition to the max, drive events, and have world wide campaigns.

They should engage via Social Media, to drive excitement in the system, in the rules, and in the models.

They should try and mirror MTG and what the staff at Wizards of the Coast does for that game (aka, Pro Tour, Open events, casual games, multiple formats all with the same pools of cards).

They should have done exactly the opposite of what they did.

Inquisitor Kallus
13-07-2015, 20:43
AoS have as much to do with WFB as chess does at this point. The game isn't meant to played in way like WFB or to try and emulate medieval battles (whether or not we think it does that well).


AoS is closer to a Steven Seagal movie. Fast, intense action between a bunch of individuals

Chess, of course........ :shifty:

TumblnDice
13-07-2015, 21:32
...his talent made Stallone look like Oscar-material ... I think you'll find Sylvester Stallone was actually nominated for two Oscars (Best Actor and Best Screenplay), and that a movie he wrote actually won the Oscar's most coveted title of "Best Picture"...

pinktaco
13-07-2015, 21:48
It's interesting how people think WHFB couldn't have changed in a way that lowered the barrier and consider AoS as a good alternative. Lots of things could've been done and nothing happened. AoS is a dumb answer to their problems.

Kaltheras
13-07-2015, 21:54
I simply don't understand the insanity of people saying that they won't be able to play with their old models. The rules exist for playing them in AoS, are you really trying to say that they will be in some way "banned" from use? And if you are saying that, who exactly is going to be enforcing that ban? :wtf:

On the topic at large; I think that GW have made precisely the right move here, even if they did fumble a bit with the execution. Warhammer Fantasy was a game that I and many others loved, but, if it wasn't profitable enough, then GW had to change something. Blowing up the world was an extreme move (although it was one that I, as a long time chaos player, was extremely happy with). But this extreme move has been followed by something entirely new, which will now have a chance to succeed or fail on its own merits. GW will not keep having to try to fix the fantasy system which has been generating fewer and fewer sales for them. Maybe AoS will succeed, maybe it will fail. But, and this is critical, the only option Fantasy had was to fail. It was a game that I loved, that I played for many years, but it was ultimately a financial failure. Now GW have given themselves a shot for the future, they've done the only real thing that they could.

I'll not give any anecdotes on sales figures from my LGS as most people don't seem to think they're particularly relevant. What I will say is that I have found the rules to be perfectly playable "out of the box" (or RAW, if you will). This has held true both for the scenarios from the first AoS book and also a game with the "legacy" lists. I fact, when playing the legacy lists, I even lost a game where I had a wizard with summoning powers (that I did use), against someone who did not. Now again, these are anecdotes and therefore not representative (or necessarily even useful).

I am a veteran myself and I feel like this game was made for me. I like the simplicity of the game rules and personally find that there is a huge amount of emergent complexity when you look at both the legacy lists and the new lists. As others have said, this is not a game of "ranks and flanks", this is a game about buffs, modifiers, and stacking area of effect abilities. Many of these abilities are found on characters who are relatively easy to kill at range (with either spells or regular shooting). This fact presents interesting "target priority" questions for your opponent (some tactics, :eek:), and has, in my experience, led to some very interesting movement phases. Further, I think this just scratches the surface in terms of tactical depth. Another, in my opinion, brilliant move is the different ranges for various weapons, I can now run a screening unit of shieldsmen in front of my spear unit, and my spearmen can fight the enemy without being vulnerable to many return attacks. This works, is elegant, an is a great example of emergent complexity. I have other examples of complexity and tactics if anyone would like a longer list or more in depth discussion on this topic.

I understand that many gamers are frustrated and upset about the loss of their rules and their world. This is perfectly legitimate. It is even an appropriate response if you decide that AoS is not the game for you. What I do not find appropriate is deriding those of us that do happen to like the new system, or claiming that the game does not function, which it clearly does (in my experience).

As a final note, I really don't understand why people are upset about the "joke" rules included in the legacy scrolls. I found them to be a wonderful and amusing nod to the comedy that made Warhammer such an appealing game to me, and a wonderful "send off" for the Warhammer that was. And if you can't understand that this game and hobby is, at its heart, a little rediculous, then I'm not sure you're the kind of person I want to play with. :p

Now it's time to go on to the future. GW will produce amazing chaos miniatures, I will buy them, and I will play them in AoS and any other system I want.

TheFang
13-07-2015, 22:31
As a final note, I really don't understand why people are upset about the "joke" rules included in the legacy scrolls.
The intent of the "joke" rules is to embarass people into not playing with those rules. They will be quickly replaced by new armies. Going by 40k then there should be around five updated armies to follow the Sigmarines this year. That will replace the minis and rules for five of those legacy armies. Welcome to the world of the squats.

Inquisitor Kallus
14-07-2015, 14:42
sorry double post

Inquisitor Kallus
14-07-2015, 14:43
The intent of the "joke" rules is to embarass people into not playing with those rules. They will be quickly replaced by new armies. .

Really? Were you there when they made them then? Privvy to this beforehand? A member of the studio?

Or are you just repeating hearsay.......

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 14:45
I use the joke rules. I don't feel embarrassed.

explorator
14-07-2015, 15:45
No, they did the wrong thing, this from a 16 year vet.

What they should have done is release an entry level game, that could be played with a few boxes of models. The Path to Chaos or Kill Team type approach. They should have supported it fully, and encouraged it at both the casual, and tournament level.

Ok not a bad idea, would this be 8th ed or 9th ed in your scenario?


They should push competition to the max, drive events, and have world wide campaigns.

They have. I have played in Warhammer world-wide campaigns and GW just rewrote the results, than changed the background to exclude them. It was very unsatisfying. GW had hard-core tourneys for Warhammer with prize support; pushing competition to the max did not grow the community or sell more models.


They should engage via Social Media, to drive excitement in the system, in the rules, and in the models.

I suppose all companies should do this, though the majority do not.


They should try and mirror MTG and what the staff at Wizards of the Coast does for that game (aka, Pro Tour, Open events, casual games, multiple formats all with the same pools of cards).

They should have done exactly the opposite of what they did.

They should have released a new edition and made all new armybooks for every warhammer fantasy army at the same time. That would have been very cool as I play beastmen and never even got an 8th ed book. But that is a fantasy, GW is not capable of releasing all the books at once and never could do so.

MTG releases new decks all the time and they make some cards illegal. Imagine if GW just banned Bloodthirsters or Blue Scribes or Steam Tanks or Skaven slaves? MTG works for what it is, but there is a reason miniature games do not use a similar format.

AoS is the alternative to GW killing Warhammer.

TheFang
14-07-2015, 15:57
Really? Were you there when they made them then? Privvy to this beforehand? A member of the studio?
No. Were you?

Or are you just repeating hearsay.......
Just interpreting the evidence.


I suppose all companies should do this, though the majority do not.
I think you'll find GW as pretty much a minority of one on this one. I can't think of any company of any appreciable size, gaming or not, so averse to social media and the internet.




AoS is the alternative to GW killing Warhammer.
I think we'll find the corpse in the legacy scrolls over there.

Denny
14-07-2015, 16:01
I use the joke rules. I don't feel embarrassed.

I really don't get the embarrassment argument. Do people refuse to play charades because they think they'll look silly? :wtf:

. . . well, I suppose some people probably do refuse because they don't want to look 'uncool' or something . . . :rolleyes:

dragonelf
14-07-2015, 16:03
the joke rules are embarassing because they don't belong in a tabletop wargame. You shouldn't get benefits to your army by doing these stupid things. They dont embarrass players per se, it is just embarrassing as an observer to see them in print alongside other rules.

Bloodknight
14-07-2015, 16:08
. I found them to be a wonderful and amusing nod to the comedy that made Warhammer such an appealing game to me, and a wonderful "send off" for the Warhammer that was.

I don't know. I get the feeling that the current design team is a bit like the Adeptus Mechanicus. They ape what their forefathers did, but they don't understand how and why the old ones did it the way they did it.

Denny
14-07-2015, 16:11
the joke rules are embarassing because they don't belong in a tabletop wargame. You shouldn't get benefits to your army by doing these stupid things. They dont embarrass players per se, it is just embarrassing as an observer to see them in print alongside other rules.

Well, as an observer they don't bother me, but each to his own. :)

EDIT:


I don't know. I get the feeling that the current design team is a bit like the Adeptus Mechanicus. They ape what their forefathers did, but they don't understand how and why the old ones did it the way they did it.

Well, at least that makes the rules fluffy. ;)

Inquisitor Kallus
14-07-2015, 16:21
No. Were you?

Just interpreting the evidence.
.

Oh sorry, you stated that the intent of the rules was to embarass players using them. So, if you werent a member of the design team, or privvy to the rules when they made them then how would you know what they intended?

So you're guessing, rather than stating a fact, just so we get that straight...



I use the joke rules. I don't feel embarrassed.

Indeed, seems just like a bit of fun involving some background related joking around. There have been quite a few people intentionally looking to see the worst in this, I mean it's not like GW hasnt done any in jokes and so on before

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 16:27
My belief is that it stems from the desire to have a serious ruleset that can be used for serious events. Putting joke rules into the system excludes it from being serious which for some means excluding serious events.

I'm sure thats not universal but I know a lot of people I know that have that issue with the joke rules have that issue for that reason.

Denny
14-07-2015, 16:42
My belief is that it stems from the desire to have a serious ruleset that can be used for serious events. Putting joke rules into the system excludes it from being serious which for some means excluding serious events.

