PDA

View Full Version : How do you feel about AoS in context with 40K?



Darnok
10-07-2015, 20:51
Let me start with the most important bit: this thread is not about your feelings for AoS as a replacement of WHF.

It is about your thoughts and feelings after your initial impressions of AoS, and how they relate to you as a collector and player of 40K. Not only a simple "wee, they could do the same stunt on 40K soon..." - I guess there is more to it, and I'd like to read about it.

Well, how about me? I'm undecided, but slighty worried. I think AoS is GWs idea of "turning things around" for their fantasy side of things - so I see no immediate danger for 40K, as that part is going well for GW. But on the other hand, GW seems to truly believe in AoS being their new holy grail (see that golden Sigmarine in front of their HQ, instead of the Space Marine previously), and that worries me. I really hope 40K will be spared from the ridiculous travesty that is AoS, but if AoS is bringing even some kind of money, I fear that GW execs will spin it into "see, we told you it works!" - and apply it to 40K.

Am I overly paranoid? What is your opinion on this?

TheFang
10-07-2015, 21:08
That's more or less my concern. GW have treated fantasy players with utter contempt. I think if they were open and honest and said, even in broad terms, what the plan was I'd have been more accepting of the change. If they'd done AoS as a specialist style skirmish game then fine.

The AoS is a travesty of games design. I have no idea how anyone over the age of about 12 can play it as anything other than a quick beer and pretzels game. What worries me is that if this actually makes a decent profit then some genius suit at GW will do the same to 40k or the Horus Heresy. That will finish me with GW. As it is I'm being very discerning over what I buy from GW and am invested in Batman and taking a look at Terminator and AVP.

Navar
10-07-2015, 21:17
I know that I am in the minority of opinions here on Warseer, but, personally, I really like AoS.

To be fair fantasy has been dead in my area of the United States for as long as I have been paying attention to Warhammer, but I really like the accessibility of AoS.

Also I am a father of 2, and I think that we, as a family, can have a lot of fun with a game like AoS where something like WFB would have been beyond them for several years.

I also think that I could buy 3-4 AoS forces and play with my friends a LOT easier (4 pages of rules) than I could have bought 2 fantasy armies and had any of my pathfinder playing friends over for a game.

I am not concerned about what it means for Warhammer 40,000 because as long as Warhammer 40,000 remains profitable then I think it will still be around, and, for quite some time now, I have believed that the Forge World Horus Heresy stuff is the "True Warhammer 40,000" stuff anyway. I cannot imagine the Forge World crew being comfortable with changing the Horus Heresy content any time soon, and I think that it appeals to a totally different demographic anyway (and again is very profitable.)

I really like Games Workshop, so anything that generates revenue for them as a company is likely good for me as a consumer in the long run.

I realize that I would have a totally different perspective if I was a dedicated WFB player without a family though.

The Black Shield
10-07-2015, 21:44
I have to agree with Navar.

Hoffa
10-07-2015, 22:04
I have always thought that models not games and collectors not gamers just were some PR ******** that GW used when communicating with investors. However AoS shows that GW are serious about being a model company not a game company. They really do not want to design games, the games are just an extra tacked on to the models. I think AoS also shows that GW really thinks that their customers are collectors first and gamers second i.e that the game is not the primary reason people buy their models.

I think this bodes ill for 40k and all future games GW might produce. They really do not think the quality of the rules is important.

(I think it goes so far that they think of game design as a cost to be minimized and not something that brings in revenue).

InstantKarma
10-07-2015, 22:38
I was a WHFB stalker; the entry cost was always just a little too high for me to do that AND 40k at the same time, and being a sci-fi person at heart, it meant my money went to 40k. I always kept up on the fluff, rules, heck I have 7 8th Ed Armybooks that I'm nervous about parting with because I feel like they are holy relics of a bygone age now.

I can also feel the aprehension about AoS rolling over into 40k, but then again, I'm not so certain 40k hasn't already made that leap, at least partially. I picked up the new Dark Angels codex to finally start on all the Dark Vegeance DAs I own and it's the first 7th Ed codex I purchased and it certainly didn't look like any prior codex I've owned. Datahseets vs. Warscrolls anyone? Seemed too similar to be a coincidence to me other than the Datasheets have a points cost.

That being said, I agree with Navar that with AoS bringing a lower entry cost to being able to start playing right away and being a parent and having to watch the wallet, it makes AoS something that I might finally be able to get into Fantasy and do 40k at the same time. Perhaps that was something GW has wanted for awhile. Perhaps I am part of that 'new' customer that always was in their store, but never really buying their fantasy minis, until now.

itcamefromthedeep
10-07-2015, 22:46
The direction it went is obviously super-casual. No concessions at all to the game as a game, where the players have an interest in winning. They seem to think that points values were part of the problem. You can see that trend with the pointsless formations and "free" upgrade formation benefits. I think we can expect to see more hostility toward the idea that playing one army list against another should be a fair (or even fair-ish) fight.

When GW writes games, many of their problems come from things like unit types and combined units (adding character models to units), along with a lack of keywords. This game demonstrates that they now have some idea about how keywords work, but they've taken the worst of both worlds in terms of characters. When you have characters in units, you want a situation where they can't just immediately get shot and die, but you also don't necessarily want them to be the last model in the unit to die. Age of Sigmar has characters that will immediately get shot and die from ranged weapons and artillery, along with champions that will always be the last to be killed if you want it that way. Simply giving up on characters in units is disturbing. They've had such problems writing tight unit rules in 40k that I think they *may* give up on the Independent Character rules as we know them for the next edition (and not see how that could end poorly). The AoS rules aren't that much more simple than the 8e ones, as most of the save space comes from moving rules from the rulebook into the unit entries (warmachines, weapon rules, spells, magic items, unit types, terrain, universal special rules), where the most of the remaining space savings comes from removing the rules for handling blocks of troops.

One of the reasons I got into Warhammer was the blocks of troops. You could put 20 models on the table, 5 wide by 4 deep, and it would -feel- like a hundred, and that was cool. Removing that assures me that they have no idea what the place of Warhammer Fantasy was in the industry (no surprise). This makes me think that they also have no idea why people actually play 40k, so they'll keep shooting in the dark randomly and not learning from what happens. On the other hand, they've figured out that big minis should degrade in effectiveness as they lose Wounds (they've added states between "fine" and "dead") and that suggests 40k may eventually include minis that lose capabilities as they lose Wounds or Hull Points. AoS is also a game where every mini can meaningfully interact with any other (Nagash isn't outright immune to a Gnoblar's attacks) and that bodes well for the future of 40k light infantry. We may see a day where a Guardsman with lasgun and frag grenade can roll dice to hurt a Land Raider, and I think that would be healthy for the game.

AoS is short on spells that can hurt or debuff an entire unit. Part of the reason I got into Warhammer was the image of Teclis roasting huge blocks of troops with some amazing spell, and that kind of spell is gone. D3 wounds just doesn't do it for me. It's not even that they debuffed magic - Summoning and Arcane Shield can be really powerful things. They just don't seem to understand what drew me in about magic in Warhammer. Similarly, I expect that GW is going to move psychic powers in 40k away from the feel that they used to have and more toward magic-like abilities used by superheroes.

I think we can expect more portmanteau in 40k's future. Celestihammer Thunderdudes with Whipcrack Warpflails and Ignominus Eyelaser Scattersignal Projectors. I once heard Ed Greenwood talk about what is going on with the proliferation of these kinds of names in the fantasy games market. The gist of it is that these kinds of names are there so that children can clearly identify the thing they want to buy, to their parents, on a Christmas list. It's not really necessary or helpful to have on the upgrades, just the title on the box or card. It also doesn't really work if the names are similar to each other, because the idea is to prevent people from getting the names confused. GW seems to be aping the trend without understanding it, and that's... par for the course, really.

Fantasy's background was characterized by a kind of grounded fantasy. It had lots of low-fantasy and high-fantasy elements coexisting comfortably, where magic was something mysterious and dangerous. AoS has taken a turn toward pervasive magic where nobody gets anywhere without copious use of safe magic. Everything has that Starcraft/Warcraft/League of Legends *glow* to it that works well in the contexts of computer games. Fantasy used to be a place where people farmed and got dirty making stuff to use in their mundane lives, though they saw magic from a distance (and usually hoped it didn't look their way). It was a place where peasants lived and died in relatively normal ways. Not so any more. Imagery like this: http://www.cadik.info/warhammer/bretonnia/image/Artwork/wall/bret_wall_1_1280.jpg is going, or gone. We've seen moves away from descriptions of the world of the Imperium in 40k, so it's reasonable to expect the trend to continue where models that aren't combatants in a battle don't get mentioned (because they're not minis being sold). I'd expect exclusive focus on the models that are on the shelves and how they dramatically defeated some foe by using the special rule in their unit entry, at the expense of stories about how the people of the Imperium struggle against an inhospitable and patently unfair universe. 40k used to be a place that told jokes at the expense of the traditional good guy / bad guy dynamic, and we can expect that to disappear in favor of more comic book shenanigans like what we saw in The End Times.

The background seems to think that the selling point of 40k is in the superhero-style power fantasy you get from comic books. Sigmarines just straight-up copy the Space Marining process, so GW must think that's an important part of the reason Space Marines sell well. I think we can expect 40k to look more like a comic book power fantasy, because it looks like the company believes that's what sells. Personally I'm not entirely sure why Marines sell so well relative ot other parts of the line (I feel like interchangeable parts and kits across the various Marine factions is no small factor).

---

I suspect we won't have to wait long to see how the experiment will turn out. It's hard for a game so actively hostile to semi-casual play to take market share away from competing tabletop strategy games. It's not small enough to compete with Malifaux or Infinity. The models aren't tactically deep enough to compete with Malifaux or Infinity. Collectors probably won't pick up the core box unless they want all the minis in it (God knows it's unlikely that there's a significant discount compared to buying the units separately). People only ever seem to buy the GW core boxes for the rules in my experience, and this box isn't necessary for that. If you like the customization of GW kits then it looks like you're out of luck here: these minis look to be monopose and in Age of Sigmar the stats are connected to what the mini is using (axe/sword/dagger) so it seems to be hostile to conversions (!!!). I've considered buying Sigmarines for use as Blood Angels, but having seen the minis closer up I'm not interested any more (too hard to get any good conversions going). If you like the customization of X-wing stats (where each base mini has a variety of different special rules and points values to choose from such that hopefully at least one of them will entice you) then Age of Sigmar is not your game, because each mini can have exactly one stat line with no upgrades at all: take it or leave it. It all strikes me as a recipe for disastrous sales. Unless you're a big fan of collecting these particular minis and putting them on the shelf I have trouble seeing why someone would be interested in the product.