I'm sure thats not universal but I know a lot of people I know that have that issue with the joke rules have that issue for that reason.

I have a quite a few friends who, for want of a better word, seem slightly embarrassed by their hobby.
I think the joke rules might tug at this emotional thread whereas, if the game is 'serious', this makes it somehow more acceptable?

I dunno. Just a bit of armchair psychology.

tvandyke
14-07-2015, 16:51
I don't post often, but read these forums periodically. I've been reading these threads for the last few weeks and thought I'd respond. I've been playing Warhammer since the end of 3rd Edition. I went to my first GW Grand Tournament in Seattle in 1999. I had so much fun seeing a new city, spending the weekend with my friends, meeting new people that I attended as many GT's as I could until GW stopped supporting them around 2008. I've attended GT's in Toronto, Nottingham, Baltimore, LA, Las Vegas, Chicago. I've met people that I now call friends who come from the UK, Canada, Australia, Finland, Sweden as well as all over the US. All because I decided to attend these "competitive" events that GW tried forever to say that Warhammer wasn't intended for. These tournaments motivated me to purchase new models, to convert and paint them. I've spent over 500 hours painting some armies. This my friends is called an investment. Not just of money but blood, sweat and tears. I loved the Warhammer World. I loved the fluff. I loved army building. I did my best to try to develop a thematic army that no only stayed true to the written fluff, looked cool on the tabletop and also hold its own during a competitive game. After GW stopped supporting the Grand Tournaments, I still attended a handful of Indy GT's every year and had a great time. It was an excuse to get everyone together for a weekend of fun and gave me the chance to catch up with my friends that lived thousands of miles from me. In between all these Tournaments we still played the game casually amongst friends.

This brings me to Age of Sigmar. As others have said, it's not Warhammer. It's a completely new game, with new fluff. GW has killed off the game that I've played and loved (even though 8th was my least favorite edition) for the last 20+ years. In those 20+ years I've felt that I've had relationship with GW. That relationship has been getting worse over the last 5 years or more. One of my friends used to write for GW. He wrote rules for Mordhiem and wrote a tactics article that showed up in one of the Lizardmen books (forget the edition). He was also one of the outside playtesters. As a result, I had the privilege of playtesting armies and give my input prior to the release of the army books. GW rules writers like Jervis, Rick, Toumas, Gavin and even Alessio used to engage with the gaming community. They used to post on the old Warhammer forums from time to time. My point is that they at least gave the player base the impression that we were part of a big family. I remember the author of the first Ogre Kingdoms book came to our local Indy GT in 2005 to promote the new army and for the life of me I can't remember who wrote it (for some reason I'm thinking it was Matt Ward but I'm probably wrong). For some reason, this relationship that GW tried to have with it's player base abruptly started to erode. Outside play testing ended. The support for GT's ended. For awhile they they supported the Indy GTs with prize support then that ended.

What the OP of this thread might not understand is that customer loyalty (all loyalty I suppose) should be a two way street. I got my first job at KFC 33 years ago at the age of 15 and remember my Manager telling me over and over again that while it's important to bring in new customers the most important thing is retaining your loyal customers. Word of mouth is an important and underestimated form of advertising. Good word of mouth from your loyal customers can be more effective than even the most expensive marketing campaign while bad word of mouth can do a ton of damage that can't always be easily calculated. Those lessons have stuck with me ever since then and I believe they're all true. What good does it do to bring in 1 new customer only to lose 2 in the process? Your loyal customers should never, ever be considered expendable and yet, somehow, with this AOS release I finally feel that GW has done that with me. The loyalty that had been built up had been slowly eroding and now finally severed. I've looked at Kings Of War with mild curiosity the last few years but really never gave it much thought because nobody I knew played it. Now, the tournament organizers are seriously looking at it. Now I'm looking at it. This idea that the loyal, long time player base of Warhammer didn't spend money is ludicrous. I've spent thousands on Warhammer. I spend over $1500 on a Forgeworld Chaos Dwarf army just a little over a year ago. Everybody I play Warhammer with spends money on the newer, prettier models. We have always done our best to try to recruit new players into the hobby over the years. It makes no sense in any way, shape or form to essentially cut ties with your loyal player base. None.

TheFang
14-07-2015, 17:12
So you're guessing, rather than stating a fact, just so we get that straight...
Just interpreting the evidence (http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/gw-answers-age-of-sigmar-questions.html).


He acknowledges that the 'funny' rules are rather silly and don't make for a great intro to the system for new people. His response was that the armies in the box set don't have the silly rules. They're there as kind of a celebration and final send off of the old warhammer armies, and he said you might notice the new armies don't have the stupid noises or imaginary friends. This is deliberate, its designed that you'll only generally play the old stuff with your mates since it's a bit embarassing to play in a public place.

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 17:18
To be fair, you are interpreting someone else's interpretation of what a GW guy said.

TheFang
14-07-2015, 17:19
To be fair, you are interpreting someone else's interpretation of what a GW guy said.
:angel: Isn't everybody?

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 17:24
A lot of people do yes.

MiyamatoMusashi
14-07-2015, 17:26
To be fair, you are interpreting someone else's interpretation of what a GW guy said.

...allegedly. According to Faeit, that well-known bastion of truth and accuracy.

I was at the FW Open Day and saw no such person "camped out" fielding AoS questions (though I grant you, I wasn't actively looking). No-one else seems to have mentioned it, either. A report on Faeit from someone who may or may not be making it up (or misquoting) about what someone who may or not have existed may or may not have said, doesn't seem like much worth getting upset about.

Not when there's so much definitely genuine stuff to get upset about as it is.

Darnok
14-07-2015, 17:27
I have played in Warhammer world-wide campaigns and GW just rewrote the results, than changed the background to exclude them. It was very unsatisfying.

That was an issue of GW ending the campaign the wrong way. I have participated in the "Third War of Armageddon" campaign, and found that one to be really entertaining - surprisingly, GW didn't need to rewrite the results there. So they had the ability to do such things - sometimes better, sometimes worse - but stopped doing it for reasons only they truly know.


GW had hard-core tourneys for Warhammer with prize support; pushing competition to the max did not grow the community or sell more models.

When GW still did tournaments they had a bigger community and sold more models.

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 17:40
GW had hard-core tourneys for Warhammer with prize support; pushing competition to the max did not grow the community or sell more models.

I'm not a tournament player anymore for about a decade or so, but I will say that I believe modern game design TODAY expects a system that can be run in competitive esport style tournaments, and in fact it is the expectation that the system will do so and that the designing company will create a circuit of some type to do so. If it does not, which is rare, that system will often not catch on. At least in America where many of our gamers tend to be competitive and play games to compete and for rank (the more organized and visible the better)

If no one had ever heard of Games Workshop and they suddenly appeared with Age of Sigmar as a game and its models and then they said there is no tournament support, it would largely be ignored. The only reason Games Workshop isn't going to just crash and burn from this release is through its name and through gamer-culture, which is basically no matter how good or bad a ruleset is, whether or not it is played is dictated by how active the player base is. LIke it or not, GW has a large player base.

This is coming from someone supporting Age of Sigmar and helping spend a lot of my free time in supporting events for it.

Inquisitor Kallus
14-07-2015, 17:48
To be fair, you are interpreting someone else's interpretation of what a GW guy said.

Indeed, lol.

I saw this guy, and he was 20 feet tall with eyes dis big (gestures large oval shape with hands) yet cannot see. He told me that I would win the lottery if I gave him 100 bucks. His name was Prince something or other and he could shoot lightning bolts out his backs side. Its true, I swears it, its carved in stone, behind the bike sheds.

Is this 'evidence' found anywhere else other than the unimpeachable prophet of truth that is Faeit?

DonkeyMan
14-07-2015, 17:58
The only reason why a company would risk alienating their loyal customers is, when the count of your loyal customers is so low that getting new customers seems to be the way to go forward.
And that's what GW is thinking right now (I think).

Now some other things to consider. Warhammer Fantasy has quite a big Fanbase, but how many still p(l)ay? ;)
I for example don't like 8th edition at all and many of my friends don't like it either. Others stopped playing for other reasons.

If AoS will be the right way forward, I don't know. I think it's too early to say.
I just hope that discussions will calm down a bit soon and people will have more civil discussions.

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 18:10
That may be true - it may be that the fan base was just too small. I know where I am, our fantasy numbers were almost as large as our 40k numbers overall. Its just that of everyone that played fantasy, roughly 5% bought anything new that wasn't from ebay or a 2nd hand item and new blood when it came in 99% of the time bought their army exclusively 2nd hand because prices are too high for them to drop $800 on a standard sized army and the game doesn't scale to smaller points well to most people so even though you can do it, you can't find games of that very well.

This means that ultimately product is not moving because the 2nd hand market is overflowing with the same product only at fractions of the cost so its not surprising that our new blood was turning there instead of the GW store for their army, because you can get a full 2000 point fantasy army on ebay for anywhere between $150 - $350 give or take on average, whereas its about $800 on average if you pay full retail.

So to the OP's topic - I agree GW did the right thing for them. The new models aren't on the 2nd hand market, so if you want them you have to pay for them.

The cost of models affecting the game will come into play if people are still wanting to play at the same scale as they were in 8th. If the new norm is half the model count of before, then I think the cost is offset a bit. That will be a community initiative though as the community is largely who sets the "standard size game" (well actually its what most tournaments decide to run that decides that)

Hoffa
14-07-2015, 18:32
GW had hard-core tourneys for Warhammer with prize support; pushing competition to the max did not grow the community or sell more models.