Five years ago it would be unbelievable that GW would think that their customers' favorite part of the hobby experience is purchasing the product. Now I think the evidence is in front of us.

mightymconeshot
10-07-2015, 22:50
This was already discussed partly in the Slannesh thread concerning Slannesh. But it really worries me at the moment all the end times hints being dropped. Well they were there before, they are getting new attention and more of them are being generated. Also the harlequin lays out several scenarios that I could see being used as part of a 40k end time. The fallen sorcerer seeks the black library could very easily be used to give Ahriman and the Thousand Sons some attention as they invade planet XYZ to get access to a web gateway. Features Eldar/DE/Harlequins vs a chaos invasion. A king stirs in his court of death and silence could very easily be either a necron invasion by some super overlord or the big E himself rising to push back something. The last hint is a Black Crusade level attack being launched at the Imperium. Throw in Gazghul and a Fourth Armageddon invasion and then Ultras Tau could be overwhelmed by the full Nid swarm.

So the way it looks to me is that 40k end times is coming and rather quickly. As for how that relates to AoS depends on its success in the next two year. If it completely bombs, I mean terrible to the point of mentioning could get metal dreads thrown at store windows with cries of outrage, than maybe just maybe GW will do some analysis and make up a new game system for the reboot of 40k. If it has moderate failure as in it pretty much ends up where fantasy was when they scrapped it, I could see them importing into 40k with maybe minor changes. If it takes off and ushers in a second golden age of such magnificent magnitude of success that we all must bow down to Kirby and the new CEO for their power to carry this vision out, I suspect to see it rather quickly in an identical form. Joke army lists with a slow increase of serious in the new items.

This is all assuming the finicial reports continue to show the same trends. So at the moment I am extremely worried. I see a 40k end times on the horizon. Some reliable rumor person has already said that drastic changes similar to end times are on the way. If I knew who I would create them but I can't remember. A change is coming. GW as usual has locked up their golden vision behind their golden statue so what it is and what it means for me as a gamer I don't know and the worries the crap out of me. Already this year I have dropped 2 of my armies and shelved them do to either terrible codexs, DE, or the two year release cycle, Space Marines. I only have Space Wolves because I assumed and hoped that this would 4 year cycle but sadly it isn't looking to be. If they drop a new edition within 2 years I will probably be done with the game as a whole as money to value is getting to be terrible for me. So therather long answer is worried at the future and silently hoping but grimly expecting 40k as we know it to be gone in 2-4 years.

lordbeefy
11-07-2015, 00:39
Look at the massive sales of the white dwarf and the models in store. This has been a huge success so far. I am utterly convinced that if this continues till the end of the financial year, 2016 will see the advancement if 40k.

Scribe of Khorne
11-07-2015, 00:52
Let me start with the most important bit: this thread is not about your feelings for AoS as a replacement of WHF.

It is about your thoughts and feelings after your initial impressions of AoS, and how they relate to you as a collector and player of 40K. Not only a simple "wee, they could do the same stunt on 40K soon..." - I guess there is more to it, and I'd like to read about it.

Well, how about me? I'm undecided, but slighty worried. I think AoS is GWs idea of "turning things around" for their fantasy side of things - so I see no immediate danger for 40K, as that part is going well for GW. But on the other hand, GW seems to truly believe in AoS being their new holy grail (see that golden Sigmarine in front of their HQ, instead of the Space Marine previously), and that worries me. I really hope 40K will be spared from the ridiculous travesty that is AoS, but if AoS is bringing even some kind of money, I fear that GW execs will spin it into "see, we told you it works!" - and apply it to 40K.

Am I overly paranoid? What is your opinion on this?

I am afraid.

I'm afraid that there are enough people out there who just want to throw dice around, dont care what happens, dont care if they have any real say in the game (Random is Fun!) and dont have an (unhealthy) investment in the fluff, the rules, the factions, and the deep history of the setting.

I'm afraid of the people who read the article on BoLS that think having no points is better, because if you have issues with balance with points, the answer is to just throw out balance completely.

I'm afraid of people who want to just run scenarios, design their own scenario's with frozen unit lists, and think thats enough depth to last for another 15 years.

I'm afraid of people who think CSM 3.5 was 'too hard to write lists for'.

I'm afraid of a company disavowing the rules side of the hobby completely, completely denying that PLAYING THE GAME drives sales.

I'm afraid of how horribly they could render the game experience for a setting I have spent 16 years, and thousands of dollars (lol probably well over 10K...) on over those 16 years.

I'm afraid that GW will ruin 40K, because they certainly did it to Fantasy.

I'm afraid of the people who think competition is this evil thing that has lead to the decline of the game, when the most finacially successful years where when 'ardboyz was being ran, and the GAME was in ascendance.

Good rules does not mean people cannot have fun. Good rules does not mean casuals, fluff types, or scenario loving players have no where to go. Good, restrictive rules, improve the game for everyone.

I'm afraid, because GW continues to go the wrong way for competitive gaming, and they are ignorant enough, to think that is the right choice.

Smooth Boy
11-07-2015, 03:24
AoS actually really shook my confidence in GW. I don't know why but after 30 years I just thought the lore would never change and Warhammer would always be Warhammer. Even though I know it's unlikely to happen to 40K I now know it is on the table as an option and it just makes me feel a bit more nervous. I think that's why they changed the statue in Nottingham, to inspire some confidence in people that this will be around for another 30 years but I honestly can't see that happening. It all just reminds me of War of the Ring which I hope AoS follows into obscurity.

Scribe of Khorne
11-07-2015, 03:28
Thats the thing. They went so completely all in. To do that when they admit to not do market research? Thats a frightening level of arrogance and conceit.

MajorWesJanson
11-07-2015, 04:48
I'm not all that worried about 40K getting an AoS style fluff and rules revamp right now. Before, both game systems were more similar, and sort of competed with one another for the same style of gamers. Now AoS is a smaller, faster paced seeming game, easier to scale and to get into. 40K is now the larger scale "more mature" game. As long as 40K sales are somewhat stable, even if AoS does spectacularly, I don't see GW doin a 40K reboot. AoS is propped up by a mature and stable 40K system and range. Unless 40K suddenly tanks, I think GW would wait at least a few years until potentially AoS is capable of keeping the company afloat if a 40K reboot flops.

insectum7
11-07-2015, 05:52
Thats the thing. They went so completely all in.

That's definitely the part that has me feeling the most uncomfortable about it. The idea that GW would just dump 30 years worth of flagship product and simply replace it with another product it worrisome. The part that might be most irksome is that this came after a period of releasing a huge amount of new stuff for the Fantasy system.

On a cooperate level, it makes some sense. . . but at the same time it doesn't feel responsible.

Inquisitor Shego
11-07-2015, 05:57
For me, Age of Sigmar reminded me of the movie The Plague Dogs, where scientists, almost akin to Cthulu Elder Gods, test on innocent animals who are oblivious to the motives of why humanity could be so heartless. One dog is locked in a tank that is filled with water, causing the dog to drown after it tires from swimming. They save the dog and resuscitate it, only to drown it again and again every night. Needless to say, the traumatised animal is terrified.

Now I sit there, a wet and terrified dog, trying to make rhyme or reason of the Age of Sigmar, and how it has exploded onto the scene with rules so flimsy they look like the Episode One script Lucas first drafted onto a toilet wall. I think what horrifies me more is they unleashed Age of Sigmar to fix fantasy, when Fantasy didn't need fixing. They could have built Age of Sigmar alongside it, to replace Lord of the Rings perhaps, and have it as a gateway drug into Fantasy. Alternatively, they could have lowered the prices, because fantasy is now obscenely damaging to the wallet.

When End Times first hit, there was excitement at a change of direction, until the code was cracked that the characters being killed off were old casts or finecast. At this point, those players like myself, in it for the narrative, realised this storyline was being steered by a team of lawyers hurling abuse at a Polish factory worker in krakow for making Farseers on Jetbikes, and Mycetic Spores. Apparently GW needed longer than 15 years to make one. So as one by one those warhammer legends of old died off, and armies like the Lizardmen and Dwarves got pooped on, we knew this was not a rewarding direction, but a clean up operation. Trust has been broken, and more bridges burned than a stressed arsonist attempting the konigsberg bridge puzzle.

In its wake stands Sigmachines, a game so direction-less and unneeded, yet so expensive to partake in, Heroin and Russian escorts called Svetlana Golddigova seem more appealing as hobbies. As GW shows this off, I now empathise with jack's mother, when she first saw her son return home, minus a cow but plus 3 magic beans. She sighs, looks at her son, and says "this is why your father was pro-abortion."

All vitriol and acid aside, I don't think 40K is in danger yet. If it is, its biggest fear is GW itself. My larger concern is if AOS so utterly fails and kills off fantasy entirely, GW will hike the prices on 40K to cover it. If this occurs, Dreadfleet and Hobbit Limited Edition starter sets shall rise from the ground, sing the song that destroys the earth, and merge into one colossal, unmarketable product that reinacts the final scenes of Urotsukidoji (don't google that). At this time, Adrian Wood's hair squig will crawl out from under an old issue of White Dwarf (probably 190 with the free Necromunda Orlock) and get Jervis Johnson pregnant after plying him with liquor. Their child, a hairy baby with a love for Orks and Themes, shall be the Holy Spirit of the Game, and rise up to slay the unstoppable "Elder God of Age of Dreadfleet-mar With Free Radaghast the Brown" and bring about all that's good with GW again after a 12 year bloody conflict. The only casulties of the war are those made of finecast.

Dkoz
11-07-2015, 06:07
I haven't played or even seen a game of AoS played and certainly hope that 40K doesn't go the same way from what I've read on GW's website but I understand GW needed to do something big to try and reinvigorate fantasy.

Ssilmath
11-07-2015, 06:20
Damn Shego, I hope you never change. I may rarely agree with you, but it's always entertaining and damn near impossible to refute...

As for me, I'm really not too worried. 40k is still going strong, and it's always been sitting right at the end times. Hell, people on here have been calling for the timeline to advance for a while. It will be painfully amusing to watch them writhe in anger when their requests are answered. If the system changes (Which I don't expect either, overall it is solid with some spots that need smoothing still), then I'm not too worried either. AoS doesn't seem too bad to me (as I hear the gasps of surprise from the audience), and I don't think they are done with it. I'm withholding judgement on it till they've got their whole system in place and I have had a few games.

Losing Command
11-07-2015, 07:23
GW might not be done with it, but by the sounds of it a whole lot of wargamers most certainly are with GW (sorry couldn't resist :p)

I must admit to hoping AoS isn't too succesfull so GW doesn't get any weird ideas in the line of "hey, maybe this will fix 40k too !" as the AoS rules are, well, barely rules.
In my area it doesn't seem to gather much popularity though, in the FLGS nobody stayed untill midnight to pick up the game and the post on the local GW store's page with "Starting to get crowded !" above a photo of 6 people in the store also didn't give the impression of a large rise in interest (with the release of 6th edition 40k there were so many people there almost half of them had to wait outside the store)

heavyheart
11-07-2015, 12:44
I'm scared honestly if AoS proves popular I think they'll do it to 40k too.

Yeah your not paying for codexes anymore but 20 sigmarines is over a hundred pounds what's to say they won't do the same with space marines, twenty five pounds is already too expensive for what you get now did never pay sixty for ten guys.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

If 40k players don't rally and actively discourage people from playing AoS we have no one to blame but our selves when they kill our game too.

Haravikk
11-07-2015, 13:07
Firstly I don't think there's much danger of an End Times style reboot of 40k; while it'd be nice to see campaigns changing things a bit, nothing as drastic is needed IMO.

In terms of the rules; 3rd edition basically started a trend of trying to simplify 40k, and AoS seems pretty much as far as you can go in that direction, so it might make sense. The problem with AoS is that with so few core rules, it's crucial that the per-army rules are created with a very coherent plan, otherwise armies will have wildly varying rules. The war scrolls collection for AoS are actually pretty good, but we've yet to see how that's going to work going forwards as armies get updated. For example, with the way that hitting and wounding work in AoS, the roll to hit and roll to wound are effectively interchangeable (3+ to hit and 4+ to wound is the same as 4+ to hit and 3+ to wound), which means that it's going to be important that armies have things like to-Hit and to-Wound penalties in ways that make sense.

But yeah, assuming GW does a reasonable job of making the AoS rules work, then I can see them doing well in 40k too.


20 sigmarines is over a hundred pounds what's to say they won't do the same with space marines, twenty five pounds is already too expensive for what you get now did never pay sixty for ten guys.
Stormcast Eternals are quite a bit bigger than Space Marines, actually slightly bigger than terminators, so £30 for five isn't really an increase in cost as such, though I would say the terminator kits come with more/better options.

Malefactum
11-07-2015, 13:12
I'm very paranoid about all this. What makes 40k so great to me is the depth and the insane amount of details and special rules. There might be issues, but I still like the system and how it works. And I like the miniatures and their size. I don't need to inflate my Marines to Hulk size. I really hope GW managers are not going to tinker with 40k like this. Otherwise there will be much cheap 40k stuff on eBay.

TheFang
11-07-2015, 13:51
Look at the massive sales of the white dwarf and the models in store. Sell a WD at £2.40 with a free model that is the equivalent of £5 in the boxed set and trail the new game then you'll sell the issue out. How well the AoS box and this weeks white dwarf sell will be a better indicator of how well it's selling.
Thats the thing. They went so completely all in. To do that when they admit to not do market research? Thats a frightening level of arrogance and conceit.Absolutely. It's like a poker game where all the chips come in. The problem is I don't think the hand they're playing is very strong.

ehlijen
11-07-2015, 14:29
I think a 40k AoS is inevitable. 6th and then 7th have been steadily progressing towards fewer balance enforcements, softer rules and less competition in favour of more narrative.

AoS is the logical conclusion that trend will eventually lead to. And while I don't like AoS one bit as it is not what I want from a game, it is at least open about and fully committed to its design goals: harmless, freeform fun with shiny toys.
Most of 40ks problems stem from the fact that its trying to appear as a deep game when it really just wants to be about fun with toys.

It makes no sense as a business decision to me to so completely change target audiences without (official) warning, but I think AoS isn't too bad at what it's trying to be. That's just not a game I want.

itcamefromthedeep
11-07-2015, 14:34
I think what horrifies me more is they unleashed Age of Sigmar to fix fantasy, when Fantasy didn't need fixing.Oh, it did need fixing. The "sweet spot" for the game where you start to see interesting and deep unit interactions from 2500 points down to 1000 or 1500-ish. As part of that, you needed changes to Steadfast, most notably a change where getting flanked meant that you couldn't be Steadfast any more.

If you look at 7e High Elf armies it often got down to the kind of model count you wanted for a Warhammer game (A 2000-point tournament list once featured 30-ish models I think), but it needed more help for mid-sized blocks so that there would be a reason to bring Goblins, and the Step Up mechanics and a form of Steadfast would do that. Warhammer 9e should have been like 8e, but with flanking ignoring Steadfast, no free extra rank of Attacks for everyone, no Stomps, no horde bonuses, and a magic system that resembles the background for once.

Age of Sigmar doesn't actually reduce the sweet spot for the game in terms of models, I suspect. The rules are still focused on units rather than models, and 5 archers has nowhere near the cognitive load of a capital ship in Battlefleet Gothic. It's certainly not a skirmish game the way Mordheim or Necromunda or Battlefleet Gothic are. You have a really hard time getting meaningful tactical interactions with 10 models on each side.

It could also have done with a scrapping of points values in army books, and have points values for every model be adjusted each six months or so in a Visions-sized army list periodical. They could still do that with Age of Sigmar, of course. (They could fix it! It's still good, guys!) They won't, of course. I'm happy to try doing it for them though.

MusingWarboss
11-07-2015, 19:26
I share the same concerns. It's too simplistic to say "yeah of course they will" but at the same time... Of course they will!

I originally posted a bit elsewhere but I feel it's more relevant here in this thread:


Ultimately I think AoS won't be successful because it's a stop-gap game designed to usher in their new house style and thus has had minimal effort inserted. I may be wrong but I think in a couple of years, maybe even a year, a new "Warhammer: Something" will pop up and Sigmar will be superseded. By then the new model styles will be in place and you'll be expected to use the new armies for the new setting.

It may be fun to have a few drinks, chuck down some models and stuff but it's not Age of Sigmar that's here to stay, it's the "New Era of Warhammer" setting. I have a feeling the churn and burn strategy is now going to apply to games as much as customers.

As pessimistic as it sounds I think almost yearly game updates are on the cards - probably for free - as a push to keep people interested in buying plastic kits. After 40k 7th and it's two-year release after 6th, I imagine 40k "8th" will either be the last or it'll be a carbon copy of AoS and we'll have "Warhammer 40,000: The Next Heresy" or something. Just look where 6th and 7th has pushed it and then look at AoS. It's the next logical step.

More so the last paragraph, I do wonder if their new approach is successful that they try a test run with 40k, maybe not for the 8th but after if it works. I can't help but wonder if the rumoured HH game will follow the AoS lines, introducing the concept to the Grim Dark setting as the trial run? I'm on a smart phone at the moment so can't type out too much more but I'll read back in the thread in a while and respond better in a bit.

I suppose though that I'm not overly pessimistic about 40k's future but more a little anxious that it will become mass unbound use for models rather than models being playing pieces in a game.

Scribe of Khorne
11-07-2015, 19:45
I think you are right, as the writing has been on the wall for years now. 6th, 7th, Formations, the Campaign books, all of these lead to the natural evolution to AoS.

I'm saddened by that, because I'm not in a big city, and thats going to leave me all of 1 opponents, as the rest of my game group either thinks they can write the rules better, thinks Unbound is awesome, or wants to bring the latest cheese and scream like a man-child, about how good they are.

Points limits was about all keeping the game sane.

Vet.Sister
11-07-2015, 21:14
I dislike that there's not really a fine tune in power levels, because you know there are going to be those players that know the system just well enough to bring a reasonable looking force that he know will edge your army every single time...

I suppose that's true now, just like always... but a point system at least is a base foundation for everyone. Because without some method of demarcation, you might as well agree on a winner before you even setup!

EDIT;
Most people I know love the point system more for the customization opportunities than anything else...

Inquisitor Shego
12-07-2015, 01:33
Oh, it did need fixing.

I'll correct myself, said the pencil with an eraser on its bum. 8th isn't perfect, but what you mention doesn't seem worthy enough for me to justify the birth of Eighth, another £50 rulebook, and more engineering from GW to create for the sake of creating. I agree flanking shattering steadfast would be blissful, but given how we went from an edition where 5 chaos knights could charge a block of 80 high elf spearmen and run them down with ease, I considered 8th a blessing. Was nice to see big units on the tables again... and then the price of the models sky rocketed.

insectum7
12-07-2015, 01:38
Most people I know love the point system more for the customization opportunities than anything else...

That is a really good, and probably under-appreciated point. I have spent a ridiculous amount of hours trying to squeeze efficiency or favored units into points limits over the years. This has an inherent value itself. It serves as both a great way to engage with the hobby (product) as a casual pastime, like if I'm riding in a car or watching dumb tv, and also serves as a major topic of conversation for hobbyist engagement. What is the proportion of posts that involve some sort of "well really X units is totally better that Y value for these points, etc. etc."

I honestly believe I would think about the game with a lower frequency, without point values. There would be fewer opportunities to problem solve when I'm without an immediate opportunity to play. That seems like something GW would want to avoid.

Mawduce
12-07-2015, 01:46
I think we need to prepare ourselves for 40k Age of Sigmar like event. In the event it never happens then, well good. No harm no foul. But if it does come into play we need to be ready to deal with it. Watching the fantasy forums, people are trying to find a way to put point values per model. So if you want a small game you can have one. If you want a large game, you can have one. It doesn't hurt us to keep one eye open. We don't want it, we don't need it, but it doesn't mean it isn't coming.

itcamefromthedeep
12-07-2015, 02:16
Was nice to see big units on the tables again... and then the price of the models sky rocketed.So it was the price that killed WHFB?

I spent years not interested in playing 8th, and I have thousands of minis. Price has certainly prevented me from making some purchases, but not from going out and playing with the minis I have. The rules for 8e didn't do enough to engage me tactically, in ways that 6e seemed to succeed. I can only attribute that to things like the end of flanking to break units, and the de-emphasizing of static combat resolution.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just explorative.