I'm not so sure, also I willing to bet that the end of the tournament support happened at about the same time both 40k and fantasy went into decline.

My pet theory is that GW found out that supporting organised tournaments lead to an increased demand for well designed balanced and play tested rules something GW simply could not deliver so they killed of the support and decided tournament gamers was an evil to get rid of. I know I know, this does not make sense but I truly believe GW to be this out of touch with reality. To me it is very possible GW thinks the reason they no longer get hordes of 14 year olds coming into their store is that the stinking complaining veterans was scaring them of. (I.e if you get rid of the vets they will come).

Malagor
14-07-2015, 18:37
I'm not so sure, also I willing to bet that the end of the tournament support happened at about the same time both 40k and fantasy went into decline.

My pet theory is that GW found out that supporting organised tournaments lead to an increased demand for well designed balanced and play tested rules something GW simply could not deliver so they killed of the support and decided tournament gamers was an evil to get rid of. I know I know, this does not make sense but I truly believe GW to be this out of touch with reality. To me it is very possible that GW really thinks the reason they no longer get hordes of 14 year olds coming into their store is that the stinking complaining veterans was scaring them of. (I.e if you get rid of the vets they will come).
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
And have to remember, GW states proudly that they are a miniature company selling to collectors, they don't sell models for games or gamers nor are they a game company.
Wonder if this shift always happened at the time when they realised that they wanted nothing to do with tournaments or games in general?

Hoffa
14-07-2015, 18:45
I also believe this is the reason the old guard left GW over the last 10 years. They want to make quality rules but GW does not want to be a game company any more. (They did once, remember when they in the late nineties brought in Toumas Pirinen, a then top tournament gamer, to write the 6:th ed BRB).

dragonelf
14-07-2015, 18:47
You can make a reasonable arguement for a dramatic change in fantasy for GW. You can make a good arguement for the change of mythology that was unmoved pretty much for 30 years, mind you, whose fault is that? We can agree or disagree whether change was needed, and I totally sympathise with tvanddyke's post.

They have clearly gone with the incredibly one dimensional approach of, well space marines sell a lot of models, lets make fantasy space marines. Let's face it, GW never did innovation.

But even putting that aside, the replacement, whether it is small scale, big scale or whatever it is, has to be a credible and complete game. This is not it.

The rules are almost an afterthought. There is no structure, no balance, and basically no design. Please don't tell me you want me to design my own game. That's a nonsense. I want to be given the tools, the framework to make battles with my friends, I don't want to waste endless games or my time balancing 400+ warscrolls within our gaming group. I don't want to be told what to take in my army in scenarios. I want the structure and I will fill in the gaps. Not a mess of unfinished rules. I am urged to wait and see, but it is a bit amateurish for GW to launch a game like this and then promise us that it wil get better in a few months...the game should have been spectacular so I can't wait for more of the same to be released, not living in hope that it will get fixed sometime soon.

This isn't about why did they kill fantasy, the reason GW didn't do the right thing to answer the original poster, is because they replaced fantasy with a nonsense game that insults the intelligence of its existing customers and will likely bore the new fans they acquire. I am not even going to mention scandalous pricing of the accessories, £25 for a dice shaker.....sigh....

To be honest, I am pretty much over ranting about this. If you like AoS, I wish you all the best and happy gaming. I am off to warmachine and hordes.

Enakan
14-07-2015, 18:49
Good reply Tom!

And I see that your post got totally ignored.

GW did the wrong thing.

From an almost 30 year veteran of their games.

Here's what's frustrating for me, and I'm sure many others. I'm going to turn 55 next month. That means I'm old enough to be a lot of you guys daddy. Save the jokes dudes.....

That means me/we have been playing Warhammer (and other of their games) since the 1980's, around the time some of you were born, or when some of you weren't even a gleam in your daddy's eye. I personally started in 3rd edition, the nice hard bound books. When we went on to 4th edition, I lost the ability to take my nice Fimir and Pygmy figures back to the battlefield. Chaos had a huge array of figures like Chaos Skaven and Goblins. Really??? Yup!!! Plus the Slaan were there, not Lizardmen. Who had cool troop choices too.

I know, I know, I could have used the Fimir as Ogres, as some folks did. I could've used the Pygmies as Skinks when the Lizardman book came out. That was my first experience with GW and their lack of gamer support from edition to edition.

Some of you guys were born around this time.

Fourth edition I could still use my Norse figs, as there was a published army supplement published in White Dwarf #107. Cool rules for those guys!!! Plus you could mix units between armies, I could have Dwarfs in my Norse army, I could have Dwarfs in my Empire army, I could have Dwarfs all over the place! Monsters could be used in all armies, they were "common" to most armies. So then we went on to 5th edition........and no more Norse.

More of you guys were probably born around this time.

This edition saw the release of the only Chaos Dwarf book by GW, which was a compilation of articles from WD. The rules were different, I got used to them. Some armies and units were harder than others, as it's always been. I drove on and played 5th up until my first GT experience in Chicago in 2000.

I'm sure EVERYONE was born by this time!

We then saw the release of 6th edition and it's "get you by" army list book, "Ravening Hordes". We lived the experience of army books being released over the next few years, until all but the CD's had a new army book. I liked 6th, it seemed more streamlined and flexible compared to 5th and it's magic/items on cards. Which was unique and interesting in 5th. Magic in 6th though could be very hard, but we could also have scroll caddies to help with big/nasty magic-heavy lists. I soldiered on and enjoyed 6th.

And then GW killed off the GW program and internet sales for independent stores.

Loved Storm of Chaos and some of it's army lists in what, 2003/2004? Plus the Cult of Ulric list in an upper 200 issues of White Dwarf. Not all the SoC lists, some were pretty rough and insane, but a lot were fun and flavorful. But then GW, in it's infinite wisdom, stopped supporting these lists about two years later. They also stopped running GT's as they couldn't do them as well as the Indy's could. Mainly because of their policy of using new employees for base rate pay, turnover was high for their GT crowd, it changed year to year. Many of their game designers also fit into this category. Young designers with little experience, little knowledge of previous editions, and little pay.

Let us not even go into the Specialist Games and their withering away.......

2008 saw the advent of 7th edition, ranks went to five wide instead of four, there were a few other changes. It almost felt like a 6.5 edition, not much change at all. I still enjoyed it, read a lot about it, since I was stuck overseas in the sandbox for Uncle Sam while a lot of you were having fun back here painting, building and playing with our little toy soldiers. I had an army of Slayers shipped over for me to work on, since some GT's still allowed their usage, but didn't have too much time to work on them. And when I got back to the scene, no room for no more Slayers.......

Then came along 8th edition and the huge changes there. Some of us had armies built for 6th/7th edition rules, and those army builds were totally out the door with the new rules. Some of us took a break from the game for a while, but we came back to it. We all got back on board and drove on.

Now Age of Sigmar.

Take this from an older gamer's perspective. I have every army I have proto-types of figures built/building for various armies, I have multiple themes for armies, some armies I have four versions of. Who needs four OK armies? But we gamers have imagination, ideas SCREAM to be built, we do it. So I have about 64 or so armies down in my full to the brim game room. I have old army books, rules, scenery, units and figures that are no longer supported by GW. I am not whining or complaining, this is a massive financial support by me and many others of a company that doesn't support us, that makes decisions by inexperienced staff with little or no history with our game.

This is almost THIRTY years of supporting a company and buying their products.

Look through my eyes and see what I've seen. Do you understand, can you comprehend my/our years of frustration with GW and their constantly ever changing design staff? All the time, we always get the "business" excuse, it's what has to be done.

In every edition we get a metric ton of you folks stating the same old things (though you may not realize it); "Suck it up", "Quit your whining", "This is the greatest thing ever!!!"........

"Can't you see it, you old farts?????"

See it through my eyes, you young whippersnappers!!!

Bloodknight
14-07-2015, 18:50
This means that ultimately product is not moving because the 2nd hand market is overflowing with the same product only at fractions of the cost so its not surprising that our new blood was turning there instead of the GW store for their army, because you can get a full 2000 point fantasy army on ebay for anywhere between $150 - $350 give or take on average, whereas its about $800 on average if you pay full retail.

That only tells us that they shouldn't have tried to take those fantasy prices (in German we call those Moon Price) for that specific game system if it means that your customers rather put up with salvaging other people's wrecks over getting shiny new boxes. I know that at half of what they took I would have never ebayed anything, it wouldn't have been worth my time.


The new models aren't on the 2nd hand market, so if you want them you have to pay for them.

That is only true for the first generation of AoS customers, though :). Every further generation will have more and more access to 2nd hand stuff, and the whole circle is back again.

Enakan
14-07-2015, 18:51
Maybe I should have sent this off in an envelope to GW so they got it in person!

Dear GW staff......

Darnok
14-07-2015, 19:41
The new models aren't on the 2nd hand market, so if you want them you have to pay for them.

You clearly haven't checked 'bay these days. You can get five of those basic Sigmarines for 15€ (GW is asking 40€ for a box of five). The other units: similar.

And GW might believe that "new blood" doesn't understand the internet. But I'm sure that's not true. Anybody interested in a new hobby is well aware of things like 'bay - and seeing what GW is asking for their models outside of the starter box... yeah, I guess the AoS starters will sell well, while the "true" unit kits will not.

MiyamatoMusashi
14-07-2015, 19:50
You clearly haven't checked 'bay these days. You can get five of those basic Sigmarines for 15€ (GW is asking 40€ for a box of five). The other units: similar.

That seemed unlikely. So I checked.

Even cheaper than that in some cases (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Stormcast-Eternal-x5-Liberators-Age-of-Sigmar-/161763576306?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25a9dc49f2).

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 19:50
Sure I know the starter contents are up there. But the market right now for 2nd hand AoS models is nowhere near as plentiful as WHFB classic.

Darnok
14-07-2015, 19:53
Sure I know the starter contents are up there. But the market right now for 2nd hand AoS models is nowhere near as plentiful as WHFB classic.

I don't see how that is any kind of argument. There is exactly one starter box and (advance orders of) two other model releases of AoS so far. Of course the second-hand market of AoS is smaller.

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 20:02
My point was that if I wanted to get an entire whfb classic army I can easily do so on ebay.

If I want an entire AoS army - its a little more difficult to do so because the stock isn't as plentiful and the local community is not full of people selling their army for fractions of the cost. I realize pedantically speaking that if I want to look hard enough I can find models but I don't see that as the same thing.

Before GW was getting hardly anything. Today and for the near future, GW received money from the person selling on ebay, which is more money than they got in the past for fantasy.

And starter box models do not an army make.

scruffyryan
14-07-2015, 20:26
You can't get an "entire AoS" army anyway, what do they have, 3 or 4 different units for each faction and 1 hero?

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 20:31
As of this saturday they should have the entire sigmarite and khorne army scrolls out. There are more units than what was in the starter box.

scruffyryan
14-07-2015, 20:37
And again, most of those models aren't out, maybe 3 or 4 different units

Herzlos
14-07-2015, 21:57
I think you hit the nail on the head there.
And have to remember, GW states proudly that they are a miniature company selling to collectors, they don't sell models for games or gamers nor are they a game company.
Wonder if this shift always happened at the time when they realised that they wanted nothing to do with tournaments or games in general?

I think the shift happened when they realised they couldn't copyright "toys". They tried pretty hard during the CHS case to make them out to be collectors figurines and not toys.

Scribe of Khorne
14-07-2015, 23:02
Either way, there appears to be an argument for

1. Decline in profits started around when Tournament/Competitive support was denied.
2. A rules system that can do all things (as you can simply ignore points/FOC) is more flexible.
3. GW doesnt care to be on the hook for writing rules, despite the blow this seems to be landing on their financials over the last several years.
4. Other wargames/table top games/luxury hobbies continue to grow and earn profits over the same period as GW has declined.

If you take any of those at even half truth, GW certainly has not 'did the right thing' for themselves, or the gamers.

Agrimax
14-07-2015, 23:30
My point was that if I wanted to get an entire whfb classic army I can easily do so on ebay.

If I want an entire AoS army - its a little more difficult to do so because the stock isn't as plentiful and the local community is not full of people selling their army for fractions of the cost. I realize pedantically speaking that if I want to look hard enough I can find models but I don't see that as the same thing.

Before GW was getting hardly anything. Today and for the near future, GW received money from the person selling on ebay, which is more money than they got in the past for fantasy.

And starter box models do not an army make.

A company whose profits demand enforced obsolescence of existing products is not a healthy one. And as a consumer, I find it slightly staggering that you'd actually justify such a practice. Sure, if you work for GW you can justify it, but if you recognise that GW are forcing you to spend money just to support them, not to support your own hobby - why is that a good thing for you? Their survival is not your responsibility.

The reality is anyway, not all people who leave the hobby sell on ebay, many will store stuff hoping to get back into it later, some will just junk it because they aren't bothered with the hassle and they're rich enough not to care at what it cost them and what they could recoup. Equally, not everyone coming into the hobby wants to buy second hand, those that are well off don't need to and like nice shiny shrink wrap. And normally of course, even existing products can be resculpted for resales to existing customers who like to update, new unit types can continually be added and so on. All miniatures companies are in the same position, everyone else seems to be managing fine, so why the issue for GW? Only because they're losing market share - their fault for not making good enough games compared to other companies to retain people.

If ebay is killing sales, you're doing something more fundamentally wrong and shipping players much faster than you're gaining them - supply has to be significantly outstripping demand for sale price to fall that significantly that it's so really worthwhile for large number of customers to buy second hand and take a risk, with no real guarantees of what state stuff will come in. New players and churn should reach an equilibrium if your product is satisfying people, so with not everyone who churns selling stuff you should still make new sales at a steady rate - if people are leaving faster than you're replacing them the better solution is to find out why and fix it rather than to have a tantrum and throw the whole game away (and probably quite a chunk of the customers that have stuck with you when others have not) in the hope that something randomly different, but that you have no actual evidence will appeal to more people (since you've not found out why existing customers have left) will suddenly turn things around, while seriously annoying a large chunk of the customers who have decided to stick around in the process.

A short term spike in sales for a new product is no substitute for a long term ongoing sales rate, and even if it wasn't great for fantasy it's incredibly hard to see the market for AoS being even as big, let alone exceeding it, no matter what state the WHFB market was in.

explorator
15-07-2015, 17:20
A company whose profits demand enforced obsolescence of existing products is not a healthy one. And as a consumer, I find it slightly staggering that you'd actually justify such a practice. Sure, if you work for GW you can justify it, but if you recognise that GW are forcing you to spend money just to support them, not to support your own hobby - why is that a good thing for you? Their survival is not your responsibility.

Planned obsolescence is the absolute standard in a free-market consumer-driven economy. Virtually every item you purchase in the mass market is designed around this principle. There are car engines and tires that get 1,000,000 miles. A pair of jeans made of hemp will last decades. The same is true of light bulbs and refrigerators, furniture and pots and pans, shoes and camping gear. LCD televisions have heat sensitive capacitors right next to power components so it WILL FAIL earlier. Almost all companies that deal in consumer oriented products use planned obsolescence as the basis of their business.


The reality is anyway, not all people who leave the hobby sell on ebay, many will store stuff hoping to get back into it later, some will just junk it because they aren't bothered with the hassle and they're rich enough not to care at what it cost them and what they could recoup. Equally, not everyone coming into the hobby wants to buy second hand, those that are well off don't need to and like nice shiny shrink wrap. And normally of course, even existing products can be resculpted for resales to existing customers who like to update, new unit types can continually be added and so on. All miniatures companies are in the same position, everyone else seems to be managing fine, so why the issue for GW? Only because they're losing market share - their fault for not making good enough games compared to other companies to retain people.

I think this is all spot on.


If ebay is killing sales, you're doing something more fundamentally wrong and shipping players much faster than you're gaining them - supply has to be significantly outstripping demand for sale price to fall that significantly that it's so really worthwhile for large number of customers to buy second hand and take a risk, with no real guarantees of what state stuff will come in. New players and churn should reach an equilibrium if your product is satisfying people, so with not everyone who churns selling stuff you should still make new sales at a steady rate - if people are leaving faster than you're replacing them the better solution is to find out why and fix it rather than to have a tantrum and throw the whole game away (and probably quite a chunk of the customers that have stuck with you when others have not) in the hope that something randomly different, but that you have no actual evidence will appeal to more people (since you've not found out why existing customers have left) will suddenly turn things around, while seriously annoying a large chunk of the customers who have decided to stick around in the process.

A short term spike in sales for a new product is no substitute for a long term ongoing sales rate, and even if it wasn't great for fantasy it's incredibly hard to see the market for AoS being even as big, let alone exceeding it, no matter what state the WHFB market was in.

To be fair, GW's tantrum was based on the ChapterHouse ruling which they felt put their 'unique' IP at risk. GW decided to re-boot their fantasy setting instead of killing it off and AoS in the result. Paring studio resources to match Warhammer sales is something they should have done earlier, and by waiting as long as they did, they had fewer options once the cuts were made.

As a market leader, GW should have taken the ChapterHouse ruling in stride and doubled-down on making the best fantasy miniatures in the world (the AoS models are superb). Instead the sundering of Warhammer fantasy mirrored the tantrum the suits were having, basically saying "Fine, lets just blow it all up then!"

Let's face it, 8th ed turned off a large component of the existing market while not having enough appeal to draw in new players. Would further refining into a 9th edition bring back players from pre-8th ed? Probably not. So a re-boot is all they left themselves with. Saying all that, I agree with the OP, GW did the right thing.

logan054
15-07-2015, 17:43
I think the truth is a lot more simple when it comes to the warhammer reboot (and it's been pretty much been said in the financial report). They aren't trying to grow the business, the best way to get everyone spending is to invalidate peoples collections and to replace them with new better kits, this isn't about trying to safe anything, the companies only concern is paying it's dividends. I don't believe any of this is to do with chapter house, they are probably just using that to try and justify it, nothing they have created so far is original enough that it can't be copied. The Sigmarines certainly aren't.


Either way, there appears to be an argument for

1. Decline in profits started around when Tournament/Competitive support was denied.
2. A rules system that can do all things (as you can simply ignore points/FOC) is more flexible.
3. GW doesnt care to be on the hook for writing rules, despite the blow this seems to be landing on their financials over the last several years.
4. Other wargames/table top games/luxury hobbies continue to grow and earn profits over the same period as GW has declined.

If you take any of those at even half truth, GW certainly has not 'did the right thing' for themselves, or the gamers.