Finnigan2004
12-07-2015, 02:23
I fear that AoS might be a bit of a trial balloon that would result in changes to the 40k system, if it succeeded. Unfortunately for GW, but fortunate for those of us who enjoy tabletop wargames, I think that this trial balloon will probably be the wargaming equivalent of the Hindenburg. The system will probably flop-- hopefully keeping 40k safe.

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 02:35
So it was the price that killed WHFB?

I spent years not interested in playing 8th, and I have thousands of minis. Price has certainly prevented me from making some purchases, but not from going out and playing with the minis I have. The rules for 8e didn't do enough to engage me tactically, in ways that 6e seemed to succeed. I can only attribute that to things like the end of flanking to break units, and the de-emphasizing of static combat resolution.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just explorative.

The guys in my group played, but didnt buy much at all, they where old hands and had several large armies for years. :/

English 2000
12-07-2015, 03:34
Let me start with the most important bit: this thread is not about your feelings for AoS as a replacement of WHF.

It is about your thoughts and feelings after your initial impressions of AoS, and how they relate to you as a collector and player of 40K. Not only a simple "wee, they could do the same stunt on 40K soon..." - I guess there is more to it, and I'd like to read about it.

Well, how about me? I'm undecided, but slighty worried. I think AoS is GWs idea of "turning things around" for their fantasy side of things - so I see no immediate danger for 40K, as that part is going well for GW. But on the other hand, GW seems to truly believe in AoS being their new holy grail (see that golden Sigmarine in front of their HQ, instead of the Space Marine previously), and that worries me. I really hope 40K will be spared from the ridiculous travesty that is AoS, but if AoS is bringing even some kind of money, I fear that GW execs will spin it into "see, we told you it works!" - and apply it to 40K.

Am I overly paranoid? What is your opinion on this?

You're the one with the flock of birdies, why don't you tell us what's going to happen :)

Inquisitor Shego
12-07-2015, 04:35
So it was the price that killed WHFB?

I spent years not interested in playing 8th, and I have thousands of minis. Price has certainly prevented me from making some purchases, but not from going out and playing with the minis I have. The rules for 8e didn't do enough to engage me tactically, in ways that 6e seemed to succeed. I can only attribute that to things like the end of flanking to break units, and the de-emphasizing of static combat resolution.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just explorative.

Without wanting to deviate too much into price discussion, before Wintermute picks up our scent, kicks the door in, and double-taps me in the skull faster than a Spetsnaz wearing Sonic's sneakers ;), I think cost was a big factor. Everyone has their reasons for leaving or getting into the hobby. 8th really rekindled my love for the game, but then the army books started to starve off the magical items, character options, and choices in a book, relating more to Army Books than the Rules in general. Then it was the icing on the cake when things hit like £30 for a box of chosen. Then the Witch Elves. Then everything else. Whatever we say, we're merely comparing anecdotal evidence, but one thing I think we might find common ground on, is however in need or repair 8th was or wasn't, was AOS and the End Times the necessary remedy? It feels like decapitation to fix a head cold.

What problems however could 40k face that would warrant the same treatment?

itcamefromthedeep
12-07-2015, 05:00
I agree that AoS addresses none of my concerns with Warhammer. At least, not in any way that doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For instance, the company has a poor history writing rules for characters attached to unit, or other kinds of combined units. (Is a unit with a cavalry character in it a cavalry unit for the purposes of the Lore of Beasts spells? Can an Imperial Guard unit get the Bring it Down bonus against an MC Hive Tyrant with infantry Tyrant Guard?) However, I think the solution there is a few more sentences in the rulebook and unit type keywords in the unit descriptions, not removing the attached character rules and unit type rules entirely.

ehlijen
12-07-2015, 06:57
So it was the price that killed WHFB?

I spent years not interested in playing 8th, and I have thousands of minis. Price has certainly prevented me from making some purchases, but not from going out and playing with the minis I have. The rules for 8e didn't do enough to engage me tactically, in ways that 6e seemed to succeed. I can only attribute that to things like the end of flanking to break units, and the de-emphasizing of static combat resolution.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just explorative.

While what you say has merit, GW doesn't as much if you play a game with your minis as they do about whether you buy new ones. People playing games is important to customer growth and retention, but it doesn't matter how many people play the game with old minis if the prices keep new players from entering the game.

So yes, I do believe the prices are the bigger factor, followed, in my opinion by the excessively long gap between the 8th ed book (and I think the first army book) and the next batch of army books (I'm pretty sure it was in the double digit months). I've seen enough different opinions to believe that while I didn't like 8th ed, enough people did to keep the community alive.

Blutrache
12-07-2015, 07:08
Well, whatever happens I'm certain GW won't lower the prices. I'm counting on them to mess with 40k too. And to be pessimistic I expect it to be quite heavy handed. I mean what's their track record over the years on rules and fluff improvement (not models)? Is it right or wrong to do it? For them, only their financial results will tell. For me, I got my Mechanicus to paint and that is good for now. Btw AoS doesn't interest me at all aestethically and fluffwise so it's not for me anyways...
/Cheers

de Selby
12-07-2015, 07:37
Wasn't Hastings talking about a standalone boxed game coming up with Horus Heresy plastic minis? Seems like a perfect fit for Age of Sigmar rules.

DonkeyMan
12-07-2015, 08:32
I honestly can't see them do and AoS on 40K. Not even GW would be that stupid.

Even as a long time Fanatasy fan (I started now almost 30 years ago playing WFB and I own every 1st edition WFRP book), I knew that WFB needed fixing. Sales dropped quite low and some stupid fluff decisions and that Storm of Chaos fiasco didn't help at all.
40K doesn't need fixing.

If I look at AoS, then it seems to me that they try to mimick 40K in many ways (with a just even more simplified ruleset). This makes me think that they are rather happy with the way 40K is.

Wolf Lord Balrog
12-07-2015, 10:06
The only good thing about AoS, and therefore the only element of it I'd like to see come to 40K, is free rules and army lists. I've been saying for years that GW should put their money where their mouth is about being a 'models company', and make the rules and army lists free. By all means, sell lore/fluff and art books, but the 'crunch', the rules, should be free. Everything else about AoS is a disaster.

Althenian Armourlost
12-07-2015, 10:28
I've played it. It is a far better beer-and-pretzels style game than 40k.

I think they are splitting their core lines into friendly AoS and competitive, tournament friendly 40k.

That they are designing a product for each of the main types of people that buy their products is very good. Unfortunately, I am a beer-and-pretzels 40k player (well, water and fruit actually) so I am more worried about 40k becoming more cutthroat, rather than becoming more like AoS.

heavyheart
12-07-2015, 11:25
I honestly can't see them do and AoS on 40K. Not even GW would be that stupid.

Even as a long time Fanatasy fan (I started now almost 30 years ago playing WFB and I own every 1st edition WFRP book), I knew that WFB needed fixing. Sales dropped quite low and some stupid fluff decisions and that Storm of Chaos fiasco didn't help at all.
40K doesn't need fixing.

If I look at AoS, then it seems to me that they try to mimick 40K in many ways (with a just even more simplified ruleset). This makes me think that they are rather happy with the way 40K is.

It needs some fixes like making cc an equal to shooting or making it harder to glance vehicles to death small stuff a competent company could of done a year in.

GW's year on year profits are dropping that's a fact, GW is apparently happy to remain ignorant as to the reason why which is another fact, they've tried unbound it failed, they've made 40k into apocalypse that's failed so obviously they need to do something drastic to fix things!

They have declared themselves a model to spite those that complain about rules so they can sell to collectors, they are pants on head stupid and I can't put them killing of 40k as a possibility.

It's not that people have lost their love for 40k it's just they can't stomach what GW's doing to it and their other games so they go elsewhere.

Spiney Norman
12-07-2015, 13:31
I've played it. It is a far better beer-and-pretzels style game than 40k.

I think they are splitting their core lines into friendly AoS and competitive, tournament friendly 40k.

That they are designing a product for each of the main types of people that buy their products is very good. Unfortunately, I am a beer-and-pretzels 40k player (well, water and fruit actually) so I am more worried about 40k becoming more cutthroat, rather than becoming more like AoS.

I can't ll you how much I hope this is true, an edition of 40k with a tight, Tournement friendly rule set would be excellent (and something wen are not had since 5th edition).

On the other hand I think that is nothing more than wishful thinking, 40k has been getting progressively less Tournement friendly for the last two editions, I can't think of a good reason why they would suddenly double back on themselves and hard-reverse that trend for 8th edition.

As several others have observed, Age of Sigmar is the logical destination of the journey that 40k has been on through 6th and 7th, less and less regard for balance. I actually think that AoS might be easier to balance than 40k because the current 40k points system is so badly designed that it actually gets in the way of trying to balance the game.

Dkoz
12-07-2015, 13:45
I can't ll you how much I hope this is true, an edition of 40k with a tight, Tournement friendly rule set would be excellent (and something wen are not had since 5th edition).

On the other hand I think that is nothing more than wishful thinking, 40k has been getting progressively less Tournement friendly for the last two editions, I can't think of a good reason why they would suddenly double back on themselves and hard-reverse that trend for 8th edition.

As several others have observed, Age of Sigmar is the logical destination of the journey that 40k has been on through 6th and 7th, less and less regard for balance. I actually think that AoS might be easier to balance than 40k because the current 40k points system is so badly designed that it actually gets in the way of trying to balance the game.


7th edition has been great for tournaments the verity in armies at tournaments has been much better. 5th grew tired and old, and by the end you could know exaclty what armies and what their builds would be at tournaments. At the ITC events I've been to the tournament circuit is better then ever.

Navar
12-07-2015, 14:16
The only good thing about AoS, and therefore the only element of it I'd like to see come to 40K, is free rules and army lists. I've been saying for years that GW should put their money where their mouth is about being a 'models company', and make the rules and army lists free. By all means, sell lore/fluff and art books, but the 'crunch', the rules, should be free. Everything else about AoS is a disaster.

I don't know how true this is anymore, but I was talking with Eric and Nathan from Wyrd* at Gen Con a few years ago, and they told me that free rules actually were something they wanted to do, but that several game stores told them that they wouldn't stock anything from their line if the rules were available for free.

Now GW being GW they can get away with this, but, in the industry there must be something about free rules that is more complicated than the general gaming public understands. I have no idea what that might be, but there is (or at least was) something going on.

*They make Malifaux which is a great skirmish game with TONs of flavor.