I don't agree with one with one, I think it's simply the write crappy rules which can't even make it out the door without needing some kind of errata.

TheFang
15-07-2015, 17:53
To be fair, GW's tantrum was based on the ChapterHouse ruling which they felt put their 'unique' IP at risk. GW decided to re-boot their fantasy setting instead of killing it off and AoS in the result.

Chapterhouse was almost exclusively making 40k wasn't it? I think it was more to remove the generic aspect of the Fantasy IP which meant that anyone could do Dwarfs, Beastmen, Undead which were all but perfectly compatible with GW. Avatars of War and Mantic are the best examples here. GW knew they could never successfully sue Mantic and so did Mantic. Avatars Dwarfs and Mantics Ghouls fit seamlessly in GW armies. The miniatures match long standing fantasy archetypes and would be hard to take legal action over. As GW removed in store play as an option in many of their stores it became harder to insist on "GW minis only" in armies as more people are playing away from GW stores.

Removing the generic and replacing it with Sigmarines and whatever else is a way to stop Mantic and the others making closely matching miniatures.

Bloodknight
15-07-2015, 18:11
Removing the generic and replacing it with Sigmarines and whatever else is a way to stop Mantic and the others making closely matching miniatures.

Not at all. They're just Space Marines and can be copied like those as well.

Kjell
15-07-2015, 19:44
Other companies can still mimic the visual style of orruks and sell them as orcs. AFAIK laws about this sort of thing are more concerned with straight up bootlegging a kit and selling the result than with people who make things that mostly look the same but is actually a whole new kit.

I assume that models fall under the same broad category of toys and such, anyway.

TheFang
15-07-2015, 20:36
Not at all. They're just Space Marines and can be copied like those as well.
The armour basic style can be copied but things the names and hammer icons can be protected. The appearance of the new releases-longer legged dwarves on lava things will be easier to cover and sell as "proper" AoS minis.
Other companies can still mimic the visual style of orruks and sell them as orcs.
But to GW that's giving a layer of protection for their official range and removing the opposition from internet searches.

If I look for "Black Orcs" I'll get the competitor's orc minis. If I look for "Black Orruks" then I'll get GW minis only. That seems to be the object, not to make an IP fortress around AoS but to create a screen around the game and only encourage official minis that match warscrolls and fluff.

Want to play a scenario? Then you need 2 official X, 2 official Y and an official Z. That's going to keep new players focused on GW minis.

logan054
15-07-2015, 20:44
Removing the generic and replacing it with Sigmarines and whatever else is a way to stop Mantic and the others making closely matching miniatures.

And so far all they have done is give the generic fantasy a different name. Sigmarines are not that unqiue, especially as Mantic already make somethine along those lines. Then again I thought GW didn't have any competition, they say they are the best, why would they care about these other companies lol.

Philhelm
15-07-2015, 20:51
If I look for "Black Orcs" I'll get the competitor's orc minis. If I look for "Black Orruks" then I'll get GW minis only. That seems to be the object, not to make an IP fortress around AoS but to create a screen around the game and only encourage official minis that match warscrolls and fluff.

The problem is that among people who aren't familiar with Games Workshop, nobody is ever going to search for "Orruks."

tvandyke
15-07-2015, 21:13
This whole issue still comes down brand loyalty. As I stated in my earlier post, the effort that GW has invested in it's customer base to keep them engaged and part of the games development has waned in the last 10 years, especially the last 5. I've held on because it was much easier to believe that things would improve than to make the effort to move on to something else such as KOW. It also was difficult to move on when everybody else was caught in the same situation and the only Fantasy massed battle game anybody was playing was WFB. So, despite my growing frustration with GW (price hikes, less interaction with its player base, no FAQ updates, etc), I essentially stayed loyal. Our gaming group lost about a third of our player base during 8th. They simply moved on to other games, mostly historicals and left Fantasy behind. Now with AOS, we're all basically being forced to abandon WFB and move on to what is definitely a new game. If anyone (and I know there are many) had any thoughts of quitting the GW experience, now would be the time to do it and give some other company's game system a chance. Keep in mind, a lot of the people that quit WFB during 8th edition didn't just quit because they disliked 8th, they did so because they already disliked GW and 8th was the nail in the coffin for them. I doubt those folks will be coming back to try AOS because it's obvious that GW hasn't changed any. If anything their relationship with it's player base has gotten even more distant. Anyone who plays these types of miniature games knows that the investment in the hobby goes beyond simply putting out the cash for it. It's the hours and hours that get invested in the creative aspects (modelling, painting) of the hobby. I can deal with the money being lost. I have a much harder time seeing my gazillion hours spent painting being wasted. I'm an avid golfer. I know that when a new driver comes out from my favorite company and I want it at release I'm going to pay a full, premium price. I also know that if I wait 6 to 12 months I can get the same driver for half the price. I also realize that I don't have to buy a new driver at all since my current driver is only a year old. Regardless of what choice I make, buy at launch, wait or not buy it at all, it's just money. There's no further investment other than simply using the product. These miniatures are a completely different animal.

TheFang
15-07-2015, 21:18
The problem is that among people who aren't familiar with Games Workshop, nobody is ever going to search for "Orruks."
GW wants AoS players to not buy nasty Orcses but proper Orruks. They don't want to sell to people who want Orcs they want to sell to Orruk fans. Whether that will sell AoS to the uninitiated I don't know.

It will also hammer the ebay second hand market as when Orruks appear ebay searches are going to be for Orruk not Orc. It'll make it hard to sell off old armies to new players. You always used to be able to get a reasonable price for your old Orcs regardless of whether the minis had been replaced. In fact sometimes (metal Black Orcs) they were at a premium.

How will the value hold up when the new players want Orruks with a different name and design aesthetic?

MiyamatoMusashi
15-07-2015, 21:29
It will also hammer the ebay second hand market as when Orruks appear ebay searches are going to be for Orruk not Orc. It'll make it hard to sell off old armies to new players. You always used to be able to get a reasonable price for your old Orcs regardless of whether the minis had been replaced. In fact sometimes (metal Black Orcs) they were at a premium.

Oh, please. You already see eBay listings with titles like "BNIB warhammer orcs goblins games workshop gw whfb greenskins" to appear in as many searches as possible. Adding "orruks" to that list will take no time at all. And anyone who's not been literally brain-wiped and indoctrinated will know that an "orruk" is really just an "orc".


How will the value hold up when the new players want Orruks with a different name and design aesthetic?

Given the price some vintage models go for, I'd guess quite well...

TheFang
15-07-2015, 21:38
Adding "orruks" to that list will take no time at all. And anyone who's not been literally brain-wiped and indoctrinated will know that an "orruk" is really just an "orc".
That's where this is leading. An orruk won't be an Orc. It will look subtly different. I'd have a stab at bigger to start with looking at the scale creep on the Khorne minis.
GW can also report those auctions and have them pulled under VERO. They already did it to auctions selling "Primarchs" from the Kabuki range before Forgeworld released their official versions.

AngryAngel
15-07-2015, 22:11
GW wants AoS players to not buy nasty Orcses but proper Orruks. They don't want to sell to people who want Orcs they want to sell to Orruk fans. Whether that will sell AoS to the uninitiated I don't know.

It will also hammer the ebay second hand market as when Orruks appear ebay searches are going to be for Orruk not Orc. It'll make it hard to sell off old armies to new players. You always used to be able to get a reasonable price for your old Orcs regardless of whether the minis had been replaced. In fact sometimes (metal Black Orcs) they were at a premium.

How will the value hold up when the new players want Orruks with a different name and design aesthetic?

I feel like I've finally fallen over the other side of the crazy tree now. Are you really saying people will only demand orruks because orks will be too different ? That sounds beyond insane. Orruks, are Orcs, Orcs are now Orruks, they won't have any better value because they are in printed boxes calling them orruks. First off most of us are collectors as well as hobbyists as well as players, alot of us like vintage models. Just because they aren't called an orruk on their box doesn't mean people won't use them.

Second, your dead wrong on the name change. You can still find plenty of imperial guard kits and items on ebay, listed with that plus perhaps the astra miliwhatnot name, it takes 5 seconds to do such. People aren't going to just forget what they've been for decades. For me, I'll always still call them Orks, and not Orruks which isn't worth even a pinch of my ur gold.

To clarify, there aren't any orruk fans now, there are ork fans and even those who play the army in the future, I can wager a good amount find the name dumb and for ease of speech will still keep calling them orruks, much like duradins will be dwarfs, with or without their steamheads.

This point of view is beyond crazy and strikes me with the same sense of reason as someone who once tried to tell me any other spray paint but GWs would melt my models, or only their plastic or super glue could be used. Spoiler alert, such facts are bogus. Ork is Orruk, Orruk is Orc.



Oh, please. You already see eBay listings with titles like "BNIB warhammer orcs goblins games workshop gw whfb greenskins" to appear in as many searches as possible. Adding "orruks" to that list will take no time at all. And anyone who's not been literally brain-wiped and indoctrinated will know that an "orruk" is really just an "orc".



Given the price some vintage models go for, I'd guess quite well...

All of this



That's where this is leading. An orruk won't be an Orc. It will look subtly different. I'd have a stab at bigger to start with looking at the scale creep on the Khorne minis.
GW can also report those auctions and have them pulled under VERO. They already did it to auctions selling "Primarchs" from the Kabuki range before Forgeworld released their official versions.