Tyberos
12-07-2015, 14:42
I'm quite sceptical as to the direction of Warhammer 40K now. We're already seeing Codex books and full rule system's being released in less than two years so it probably won't be too much longer before we find out.

I am of the opinion that regardless of Age of Sigmar performance in sales Games Workshop could render 40K the same treatment. They may very well assume they didn't put out enough pin badges on release day, or their sales people didn't push the glorious new product well enough. Right now I'm guessing we'll see a 40K dumbing down around *May next year.

*BoLS that is purely a guess if you're reading this and I have no insider info at all.

TheFang
12-07-2015, 15:00
Not even GW would be that stupid.
That was my stance when I first saw the four page AoS rules. There had to be something more. There wasn't.

They are that stupid.

MusingWarboss
12-07-2015, 19:51
I think the chances of 40k becoming a tight competition game are slimmer than a snotlings ankle. At epic scale.

If 7th was good at tournaments then that's a pure fluke than by design!! 7th continued the ideas of 6th which was to introduce more and more stuff into 40k to sell more model kits. It was a pure cash grab.

It's not surprising the army builds at a tournament using 7th rules would be refreshingly different than 5th - there's effectively no restrictions! (Unless TO's enforced a particular type of play, in which case you weren't playing 7th but a house ruled version. At that point they may as well have stuck at 5th if they preferred that style)

40k AoS sadly does make perfect sense, in the context of what's been done to 40k so far anyway.

Navar
12-07-2015, 21:26
For the purposes of this discussion I am going to make some assumptions about games I have not played, but my statements will reflect what I think are true. Also I am going to assume that we are only talking about the rules that are released for “Age of Sigmar”, and ignore the “Legacy” rules. I think those are a mess, but I think that even GW knows that they are a mess and that they simply exist to give old players a “fun” way to use their models until their faction comes along. I doubt that any legacy models will be in any of the scenarios, nor will they be even considered from a game design perspective moving forward.
I know you posted this a couple of days ago, but I have been away from my computer for various reasons, but wanted to give this comment a through reply for several reasons. I think this is a valuable discussion, and I am going to try to address your comment point by point.

The direction it went is obviously super-casual. No concessions at all to the game as a game, where the players have an interest in winning. They seem to think that points values were part of the problem. You can see that trend with the pointsless formations and "free" upgrade formation benefits. I think we can expect to see more hostility toward the idea that playing one army list against another should be a fair (or even fair-ish) fight.
It is my understanding that the first edition of the 40k game (Rogue trader, or maybe that was a slightly separate game) required a “Game Master.” The job of this “Game Master” was to create scenarios for the players to then take part in with their armies, so there is some historical precedence with scenario driven game play with Games Workshop.
In addition there are a few fairly popular fantasy games on the market now that do not use a point system, but instead use a scenario system for balance. Off the top of my head I can think of Super Dungeon Explore and Descent are this type of game, and I seem to remember a Star Wars (not X-Wing) and Dungeons and Dragons (or maybe pathfinder) version as well.
For the record I think this is the direction in which they are moving. Something where in 1 evening my family and I can have a game, and then come back to it with some growth.
From the advertising material about the new Age of Sigmar book, I think this is the kind of content players will see moving forward. (After rereading this, I don’t think I was clear about what kind of content. To be clear I think that the kind of content we will see is scenarios where Games Workshop gets to act as the “Game Master” and each new book will act as an “expansion” so players can get the book, and a couple of new units, and have access to the new scenarios.)

When GW writes games, many of their problems come from things like unit types and combined units (adding character models to units) . . .
You know, I have never heard this perspective before now. I don’t think I would characterize many of the problems GW faces when they write games to come from unit types and combined units though, and before Age of Sigmar, I don’t think this was a very common opinion.
There are specific problems with adding character models to units, but I think I would argue that those are symptoms of other problems rather than the cause of problems.

. . . along with a lack of keywords. This game demonstrates that they now have some idea about how keywords work [removed comments about combined units that I address above]
I don’t know if lack of keywords is a severe problem either, but I do like all of the keywords in Age of Sigmar, and I agree that it is a good thing about the rule set.

The AoS rules aren't that much more simple than the 8e ones, as most of the save space comes from moving rules from the rulebook into the unit entries (warmachines, weapon rules, spells, magic items, unit types, terrain, universal special rules), where the most of the remaining space savings comes from removing the rules for handling blocks of troops.
I agree 100% with this. I think that the “Free” 4 pages of rules is not too oversimplified when one imagines that every unit with have 2-3 special rules right on their cards. I agree with this statement 100%.

One of the reasons I got into Warhammer was the blocks of troops. You could put 20 models on the table, 5 wide by 4 deep, and it would -feel- like a hundred, and that was cool.
I agree this was cool. I didn’t play Fantasy for this reason (meaning I played fantasy, but it wasn’t for that reason.)

Removing that assures me that they have no idea what the place of Warhammer Fantasy was in the industry (no surprise).
I respectfully disagree here though. People were not buying fantasy. Bottom Line. Maybe GW had an idea of what the place of Warhammer Fantasy was in the industry, and wanted to make a different game because it was literally costing them money to keep trying to promote a game that not enough people were playing.

This makes me think that they also have no idea why people actually play 40k, so they'll keep shooting in the dark randomly and not learning from what happens. On the other hand, they've figured out that big minis should degrade in effectiveness as they lose Wounds (they've added states between "fine" and "dead") and that suggests 40k may eventually include minis that lose capabilities as they lose Wounds or Hull Points. AoS is also a game where every mini can meaningfully interact with any other (Nagash isn't outright immune to a Gnoblar's attacks) and that bodes well for the future of 40k light infantry. We may see a day where a Guardsman with lasgun and frag grenade can roll dice to hurt a Land Raider, and I think that would be healthy for the game.
I am not sure about their knowledge of 40k players only because of the rampant success of the Horus Heresy line from Forge World. I believe that more than any other message that Games Workshop has been sent in recent years, it is that players LOVE the Horus Heresy stuff and will buy it like crazy. That gives me hope, and is one of the reasons I pay the premium for that content (in addition to the fact that it is amazing.)
I disagree that anything that makes land raiders more vulnerable would be good for the game though. I enjoy big tanks and big models however, so I know that I bring different opinions to the table. I THINK that the general consensus is that Land Raiders are still too vulnerable to be worthwhile as is though.

AoS is short on spells that can hurt or debuff an entire unit. Part of the reason I got into Warhammer was the image of Teclis roasting huge blocks of troops with some amazing spell, and that kind of spell is gone. D3 wounds just doesn't do it for me. It's not even that they debuffed magic - Summoning and Arcane Shield can be really powerful things. They just don't seem to understand what drew me in about magic in Warhammer. Similarly, I expect that GW is going to move psychic powers in 40k away from the feel that they used to have and more toward magic-like abilities used by superheroes.
I honestly don’t know what to expect from Age of Sigmar spells. We have seen the Human Warrior faction and the Chaos Warrior faction. Once we see Tzneech and Nurgle get their days as well as ANY Aelf armies then I think we can make a better determination. This is because every magic spell (aside from the most basic) are listed on the cards of the individual casters.
For the record I love big nuke spells, so I am hopeful that we will see some more powerful magic down the line in the expansions/supplements/etc.

I think we can expect more portmanteau in 40k's future. Celestihammer Thunderdudes with Whipcrack Warpflails and Ignominus Eyelaser Scattersignal Projectors. I once heard Ed Greenwood talk about what is going on with the proliferation of these kinds of names in the fantasy games market. The gist of it is that these kinds of names are there so that children can clearly identify the thing they want to buy, to their parents, on a Christmas list. It's not really necessary or helpful to have on the upgrades, just the title on the box or card. It also doesn't really work if the names are similar to each other, because the idea is to prevent people from getting the names confused. GW seems to be aping the trend without understanding it, and that's... par for the course, really.
I enjoy these words to be honest, and I like that they give a distinct flavor to the game. I also recognize that they are not for everyone. IMHO they are fun and they add some good fun to the game.
With that said I like Ed Greenwood, but I don’t know that I would consider him an expert on how to sell games. He is a fairly decent fantasy author, and I have had the pleasure to speak with him on a few occasions, and I would respectfully doubt that he would make this claim again. BUT I will make an attempt to track him down at Gen Con (I don’t even know if he is going to be there this year, but if he is) and ask him directly. With that said I don’t know how his opinion is relevant to this discussion.


Fantasy's background was characterized by a kind of grounded fantasy. It had lots of low-fantasy and high-fantasy elements coexisting comfortably, where magic was something mysterious and dangerous. AoS has taken a turn toward pervasive magic where nobody gets anywhere without copious use of safe magic. Everything has that Starcraft/Warcraft/League of Legends *glow* to it that works well in the contexts of computer games. Fantasy used to be a place where people farmed and got dirty making stuff to use in their mundane lives, though they saw magic from a distance (and usually hoped it didn't look their way). It was a place where peasants lived and died in relatively normal ways. Not so any more. Imagery like this: http://www.cadik.info/warhammer/bretonnia/image/Artwork/wall/bret_wall_1_1280.jpg is going, or gone. We've seen moves away from descriptions of the world of the Imperium in 40k, so it's reasonable to expect the trend to continue where models that aren't combatants in a battle don't get mentioned (because they're not minis being sold). I'd expect exclusive focus on the models that are on the shelves and how they dramatically defeated some foe by using the special rule in their unit entry, at the expense of stories about how the people of the Imperium struggle against an inhospitable and patently unfair universe. 40k used to be a place that told jokes at the expense of the traditional good guy / bad guy dynamic, and we can expect that to disappear in favor of more comic book shenanigans like what we saw in The End Times.
This is likely correct, but as long as the game is fun and it lets me and my family and friends play some fun games on some rainy afternoons, then I will be sold. To me big comic book shenanigans are awesome (and one of the things I most enjoy about Horus Heresy.)

The background seems to think that the selling point of 40k is in the superhero-style power fantasy you get from comic books. Sigmarines just straight-up copy the Space Marining process, so GW must think that's an important part of the reason Space Marines sell well. I think we can expect 40k to look more like a comic book power fantasy, because it looks like the company believes that's what sells. Personally I'm not entirely sure why Marines sell so well relative ot other parts of the line (I feel like interchangeable parts and kits across the various Marine factions is no small factor).
I slightly disagree about the straight up copy, and honestly one of the things I wish that Age of Sigmar did better was allow for more “flavor” with different “clans” of Eternals. One of the things I like most about the Space Marines is the different chapters, and I feel like the eternals are a bit vanilla. I think this is by design (Fairly generic Good guys vs. Fairly generic Bad Guys.)