They just can't use the word orruk, if people want cheaper, different models that look and are the same thing, they will seek them out, under the name Ork. This name tom foolery is pointless and does nothing but make the game sound like its made for sugared up 12 year olds, pushing around their steamheads, fighting some smash face orruk rippas, while yelling about who will get the more ur gold with the win.

Herzlos
15-07-2015, 22:22
If I look for "Black Orcs" I'll get the competitor's orc minis. If I look for "Black Orruks" then I'll get GW minis only. That seems to be the object, not to make an IP fortress around AoS but to create a screen around the game and only encourage official minis that match warscrolls and fluff.

Unless the competitor has entered "Orruks" as a search term, or includes the perfectly legal (as confirmed by the CHS case) "compatible with Games Workshops' Orruks".

The only thing the name change does is prevent companies selling things they call "Orruks". See how well that's worked for Sisters Of Battle and Astra Militarum.

Part of the appeal (for me, at least) was that it matched high fantasy (I know what an Orc was before I saw Warhammer) and it was obvious what everything was. Now it's just clouded.

TheFang
15-07-2015, 22:29
Twelve months down the line from the first release of Orruks the only mention of "Orc " on the GW site will be in LotR if they still have the licence. Why else change the names?

Agrimax
15-07-2015, 22:56
Planned obsolescence is the absolute standard in a free-market consumer-driven economy. Virtually every item you purchase in the mass market is designed around this principle. There are car engines and tires that get 1,000,000 miles. A pair of jeans made of hemp will last decades. The same is true of light bulbs and refrigerators, furniture and pots and pans, shoes and camping gear. LCD televisions have heat sensitive capacitors right next to power components so it WILL FAIL earlier. Almost all companies that deal in consumer oriented products use planned obsolescence as the basis of their business.


Yes and no. Increasing MTBF exponentially increases cost for linear gains. Once you reach a certain point unit cost to replace is cheaper. Granted, some companies like to help things along and are on the wrong part of the curve in the first place, but they're precisely the ones to avoid.


Let's face it, 8th ed turned off a large component of the existing market while not having enough appeal to draw in new players. Would further refining into a 9th edition bring back players from pre-8th ed? Probably not. So a re-boot is all they left themselves with. Saying all that, I agree with the OP, GW did the right thing.

The logical thing to do would be to ask the question "What did we change that put people off?" Not just randomly making a new game that for all they know contains many of the flaws of 8th. Or maybe even exaccerbates them. Or even better "Which version of WHFB was most popular, and why. Can we recapture anything of what made that good?"

Something randomly different doesn't seem like a particularly wise strategy.

MiyamatoMusashi
15-07-2015, 23:29
The logical thing to do would be to ask the question "What did we change that put people off?" Not just randomly making a new game that for all they know contains many of the flaws of 8th. Or maybe even exaccerbates them. Or even better "Which version of WHFB was most popular, and why. Can we recapture anything of what made that good?"

Something randomly different doesn't seem like a particularly wise strategy.

Other questions they might ask: what are other companies doing better? Has game design progressed in any way since Warhammer was invented (and has only been tweaked since) 30 years ago? What do people who give up on our games, complain about?

AngryAngel
16-07-2015, 00:51
Twelve months down the line from the first release of Orruks the only mention of "Orc " on the GW site will be in LotR if they still have the licence. Why else change the names?

Yes and point being ? Unless they literally perform free brain surgery on everyone who plays their game, they will still tend to refer to them as Orks and remember them as such, and still not really be calling them Orruks, even if they just call them Orruks. Honestly, I feel like an idiot even calling them these odd pig latin name mishaps. The name change was needless and all it will do is make us sound like nit wits for calling them such and even more nerdy then is needed for random passerbys to over hear.

They are Orks, the end.

Ayin
16-07-2015, 02:30
It's hilarious that the arguments supporting GW's re-branding as a good business decision based on preventing other companies selling miniatures to GW's customers rely on the ideas that "new fans" are somehow going to be worse at using the internet than older fans (won't be able to find other distributors, won't figure out how to search new names, companies won't be able to market Orcs to Orruc players, ect) and that people will be compelled to buy GW mini's to use GW approved formations, when they are already using non-GW minis to play a GW designed GAME which contains those formations and when GW has actively (and sees it's actions in doing so as a success) been downsizing it's stores, play areas and interaction with community gaming and thus removing their influence on what can be used where.

Losing Command
16-07-2015, 04:45
Other questions they might ask: what are other companies doing better?

I bet that, as far as GW is concerned, there are no other companies :rolleyes:

Kingrick
16-07-2015, 04:50
Have you ever worked in business ? Have you ever had a fundamental realisation that a part of your business just does not make money and no longer fits with what you have become ? I am sorry but its a silly analogy and not relevant to what GW are trying to do. I am a senior manager at a business and we are currently looking at doing something very similar to AoS in that a chunk of our Business is not making money, and whilst it might be synonymous to us as a business something has to change - we will be doing a drastic shift and its not without a lot of care and attention.

Like AoS or loath it, the majority have said for a long time WFB has had its time - for GW to do what they have done will have required huge planning and investment make the huge shift necessary. Tip of the ice berg so far and I am adamant it will all make a lot more sense going forwards.

well, whatever you and your company do I hope its a lot smarter than AoS......

Ayin
16-07-2015, 04:54
well, whatever you and your company do I hope its a lot smarter than AoS......

I can't imagine many many companies having decided that they are in a post-growth period as far as customer base goes and basing their decisions on vocally not doing any kind of market research.

Shimmergloom
16-07-2015, 04:54
I don't think GW can even trademark Orruks as a google search shows many games that are several years old have Orruks in them.

Thorn
16-07-2015, 05:11
Well it's been a week and we have played about 4 or 5 games each with High Elves, Daemons and Tomb Kings. So about 14 games in total between 3 of us.

Overall the game flows smoothly with the game turn making sense and it is fairly intuitive. At the skirmish level it is a nice fluffy game that you can push out in about an hour. As it scales up the rules still work but the internal balance shifts weirdly. Stuff dies FAST. I think this streamlining effect is what will make people want to play it as heroes, large infantry blobs and monsters are taken off by the handful and so games continue to be fast paced. The Battleshock Phase is a nice implementation of moral.

Shooting into combat, or even whilst in combat, makes for some strange situations. We found that HE repeater bolt throwers were monsters in close combat thanks to their ability to put out 12 high quality attacks each round, with the 4 wounds on the thrower it could soak enough wounds to hit really hard. This is a good example of where the internal balance has completely changed from WHFB.

The initiative mechanic saw some big swings but overall we liked it and I think it is an important rule, without it seemly impossible close combats can become even as you get to choose which unit attacks first, so last gasp swings are quite common. On the flip side it once again speeds up the game as units can double swing removing their enemies more rapidly. It also encourages flexible thinking as you can not guarantee that you will have the next turn. I've seen this system used before and it encourages a more free flowing style of play. I would expect there will be heroes who can influence this roll released very soon.

The pile in mechanic allows some nice counter charging situations, especially if you are trying to keep your heroes alive. We started to have heroes camp behind large infantry blobs and then counter charge using their pile in move.

The set up mini game becomes important for shooting heavy armies so they can try and get one additional round in of pin the cushion to the ground. Contrariwise a heavily tooled close combat army wants to close early. This is where I think that if you play it straight out of the box the game pushes you to try and set self balancing choices in place. The Sudden Death Table does the same, because the second you have a grab at that table is the second you have a massive advantage in achieving victory. They are just so easy to complete.

So as it stands there are rules which encourage self moderation and internal balance, but is it enough?

Here's my answer:

We adopted the Azyr Comp rule set the moment it dropped: http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Why? Yes the Azyr Comp rules are not perfect, but then neither are the AoS rules. In combination they make a playable game with some depth. It's still fast but more importantly to does three things:

Provides Boundaries - believe it or not most people and gamers like a few boundries, maybe not all the time but when it comes to war-games it does in fact help
Allows you to keep alive heroes - players have an emotional investment in their heroes, as it stands they dies so fast, especially from shooting, that they might as well not even be there. What's heroic about that?
Brings a little reality to the table - shooting into combat hurts your own guys, we've all seen Braveheart.

Overall I think Age of Sigmar is an OK skirmish war-game. Streamlining the rules was important for GW Fantasy to continue in an increasingly crowded market. They literally had nothing to lose. Straight out of the box I think they swung the pendulum too far but as the community has already shown it can come up with a workable solution. 12 year old kids dont care about the nuances of internal balance and this is where GW has set its sights. As those kids play and age a bit and reach out to the community via the internet and gaming clubs they will adopt the community developed rules.

And guess what those kids will use the AoS models and pick up 40k, it is really a win/win situation for GW.

TL;DR: AoS is OK, needs some development by the community, good business plan by GW.

AngryAngel
16-07-2015, 05:34
Couldn't disagree more that putting out a half assed game system is a good business plan. If they are setting their sights further and more deeply on the 12 year old crowd, they will only lose ever more market share as those kids will find instant gratification in the more exciting and still growing video game market. As well, parents will not pay these prices for all of these models let alone for multiple systems. It is a foolish gamble and I think it will yield little positive results in the end, at least not enough to out weigh the negative will they've gained from current fans. Kids are too fickle to keep up a high bottom line and the oldsters are going to feel to sketch about continuing to heavily support a company that can and will so deeply fubar their game and experience.

Just one mans opinion of course.