I am looking forward to comic book power fantasy though.
---


I suspect we won't have to wait long to see how the experiment will turn out. It's hard for a game so actively hostile to semi-casual play to take market share away from competing tabletop strategy games. It's not small enough to compete with Malifaux or Infinity. The models aren't tactically deep enough to compete with Malifaux or Infinity. Collectors probably won't pick up the core box unless they want all the minis in it (God knows it's unlikely that there's a significant discount compared to buying the units separately). People only ever seem to buy the GW core boxes for the rules in my experience, and this box isn't necessary for that.
I hope we don’t have to wait too long either because as soon Nurgle or Skaven get some Age of Sigmar models then I am likely jumping on board. My gaming group is already looking forward to me picking up some armies so we can all try it out, but I intend to focus on the forces that interest me.
With that said, it looks like you have no idea why anyone buys the previous boxed sets. The discounts on the minis are HUGE from buying the box sets that Games Workshop releases as starters. The 10 Liberators and 1 Relictor in the box set almost pay for the entire box set. Really this cannot be understated. 10 eternals and 1 Relictor cost $120.00. The Box Set sells for $125.00 and comes with a rule book, dice, measuring sticks, etc. There is a significant discount.

If you like the customization of GW kits then it looks like you're out of luck here: these minis look to be monopose and in Age of Sigmar the stats are connected to what the mini is using (axe/sword/dagger) so it seems to be hostile to conversions (!!!).
Actually the full kits are quite customizable. They do have WYSIWYG kind of rules, but I don’t think that is hostile to conversions. It just means that a model armed with a hammer has stats that are consistent with hammer fighting. Privateer Press just updated their conversion rules on exactly this point, and it was mostly well received. I think this is a HUGE plus, and I really dislike when an opponent rolls up to me and says “hey, you know all these heavy bolters, well they are actually Grav Cannons.”

I've considered buying Sigmarines for use as Blood Angels, but having seen the minis closer up I'm not interested any more (too hard to get any good conversions going). If you like the customization of X-wing stats (where each base mini has a variety of different special rules and points values to choose from such that hopefully at least one of them will entice you) then Age of Sigmar is not your game, because each mini can have exactly one stat line with no upgrades at all: take it or leave it.
This is also false. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg, and so far models with different equipment take on entirely different battlefield roles.

It all strikes me as a recipe for disastrous sales. Unless you're a big fan of collecting these particular minis and putting them on the shelf I have trouble seeing why someone would be interested in the product.
Well, unless you want to actually have fun and play some games. To be clear, I am excited for this game (and thus more than interested) because I look forward to buying this product, assembling this product, painting this product, and then having some amazingly fun evenings with my friends and family playing games of Age of Sigmar. Something that frankly isn’t accessible to any friends who don’t already own 40k armies, and something that I cannot currently do with my children.

Five years ago it would be unbelievable that GW would think that their customers' favorite part of the hobby experience is purchasing the product. Now I think the evidence is in front of us.
This is nonsense, and nothing about this release implies that this is true.

Wolf Lord Balrog
12-07-2015, 23:16
I don't know how true this is anymore, but I was talking with Eric and Nathan from Wyrd* at Gen Con a few years ago, and they told me that free rules actually were something they wanted to do, but that several game stores told them that they wouldn't stock anything from their line if the rules were available for free.

Now GW being GW they can get away with this, but, in the industry there must be something about free rules that is more complicated than the general gaming public understands. I have no idea what that might be, but there is (or at least was) something going on.

*They make Malifaux which is a great skirmish game with TONs of flavor.

They could simply do it the way Corvus Belli does with Infinity: Offer a printed rulebook for sale for those that prefer it, while offering a free PDF version on their website for those that don't.

Spiney Norman
12-07-2015, 23:58
7th edition has been great for tournaments the verity in armies at tournaments has been much better. 5th grew tired and old, and by the end you could know exaclty what armies and what their builds would be at tournaments. At the ITC events I've been to the tournament circuit is better then ever.

Fair enough, personally I think 7th is a terrible Tournement game without being heavily comped/modded, the points system is almost at breaking point now with all the stupidly OP formation bonuses that are given out for free, balance is non-existent, especially at the highly competitive end that tournements run at, it is currently far to easy to break 40k.

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 00:03
I was with you as well Spiney, but locally the proof is in the pudding. People really jumped at 7th, and tournaments have been full, and active, despite the game breaking down on Tactical cards, busted allies and so on.

/shrug

Navar
13-07-2015, 00:48
They could simply do it the way Corvus Belli does with Infinity: Offer a printed rulebook for sale for those that prefer it, while offering a free PDF version on their website for those that don't.

IIRC that is what they do now, but I know that there was some resistance to the idea at some point.

itcamefromthedeep
13-07-2015, 03:38
Also I am going to assume that we are only talking about the rules that are released for “Age of Sigmar”, and ignore the “Legacy” rules. I think those are a mess, but I think that even GW knows that they are a mess and that they simply exist to give old players a “fun” way to use their models until their faction comes along.I'm not sure of that. They've had a long time to set this up, and you never get a second chance at a first impression. I think they wanted this to be a strong start they were well-prepared for.

They've had a long time to work on those 4 pages of rules, and those rules don't say anywhere that models engaged in close combat don't get to shoot. An Organ Gun engaged in close combat can shoot at the goblins right in front of them that are trying to stab the dwarfs to death, or the Organ Gun can fire a dragon 20" away. Those new Sigmarite archers can fire their weapons at the unit that charged them last turn, or shoot someone else and then stab their opponents in close combat as well if they like. Maybe they meant it that way, but if not that's quite the oversight for a 4-page system meant to be the glorious reinvention of the game. That's not even a legacy issue like the lone Tomb Scorpion that calls Sudden Death (endure) and then burrows only to pop up again on turn 6.

This game is really, really casual. If you're the kind of player who actually enjoys trying to find clever combinations of abilities to pull neat tricks, then you're that guy in this game, and decidedly not welcome unless you're willing to put that sort of nonsense away and play a scrimmage in the center. When playing Blood Bowl, some players like playing Humans against Orcs and others like playing Halflings against Orcs, but this game is only for the players who enjoy playing Halflings against Orcs. They exist, for sure, and including that kind of game makes Blood Bowl a richer game, but it's definitely not the same experience as it is with most other teams. I just don't know that you can build a game with a lot of longevity exclusively around the Halfling vs Orc genre of gameplay.

Not that what I've seen of AoS is anywhere near as fun (or tactically deep) as the Blood Bowl games I've played as Halflings.


It is my understanding that the first edition of the 40k game (Rogue trader, or maybe that was a slightly separate game) required a “Game Master.” The job of this “Game Master” was to create scenarios for the players to then take part in with their armies, so there is some historical precedence with scenario driven game play with Games Workshop.Absolutely. There's plenty of precedent to it. Every edition has had numerous scenarios that only work for scheduled games. Half the scenarios in the 3e 40k rulebook could only ever function in the context of a scheduled game, because they used alternate force organization charts.

Previous editions of the game have always supported both pickup games and narrative play. This edition takes a lot more work to turn into something appropriate for a pickup game than anything since Rogue Trader. It's a direction the company moved away from in order to accommodate more kinds of players, but now they're driving hard into it at full speed. It wouldn't have been *that* hard to write something more friendly to the pickup game experience, but the company seems to be deliberately making that difficult in order to emphasize other parts of the hobby experience, apparently in an attempt to break the player base of their semi-casual habits and expectations of a game.

I didn't see any narrative scenarios in that core rules set. If the focus were really on "historical" play then I would have expected some more support for that. Instead the 4-page rules have an outline for a scenario that looks like it's intended for pickup games between roughly arbitrary forces. If I were trying to turn the player base into narrative gamers, I would have come up with a few "last stand" or "breakthrough" or "beachhead" scenarios with preset mini configurations based around the End Times and let players switch out units as they feel like it. The generic scenario conflicts with the idea of narrative-driven play. I think they may see those core rules as the heart of the AoS experience with optional supplements later, rather than holding back the meat of the experience.


You know, I have never heard this perspective before now. I don’t think I would characterize many of the problems GW faces when they write games to come from unit types and combined units though, and before Age of Sigmar, I don’t think this was a very common opinion.
There are specific problems with adding character models to units, but I think I would argue that those are symptoms of other problems rather than the cause of problems.There were spells that could only target cavalry units. If a character on a horse joined an infantry unit, could the unit be targeted by that spell? If a unit had a monster model and handler models, could it be affected by things that only target monsters? Even today, when Guardsmen use Bring it Down, can they target a Hive Tyrant in Tyrant Guard? If my model has preferred enemy (Space Marines), does it get the bonus against a unit that includes 50 Guardsmen and Azrael?

This genre of problem has been in every edition of Warhmmer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k that I can recall. It's a perennial blind spot in their rules. There are a few kinds of rules ambiguities that keep cropping up but the design team keeps forgetting to head off at the pass. It's hard to miss the historical context of the issue if you haven't seen it pop up 10 or 20 or 30 times before over decades.

A few dozen FAQ questions in 40k right now could be unambiguously resolved with "An effect that targets a unit of a particular unit type only affects units consisting entirely of models with that unit type" and "A unit can contain models from multiple unit entries. Some rules refer to a unit entry (such as Whilrwind Squadron), in which case those effects only apply to models selected from that unit entry and not models in that unit from other unit entries."

The complexities of adding characters to units and having them die not-necessarily-last but not-necessarily-first is a tough nut to crack. If you set up the last 6 editions of 40k rules in front of you and go through how each one looked at the problem (or ignored it) and the problems that cropped up you get a fascinating education in games design.


I respectfully disagree here though. People were not buying fantasy. Bottom Line. Maybe GW had an idea of what the place of Warhammer Fantasy was in the industry, and wanted to make a different game because it was literally costing them money to keep trying to promote a game that not enough people were playing.Warhammer was, at one point, the most popular game in the industry. It got there somehow. At some point it stopped doing really well. If I were in the studio my first instinct would be to hit the reset button and return the game to roughly the state it was in when it was growing.