Tichey
16-07-2015, 05:47
I don't think AoS is as bad as people are making out, however I also think that most people are correct when saying there was a thousand different ways they could of gone other than deleting their old game. Only thing I think they couldn't do was maintain the status quo.

jet_palero
16-07-2015, 06:26
It's hilarious that the arguments supporting GW's re-branding as a good business decision based on preventing other companies selling miniatures to GW's customers rely on the ideas that "new fans" are somehow going to be worse at using the internet than older fans (won't be able to find other distributors, won't figure out how to search new names, companies won't be able to market Orcs to Orruc players, ect) and that people will be compelled to buy GW mini's to use GW approved formations, when they are already using non-GW minis to play a GW designed GAME which contains those formations and when GW has actively (and sees it's actions in doing so as a success) been downsizing it's stores, play areas and interaction with community gaming and thus removing their influence on what can be used where.

Indeed. when GW stopped running tournaments, it was a significant boon for all the other companies. Bcause that was the only real push to use only GW models. Without that, why wouldn't you just use whatever you want for your armies? Its not like the non-gw tournaments really care.

GW doesn't seem to understand that it was their influence on the community that made them successful. By influencing the avenues where people played the game, they were able to monopolize what a lot of people thought of, when they thought of wargaming.

And GW just continues to pour that power down the drain.


I don't think GW can even trademark Orruks as a google search shows many games that are several years old have Orruks in them.

That would just be hilarious.

scruffyryan
16-07-2015, 06:56
AoS isn't as bad as people are making it out, but it will sure be nice to see the 30 feet of wall space dedicated to GW product shrink in favor of Warmahordes at the FLGS.

Buddy Bear
16-07-2015, 07:02
GW product has already been dropped in its entirety from my FLGS, which is 4 miles away. The next nearest store to buy GW product is 30 miles away.

Getifa Ubazza
16-07-2015, 12:08
Hi Shadow_Steed, like you I have been into this GW hobby for a long time. I started when I was around 16 and I'm now 42. I would have started earlier, but the D&D group at my school saw me as not one of them. I was one of those people that was too cool to be a nerd, but to much of a nerd to be cool. I guess I would be considered a geek in our modern culture.

My point I guess is, I agree with you. GW have done what is best for business. Something wasn't working, so they tried 7 times to fix it. This didn't work, so instead they went back to the drawing board. Could they have tried again? Yes. AoS proves that they understood partly what was wrong, but in trying to fix this, they have thrown the baby out with the bath water. That's a shame, but it's done and crying and screaming about it isn't helping anyone.

Rather than do that, I will wait and see. I will buy AoS and try it out. I will watch and see if it becomes something I will enjoy. If the game really is a flop, then I will go over to KoW full time. If not, I will continue to support AoS and KoW and will still play WHFB when I am in a position to do so. This isn't the end of WHFB for me. Much the same as Bloodbowl didn't suddenly disappear when GW stopped supporting that. I still love Bloodbowl and will play that also, whenever I get the chance.

I hope AoS is a success. I hope GW are seeing something I'm missing and that AoS will indeed be awesome.

Bloodknight
16-07-2015, 12:37
Something wasn't working, so they tried 7 times to fix it.

I don't really think that's what happened. Books are income, too. Particularly if you can make your player base buy the same thing over and over again.

HammerofThunor
16-07-2015, 13:21
They're not supposed to make much at all on the books, but that's just internet noise with nothing to back it up (that I've seen). Although now they can do their own printing they may do better from it.

Darnok
16-07-2015, 14:25
TL;DR: AoS is OK, needs some development by the community, good business plan by GW.

Whether it's "good business" has yet to be seen. And a solid view on any numbers related to AoS sales are at least six months out.

And nothing that "needs some development by the community" is a good product in a social hobby like gaming. I think GW appreciates the customers doing the rules writers work, but that's just not how it should be.

Zingraff
16-07-2015, 14:43
While AoS certainly comes across as underdeveloped, it is by no means bad. But compared to what we've come to expect from other companies today, AoS doesn't measure up. AoS would have been pretty good 25 years ago, but not by the standards of today. What I find the most boggling of all, is how much of a wasted opportunity this new system is.

If GW had been willing to draw on the developments in board and miniature games of the past 15 years, if they had actually bothered to make an effort, I'm certain they could have a created a much better system. It's bizarre that they were able to take Warhammer Fantasy and make it worse than it already was.

I sincerely hope that AoS will be an awful failure for GW, and a much needed wakeup call for the GW board of directors.

ChargeAndDie
16-07-2015, 14:49
I echo what has been said earlier. Games don't seem to scale up well. I played a 100 wound game vs ogres yesterday and it just felt.. Weird. Tactically it's lacking from 8th ed but its a totally different game so that's to be expected.. Single heroes absolutely get raped by troops.. Movement is fluid, and perhaps too fluid..

Sent from my HUAWEI MT7-L09 using Tapatalk

EagleWarrior
16-07-2015, 15:40
I point out that a game being good by veteran standards and being a financial success are not the same thing. Epic was an awesome game that was greatly loved by oldies (myself included) but wasn't selling enough to everybody else. LotR, on the other hand, is a boring replay of the films with no space for player creativity and at least in my experience has been mostly ignored by serious gamers, but seems to have made enough money to stick around as a core game for more than a decade.

I've been playing for getting on twenty years and have to accept that what I find awesome isn't necessarily what is financially successful.

Shandor
16-07-2015, 17:46
I point out that a game being good by veteran standards and being a financial success are not the same thing. Epic was an awesome game that was greatly loved by oldies (myself included) but wasn't selling enough to everybody else. LotR, on the other hand, is a boring replay of the films with no space for player creativity and at least in my experience has been mostly ignored by serious gamers, but seems to have made enough money to stick around as a core game for more than a decade.

I've been playing for getting on twenty years and have to accept that what I find awesome isn't necessarily what is financially successful.

They had a crontract for LotR. They had to go all the way to the end. But like WHF there was no real support in this Game. Ive never seen one single LotR Game in all 3 GW stores or Hobby club or other Shops like Battlefield in 4 Years.
The only Games of LotR ive seen was the ones i had to do so i can make some Test games with Costumers if i get asked ..but that never happend.

AngryAngel
16-07-2015, 18:35
I echo what has been said earlier. Games don't seem to scale up well. I played a 100 wound game vs ogres yesterday and it just felt.. Weird. Tactically it's lacking from 8th ed but its a totally different game so that's to be expected.. Single heroes absolutely get raped by troops.. Movement is fluid, and perhaps too fluid..

Sent from my HUAWEI MT7-L09 using Tapatalk

Which is the issue, I think with just the skirmish level a couple dozen units on the board, the game can work fine. Large battles ? Not so much. Unless they really tack on a whole body to these rules, all they've really done is make the game an even more simplistic 40k. I guess AoS is the beginner level, then you move up to 40k to play the space marines, once you graduate from the sigmarines.

HelloKitty
16-07-2015, 18:57
Well it's been a week and we have played about 4 or 5 games each with High Elves, Daemons and Tomb Kings. So about 14 games in total between 3 of us.

Overall the game flows smoothly with the game turn making sense and it is fairly intuitive. At the skirmish level it is a nice fluffy game that you can push out in about an hour. As it scales up the rules still work but the internal balance shifts weirdly. Stuff dies FAST. I think this streamlining effect is what will make people want to play it as heroes, large infantry blobs and monsters are taken off by the handful and so games continue to be fast paced. The Battleshock Phase is a nice implementation of moral.

Shooting into combat, or even whilst in combat, makes for some strange situations. We found that HE repeater bolt throwers were monsters in close combat thanks to their ability to put out 12 high quality attacks each round, with the 4 wounds on the thrower it could soak enough wounds to hit really hard. This is a good example of where the internal balance has completely changed from WHFB.

The initiative mechanic saw some big swings but overall we liked it and I think it is an important rule, without it seemly impossible close combats can become even as you get to choose which unit attacks first, so last gasp swings are quite common. On the flip side it once again speeds up the game as units can double swing removing their enemies more rapidly. It also encourages flexible thinking as you can not guarantee that you will have the next turn. I've seen this system used before and it encourages a more free flowing style of play. I would expect there will be heroes who can influence this roll released very soon.

The pile in mechanic allows some nice counter charging situations, especially if you are trying to keep your heroes alive. We started to have heroes camp behind large infantry blobs and then counter charge using their pile in move.

The set up mini game becomes important for shooting heavy armies so they can try and get one additional round in of pin the cushion to the ground. Contrariwise a heavily tooled close combat army wants to close early. This is where I think that if you play it straight out of the box the game pushes you to try and set self balancing choices in place. The Sudden Death Table does the same, because the second you have a grab at that table is the second you have a massive advantage in achieving victory. They are just so easy to complete.

So as it stands there are rules which encourage self moderation and internal balance, but is it enough?

Here's my answer:

We adopted the Azyr Comp rule set the moment it dropped: http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Why? Yes the Azyr Comp rules are not perfect, but then neither are the AoS rules. In combination they make a playable game with some depth. It's still fast but more importantly to does three things:


Provides Boundaries - believe it or not most people and gamers like a few boundries, maybe not all the time but when it comes to war-games it does in fact help
Allows you to keep alive heroes - players have an emotional investment in their heroes, as it stands they dies so fast, especially from shooting, that they might as well not even be there. What's heroic about that?
Brings a little reality to the table - shooting into combat hurts your own guys, we've all seen Braveheart.