I don't think it was the minis. Those are much, much better now by any sane measure. I don't think it was the HeroHammer, because the game was definitely in a state of growth when 6e brought it back down to earth. I don't think it was the game balance that drove the success of earlier Warhammer editions, because it has always been in a rough state for one reason or another (even the Ravening Hordes reset had winners and losers). The things that can easily be pointed to are the prices, the size of games, differences in the magic phase, and the importance of flanking (and some of those are not unrelated). Maybe the artwork (maybe). I'd have to take a look at exactly when it went off the rails and Warhammer started to decline relative to 40k. Some time in 7e maybe?


I disagree that anything that makes land raiders more vulnerable would be good for the game though. I enjoy big tanks and big models however, so I know that I bring different opinions to the table. I THINK that the general consensus is that Land Raiders are still too vulnerable to be worthwhile as is though.The general consensus is that Land Raiders are too fragile. There's too much S10 and Melta and haywire and bonuses on the damage chart running around for them to be really survivable. I'd like to see a Land Raider get more durable against these things, but less durable against infantry weapons. The vehicle rules themselves should be pulled out by the roots, and have every model go back to Toughness and Wounds and armor save (like in Rogue Trader, sortof). At T6 and W6 and a 1+ armor save (1s always fail) it would be more survivable against most of the things that cause it problems these days, but less survivable against lasguns.

The fact that AoS went to a system where Zombies were a credible threat to just about any model in the game suggests that we may indeed see 40k pull the vehicle rules out by the roots and replace them with the T/W/save system. Yes, it's possible for minis to get 2+ re-rollable saves and that really hampers the killing power of those Zombies, but they don't just bounce off of huge numbers of troops in the game any more. AoS brought the strong and weak models in the game far closer to each other.


With that said I like Ed Greenwood, but I don’t know that I would consider him an expert on how to sell games. He is a fairly decent fantasy author, and I have had the pleasure to speak with him on a few occasions, and I would respectfully doubt that he would make this claim again. BUT I will make an attempt to track him down at Gen Con (I don’t even know if he is going to be there this year, but if he is) and ask him directly. With that said I don’t know how his opinion is relevant to this discussion.I asked him why these names come up, and he told me what he knows from his experience in the industry. Maybe what he was told about it in conversations with the people at Wizards was incorrect, or maybe he misunderstood, but that's what he told me.

Is Barbed Strangler really that much worse than Stranglethorn cannon? Is a Thudd Gun really less evocative than a Thunderfire Cannon? Can't it be shredder beetles rather than shreddershard beetles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft Take a look at these names, or the names of tanks, or the names of firearms. Does it really help to throw in more compound words?


I slightly disagree about the straight up copy, and honestly one of the things I wish that Age of Sigmar did better was allow for more “flavor” with different “clans” of Eternals. One of the things I like most about the Space Marines is the different chapters, and I feel like the eternals are a bit vanilla. I think this is by design (Fairly generic Good guys vs. Fairly generic Bad Guys.)Marines are exceptional warriors taken from their homes and imbued with a semidivine essence and reforged as heroes. Sigmarines are exceptional warriors taken from their homes and imbued with a semidivine essence and reforged as heroes. The resemblance is uncanny.


With that said, it looks like you have no idea why anyone buys the previous boxed sets. The discounts on the minis are HUGE from buying the box sets that Games Workshop releases as starters. The 10 Liberators and 1 Relictor in the box set almost pay for the entire box set. Really this cannot be understated. 10 eternals and 1 Relictor cost $120.00. The Box Set sells for $125.00 and comes with a rule book, dice, measuring sticks, etc. There is a significant discount.In my experience it's quite rare for to see starter set minis on the table. There are some exceptions, like Plague Mortars and Ellyrian Reavers that were only really available through the starter set. As best I can tell, the vast majority of starter set minis sit in boxes. How many starter sets would you have purchased if you could get that small rulebook by itself, or free?


Actually the full kits are quite customizable. They do have WYSIWYG kind of rules, but I don’t think that is hostile to conversions. It just means that a model armed with a hammer has stats that are consistent with hammer fighting. Privateer Press just updated their conversion rules on exactly this point, and it was mostly well received. I think this is a HUGE plus, and I really dislike when an opponent rolls up to me and says “hey, you know all these heavy bolters, well they are actually Grav Cannons.”With the base warscrolls out I foolishly assumed that the warscroll described the entire unit entry. It turns out that the full kit (which I didn't even expect to exist, really) actually has poseable troops and bitz options. I was incorrect.

Recently we've seen a trend toward character minis with no bitz options at all, and the legacy rules suggested that the only options players should expect to have are the ones on the original model, as sold, without conversion. I expected the new kits to follow that pattern.


Well, unless you want to actually have fun and play some games. To be clear, I am excited for this game (and thus more than interested) because I look forward to buying this product, assembling this product, painting this product, and then having some amazingly fun evenings with my friends and family playing games of Age of Sigmar. Something that frankly isn’t accessible to any friends who don’t already own 40k armies, and something that I cannot currently do with my children.So far the games of Age of Sigmar I've seen have been roflstomps, immediately followed by house rules to prevent anyone from having to repeat the players' early experiences with the game. They included some amusing vignettes, but not enough to play it again without some strong gentleman's agreements on how to prevent it from getting silly or lame.

The comment about purchasing minis being the player base's favorite part of the hobby was a reference to a statement by the then-CEO in a report to the shareholders. It looks like part of a strategy to sell minis to players who are expected to join the hobby for a few years, spend a bunch of their rich parents' money, and then leave the hobby after some casual, easily-accessible games where longevity and depth are less important than bringing in new blood. It's a suspicion that I'm echoing from a variety of sources in every kind of position within the industry, publicly and privately. It might work.

Navar
13-07-2015, 04:24
Let me open by saying thank you for engaging in a respectful discussion. Those are too rare on the internet. Just to make my post look less like a wall of text (because I see you share my ability to be verbose in your prose) I did shorten some of your comments, but as I will either post right after you or with one in between hopefully this won’t be an issue.

I'm not sure of that. They've had a long time to set this up, and you never get a second chance at a first impression. I think they wanted this to be a strong start they were well-prepared for.
They've had a long time to work on those 4 pages of rules, and those rules don't say anywhere that models engaged in close combat don't get to shoot. An Organ Gun engaged in close combat can shoot at the goblins right in front of them that are trying to stab the dwarfs to death, or the Organ Gun can fire a dragon 20" away. Those new Sigmarite archers can fire their weapons at the unit that charged them last turn, or shoot someone else and then stab their opponents in close combat as well if they like. Maybe they meant it that way, but if not that's quite the oversight for a 4-page system meant to be the glorious reinvention of the game. That's not even a legacy issue like the lone Tomb Scorpion that calls Sudden Death (endure) and then burrows only to pop up again on turn 6.
This game is really, really casual. If you're the kind of player who actually enjoys trying to find clever combinations of abilities to pull neat tricks, then you're that guy in this game, and decidedly not welcome unless you're willing to put that sort of nonsense away and play a scrimmage in the center. When playing Blood Bowl, some players like playing Humans against Orcs and others like playing Halflings against Orcs, but this game is only for the players who enjoy playing Halflings against Orcs. They exist, for sure, and including that kind of game makes Blood Bowl a richer game, but it's definitely not the same experience as it is with most other teams. I just don't know that you can build a game with a lot of longevity exclusively around the Halfling vs Orc genre of gameplay.
Like I said I don’t think that the legacy rules are worth discussion, but the core rules are fairly solid. I don’t know what the intention of the shooting and melee rules are to be honest, but those may be busted.
The new Eternal with the hammer cloak certainly seems over the top with his ability to generate d6 additional ranged attacks every turn even if he is engaged in melee however.
With casual groups though, I don’t think friends will mind someone being “that guy.” (Though this sentiment may imply that I am, in point of fact, that guy. . .)

Not that what I've seen of AoS is anywhere near as fun (or tactically deep) as the Blood Bowl games I've played as Halflings.
I have no idea because I have only seen starter set demos, but those seemed pretty darn fun. (More on this later)

Absolutely. There's plenty of precedent to it. Every edition has had numerous scenarios that only work for scheduled games. Half the scenarios in the 3e 40k rulebook could only ever function in the context of a scheduled game, because they used alternate force organization charts.

Previous editions of the game have always supported both pickup games and narrative play. This edition takes a lot more work to turn into something appropriate for a pickup game than anything since Rogue Trader. It's a direction the company moved away from in order to accommodate more kinds of players, but now they're driving hard into it at full speed. It wouldn't have been *that* hard to write something more friendly to the pickup game experience, but the company seems to be deliberately making that difficult in order to emphasize other parts of the hobby experience, apparently in an attempt to break the player base of their semi-casual habits and expectations of a game.
I didn't see any narrative scenarios in that core rules set. If the focus were really on "historical" play then I would have expected some more support for that. Instead the 4-page rules have an outline for a scenario that looks like it's intended for pickup games between roughly arbitrary forces. If I were trying to turn the player base into narrative gamers, I would have come up with a few "last stand" or "breakthrough" or "beachhead" scenarios with preset mini configurations based around the End Times and let players switch out units as they feel like it. The generic scenario conflicts with the idea of narrative-driven play. I think they may see those core rules as the heart of the AoS experience with optional supplements later, rather than holding back the meat of the experience.
The actual rule book has scenarios in it, and more are coming. Not the 4 page free download, but the full rule book that can be purchased. I am unsure if the box set rule book contains these, but I am about 90% sure that it has some. The “Full” book may have more however.

[stuff about adding characters to units]
A few dozen FAQ questions in 40k right now could be unambiguously resolved with "An effect that targets a unit of a particular unit type only affects units consisting entirely of models with that unit type" and "A unit can contain models from multiple unit entries. Some rules refer to a unit entry (such as Whilrwind Squadron), in which case those effects only apply to models selected from that unit entry and not models in that unit from other unit entries."
Right, and I get this, but I don’t think it was as big of a problem as you seem to think it was. Most games we had around here were still 1 army, or 1 army and 1 ally for 40k, and if an odd situation came up in the rare fantasy games I was in the room for then I didn’t see it. In fantasy it had been years since I had the opportunity to play a game, but I cannot remember this ever coming up.


[Warhammer fantasy was once very popular, now it isn’t, reasons are given]
Right, but I don’t think it was any of those. In the 1970s disaster movies were all of the rage, then it was zombie movies in the 1980s etc., and now super hero movies are the new big media type. I think that tastes just change and trends wax and wane. I think that if Warhammer Fantasy tried to come back unchanged from its most popular incarnation it would be a failure.