Overall I think Age of Sigmar is an OK skirmish war-game. Streamlining the rules was important for GW Fantasy to continue in an increasingly crowded market. They literally had nothing to lose. Straight out of the box I think they swung the pendulum too far but as the community has already shown it can come up with a workable solution. 12 year old kids dont care about the nuances of internal balance and this is where GW has set its sights. As those kids play and age a bit and reach out to the community via the internet and gaming clubs they will adopt the community developed rules.

And guess what those kids will use the AoS models and pick up 40k, it is really a win/win situation for GW.

TL;DR: AoS is OK, needs some development by the community, good business plan by GW.

Thorn - be sure and follow the rules dev thread on the Azyr Comp system. It is still in beta and we would love your input and feedback. In fact there will be a playtest page added to that document to highlight what we would like from playtesting to reveal.

Appreciate it!

Dosiere
16-07-2015, 19:51
I think trying to make AoS something it's not isn't worth the effort. If you want big ranked up battles why wouldn't you just use Kings of war rules or keep playing 8th edition? Age of sigmar is great at things WFB never was, which is small, scenario/narrative driven games or completely casual pitched battles where there is little desire to have a truly balanced system. It's an excuse to use your miniatures in a game that doesn't take as long nor as complicated as these other systems, which is what people want sometimes.

Again, why not just use one of the existing systems for large battles rather than add pages and pages of rules and comp to a system not designed for it?

AngryAngel
16-07-2015, 20:11
Why admit a games short comings ? If you have the community remake the game pretty much from the ground up, then people can claim AoS was amazing and GW did a perfect job. SSDD really.

HelloKitty
16-07-2015, 20:15
Again, why not just use one of the existing systems for large battles rather than add pages and pages of rules and comp to a system not designed for it?

* 8th edition will be all but dead in a few months. Gamers tend to loathe dead systems overall. There will always be people using 8th but it will be very hard to find a game. Thats why 8th edition is not something I can truly consider anymore save for some isolated games in my garage.

* Kings of War is very bland and does not engage me. This is shared by many in my community so goes to bullet point one. No players means no games. I've tried cheerleading kings of war before with the same result.

That leaves me with Age of Sigmar, which after comping is actually a lot of fun and the community seems to like it and we have games still.

However none of us will be claiming Age of Sigmar out of the box is amazing or that GW did a perfect job. We do however get to continue using our models in a way that engages us and others are doing the same.

I do not hold companies or game designers as my sole provider of entertainment. If there is nothing out there, I make it myself. After all a game designer is simply another man making rules like I am. The difference is that I have financial obligations so cannot live off of a game designers often slim salary. If others like what I do and play - all the better. If not - oh well.

Modding a game and playing it "not how it was designed" has never been a concern of mine.

Scribe of Khorne
16-07-2015, 20:21
Good luck my friend, I hope you are successful beyond your wildest dreams and can bring something to unify gamers so that SOMETHING exists nearly out of the box that is workable.

HelloKitty
16-07-2015, 20:23
Good luck my friend, I hope you are successful beyond your wildest dreams and can bring something to unify gamers so that SOMETHING exists nearly out of the box that is workable.

thank you sir. So far so good. We have a good little system in place and a decent positive buzz. I will say designing and writing game software is a little bit easier though!

Dosiere
16-07-2015, 20:29
Understood and I'm not saying house rules aren't a worthy thing. What I am confused about is why make a skirmish game into a strategy game? Why not just make a strategy game in the first place? Why even use AoS as a base at all? It sounds like you could rewrite the rules from scratch to be better suited for larger battles and fair play, so why not just do that rather than trying to comp a system like AoS to this extent?

HelloKitty
16-07-2015, 20:46
Understood and I'm not saying house rules aren't a worthy thing. What I am confused about is why make a skirmish game into a strategy game? Why not just make a strategy game in the first place? Why even use AoS as a base at all? It sounds like you could rewrite the rules from scratch to be better suited for larger battles and fair play, so why not just do that rather than trying to comp a system like AoS to this extent?

Because we have a large community that wants to participate in warhammer. I could (and have) written my own game, but getting people to use a game that is not published by a company is a very exhausting and low achieving endeavor.

Dosiere
16-07-2015, 21:19
For your groups sake and any other groups that benefit from your work then I also wish you the best. You are certainly putting an incredible amount of effort into making it work for you and your friends.

My own local store is currently struggling with how to play this game, and it's causing some issues. The real issue is that there are two primary groups: those that want it to be a simple skirmish game and those that want to use the system to recreate WFB type battles. Everyone agrees it's practically unplayable as is either way, but it's upsetting to me to see all this trouble in the first place. Hopefully it all settles down soon so we can just play wargames without all this work and fuss.

Bloodknight
16-07-2015, 23:12
LotR, on the other hand, is a boring replay of the films with no space for player creativity and at least in my experience has been mostly ignored by serious gamers,

The sad part is that they wasted their most elegant system on something that probably was supposed to last from LOTR1 to Hobbit3 tops. I mean, seriously. It's a good game, a good system, just set in the wrong world. They should have ported that to WHFB if they absolutely had to turn it into a skirmisher, instead of badly trying to copy Warmachine's CCG-with-minis style of play without copying the reason why most people play WM/H in the first place: it's a competitive system with nearly watertight rules (and no, I'm not a fan of WM/H. I don't like the playstyle, I don't like the artistic style and I have no idea what's going in the Iron Kingdoms, or even on what planet those are on. I can, however, recognize a well written rules system even if I don't want to play it).

Ayin
16-07-2015, 23:22
My own local store is currently struggling with how to play this game, and it's causing some issues. The real issue is that there are two primary groups: those that want it to be a simple skirmish game and those that want to use the system to recreate WFB type battles. Everyone agrees it's practically unplayable as is either way, but it's upsetting to me to see all this trouble in the first place. Hopefully it all settles down soon so we can just play wargames without all this work and fuss.

My local GW put up an optional fan-comp for people who wanted to come prepped for more competitive/prepared games and then did a hilarious (smacked by corporate) turn around of 'everything's fine, system plays perfect! No need for change!' a day or two later.

I posted that comp package onto my local Warhammer Facebook group and tried to start a discussion on it's merits vs other fan comps (including one being used in a tournament they are promoting) and got hit with a huge wave of 'you hate this game and this is stupid and you're a liar!' and (after saying I'd take the thread down if no one wanted to discuss the topic) got booted and blocked from the group.


There is some real 'there's only one way to play!' and 'if you're not with us you're against us!' out there, and it's not coming from the moderates, or even the 'haters'. i don't even know what to say.

ewar
16-07-2015, 23:24
@Hello Kitty

I always hear how great your warhammer community is, so I find it a bit baffling why a group of players who obviously play and like one game (8th ed) would suddenly drop it, spend lots of time and effort trying to make a new (completely different and totally unrecognisable game) work for them. Surely, it's less effort to get people to continue playing what they already were!?!

My gaming group went through the following process:
- look at new AoS rules
- look at miniature cabinets jammed with thousands of points of square based models for a rank and file
- look at shelves heaving with books, rules, expansions etc

Decide to carry on playing 8th, hey presto! community continues.

PS as for me personally, I'm going to carry on building 8th armies through ebay I think. If AoS had been something even vaguely similar to warhammer I would have jumped on the new shiny, but as it is, it's just not a game I want to play. I will, occasionally, as a mate of mine is a very casual gamer and it appeals to him but otherwise I'll make the sad transition to Oldhammerer.

Anyone else feel like Bilbo boarding the boat to the West?

HelloKitty
16-07-2015, 23:41
@Hello Kitty

I always hear how great your warhammer community is, so I find it a bit baffling why a group of players who obviously play and like one game (8th ed) would suddenly drop it, spend lots of time and effort trying to make a new (completely different and totally unrecognisable game) work for them. Surely, it's less effort to get people to continue playing what they already were!?!

My gaming group went through the following process:
- look at new AoS rules
- look at miniature cabinets jammed with thousands of points of square based models for a rank and file
- look at shelves heaving with books, rules, expansions etc

Decide to carry on playing 8th, hey presto! community continues.

PS as for me personally, I'm going to carry on building 8th armies through ebay I think. If AoS had been something even vaguely similar to warhammer I would have jumped on the new shiny, but as it is, it's just not a game I want to play. I will, occasionally, as a mate of mine is a very casual gamer and it appeals to him but otherwise I'll make the sad transition to Oldhammerer.

Anyone else feel like Bilbo boarding the boat to the West?

Because no matter how great my community is (and it is great), were still gamers and gamers shun dead games for the most part.

If i didnt care about public events and was just going to play out of my garage with the same three guys we would just stick to 8th but history shows in six months to a year 8th will be hard to find players.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jet_palero
17-07-2015, 01:04
My local GW put up an optional fan-comp for people who wanted to come prepped for more competitive/prepared games and then did a hilarious (smacked by corporate) turn around of 'everything's fine, system plays perfect! No need for change!' a day or two later.

I posted that comp package onto my local Warhammer Facebook group and tried to start a discussion on it's merits vs other fan comps (including one being used in a tournament they are promoting) and got hit with a huge wave of 'you hate this game and this is stupid and you're a liar!' and (after saying I'd take the thread down if no one wanted to discuss the topic) got booted and blocked from the group.


There is some real 'there's only one way to play!' and 'if you're not with us you're against us!' out there, and it's not coming from the moderates, or even the 'haters'. i don't even know what to say.

People get huge amounts of cognitive dissonance just normally, add in a few thousand dollars of investment and it gets to the point of hilarity.