The general consensus is that Land Raiders are too fragile. There's too much S10 and Melta and haywire and bonuses on the damage chart running around for them to be really survivable. I'd like to see a Land Raider get more durable against these things, but less durable against infantry weapons. The vehicle rules themselves should be pulled out by the roots, and have every model go back to Toughness and Wounds and armor save (like in Rogue Trader, sortof). At T6 and W6 and a 1+ armor save (1s always fail) it would be more survivable against most of the things that cause it problems these days, but less survivable against lasguns.

The fact that AoS went to a system where Zombies were a credible threat to just about any model in the game suggests that we may indeed see 40k pull the vehicle rules out by the roots and replace them with the T/W/save system. Yes, it's possible for minis to get 2+ re-rollable saves and that really hampers the killing power of those Zombies, but they don't just bounce off of huge numbers of troops in the game any more. AoS brought the strong and weak models in the game far closer to each other.

I personally think this works better for a fantasy setting than a sci-fi one, but that is also just my opinion.


I asked him why these names come up, and he told me what he knows from his experience in the industry. Maybe what he was told about it in conversations with the people at Wizards was incorrect, or maybe he misunderstood, but that's what he told me.
Is Barbed Strangler really that much worse than Stranglethorn cannon? Is a Thudd Gun really less evocative than a Thunderfire Cannon? Can't it be shredder beetles rather than shreddershard beetles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft Take a look at these names, or the names of tanks, or the names of firearms. Does it really help to throw in more compound words?
To a very real extent though his opinion doesn’t matter. That was kind of my point. Also I looked a list of his novels, and they don’t seem to be too fraught as you claim. Pretty much “Spellfire” is the only Portmanteau.
With that said, like I said, I like them. They make the game more “fun” to me. The US Military is not going for “Fun” when they name the Raptor or the SAW or the JEEP. They just want it to be identifiable. They could use codes for everything, but those have proven to be harder to remember.

On a REALLY personal note, I have never been a fan of “Thudd Gun” I think it lacks imagination. I vastly prefer Thunderfire Cannon.

Marines are exceptional warriors taken from their homes and imbued with a semidivine essence and reforged as heroes. Sigmarines are exceptional warriors taken from their homes and imbued with a semidivine essence and reforged as heroes. The resemblance is uncanny.
Except that this can also apply to the Khorne warriors in this setting, or to several other “Super soldiers” from various other settings. Heck this could easily be applied to Star Wars Stormtroops if you change “Semidivine essence” with “Genetic tinkering.”
They are super soldiers. There are several examples of super soldiers in fiction going back to before the 1970s even legions of super soldiers. I don’t know much about their fluff, but if Eternals were made by another company, I don’t think that people would draw the connection.

In my experience it's quite rare for to see starter set minis on the table. There are some exceptions, like Plague Mortars and Ellyrian Reavers that were only really available through the starter set. As best I can tell, the vast majority of starter set minis sit in boxes. How many starter sets would you have purchased if you could get that small rulebook by itself, or free?
Oh, not around here. MOST Ork armies are about ½ starter set minis. Same with the vast majority of Space Marines that are on the table. I have been told by store employees before that I was being foolish buying boxes of tactical marines when I could have the same number from the starter box, plus obtain a lot of other stuff that could be sold online.
This may be regional, but in the central part of the United States in both private and GW stores I see starter set minis all of the time.

With the base warscrolls out I foolishly assumed that the warscroll described the entire unit entry. It turns out that the full kit (which I didn't even expect to exist, really) actually has poseable troops and bitz options. I was incorrect.
Fair enough

So far the games of Age of Sigmar I've seen have been roflstomps, immediately followed by house rules to prevent anyone from having to repeat the players' early experiences with the game. They included some amusing vignettes, but not enough to play it again without some strong gentleman's agreements on how to prevent it from getting silly or lame.
Odd that, as I said I would get back to this, but over the course of two weekends I have seen 12-15 games of Age of Sigmar played as demos with the starter set contents and they have all (with one notable exception) been a LOT of fun for both participants. I don’t know how popular the game will be in this area, but people off of the street have been loving the demo. It likely helps a LOT that the game store here shares a storefront with a Comic Shop however.
I have played 2 demo, one from each side, and I have enjoyed both games a lot. I will say that I think that ranged attacks tend to be a bit on the strong side, but time will tell how the game evolves.

The comment about purchasing minis being the player base's favorite part of the hobby was a reference to a statement by the then-CEO in a report to the shareholders. It looks like part of a strategy to sell minis to players who are expected to join the hobby for a few years, spend a bunch of their rich parents' money, and then leave the hobby after some casual, easily-accessible games where longevity and depth are less important than bringing in new blood. It's a suspicion that I'm echoing from a variety of sources in every kind of position within the industry, publicly and privately. It might work.
Again, fair enough, but I don’t think that is true for the people who actually designed this game. They want it to be played. The designers are much more motivated by doing something worthwhile than making a crap product as a cash grab.

Inquisitor Shego
13-07-2015, 05:55
if your posts were any longer I'd need to put a hamster in my mouse wheel ;)

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 06:03
I just skipped them, lifes too short and I've got flaming to do!

Spiney Norman
13-07-2015, 08:22
I was with you as well Spiney, but locally the proof is in the pudding. People really jumped at 7th, and tournaments have been full, and active, despite the game breaking down on Tactical cards, busted allies and so on.

/shrug

Again fair enough, a good player base can help build a positive experience even when the game sucks, 40k has haemoraged players where I live, aside from five of us who made the jump to HH there are no active 40k gamers over 15 at my local club.

It's not the core mechanics so much that let 7th down, because HH uses the same and works so well, it's the free form ally combos, grotesquely OP free formation bonuses and general deplorable inter-codex balance which sets 40k on fire. The more stringent controls of the Age of Darkness FOC give a vastly superior narrative experience than the free-form clusterf*** that is 40k.

Losing Command
13-07-2015, 08:35
In the LGS here we generally agree on a single FOC, no allies, no superheavies, no formations (but all can be discussed and agreed upon beforehand) Combined with Maelstrom missions (which don't favor static gunlines) it makes most games decently even (it's also a much more simple fix than what is required to make AoS function) The amount of active 40k players is very stable and has increased slightly as of late.

Also note that, while the main rules will probably stay free, specific units' warscrolls are likely to become free* as the warhammer models get updated. Try to find a PDF of the sigmarines on GW's site and you'll see what I mean.

*rules only accessable by purchasing the box with minis.

While spells that blow up entire units my seem gone in AoS, there is still at least one that has the potential to wipe out a whole unit (Arhan the black's personal spell) And personally I'm not sure what's worse : a spell that blows up a whole unit, or a spell that creates a whole unit (the latter of which there are a whole lot in AoS)

Spiney Norman
13-07-2015, 10:30
In the LGS here we generally agree on a single FOC, no allies, no superheavies, no formations (but all can be discussed and agreed upon beforehand) Combined with Maelstrom missions (which don't favor static gunlines) it makes most games decently even (it's also a much more simple fix than what is required to make AoS function) The amount of active 40k players is very stable and has increased slightly as of late.

That is pretty much what I mean by 'heavily modded', by 'single FOC' I take it you mean a single CAD (unless the codex being used can't support a CAD), or do you allow the more fruity stuff like SM battle companies and necron decurions?

Personally I loath Maelstrom so I probably wouldn't like playing under those rules, I find maelstrom just turns into a two hour game of "who draws the better cards" with additional movement of miniatures, 40k already has enough random crap that subverts actual strategic planning without adding randomly drawn 'you win' cards into the mix.


While spells that blow up entire units my seem gone in AoS, there is still at least one that has the potential to wipe out a whole unit (Arhan the black's personal spell) And personally I'm not sure what's worse : a spell that blows up a whole unit, or a spell that creates a whole unit (the latter of which there are a whole lot in AoS)

Most of the time a summoning spell will only create a unit of five models at the most or require an absurdly high number to cast, in my experience most units like that simply barrel into combat an evaporate, infantry realistically have to be at least 15-20 strong or have multiple wounds to stay in combat more than a couple of rounds.

Arijharn
13-07-2015, 10:47
Honestly, I think they're still sufficiently different to be no threat to each other, other than both vying for your dollar (or pound, or whatever).

Karhedron
13-07-2015, 11:18
Something needed to be done to Fantasy. Sales had fallen and I have not played for at least a couple of years. However to me, AoS seems like the wrong solution. The problem with 8th Ed Fantasy was not the core ruleset (apart from the Magehammer aspect) as this was actually pretty good. The problem was the army books. Several experienced serious power creep, lots had thrown in vast numbers of new monster while jacking up the price of basic infantry (both points and £££s).

All this created a barrier to entry for new players and disappointing experience for older players who wanted to use their infantry rather armies of monsters.

So, whilst I shed no real tears for Fantasy, I really dread the idea of AoS coming to 40K. I think it throws the baby out with the bath water in terms of rules streamlining.

Lastly, I hate the lack of points costs. GW regularly get heckled for poorly balance units. The correct solution should be better play-testing, not simply discarding the idea of balance at all. I work in software engineering and I know that when you test something, you don't simply see if it works. You have to actively set out to try and break it in order to prove it is robust enough.

This is where GW falls down. They need to use competitive players to beta-test their army lists to actively seek out these broekn combos and unbalanced units. If these players can find combos that are hard to beat or not fun to play against, they need a price rise or a simple removal from the rules (Invisibility anyone?).

I really hope that AoS does not come to 40K. I know I could continue to play with existing rules but experience has shown that when a game system ceases to receive commercial support, it quickly withers to just a niche game with a small core of dedicated players. I like being able to walk into my LGS and reliably have a game of 40K as it stands.

I just hope GW has the sense not to kill their golden goose.

Griefbringer
13-07-2015, 12:15
It is my understanding that the first edition of the 40k game (Rogue trader, or maybe that was a slightly separate game) required a “Game Master.” The job of this “Game Master” was to create scenarios for the players to then take part in with their armies, so there is some historical precedence with scenario driven game play with Games Workshop.

Rogue Trader (aka first edition) had provisions for gaming with or without a GM.

For gaming without GM, the initial rulebook came with points system. At the time, it did not contain army lists as such, but there were guidelines provided for generating squads for different forces (typically involving rolling copious amounts of D100 to determine how the squad was equipped). Actual army lists were a bit later provided in White Dwarf and supplement books, providing more rigid guidelines for equipping forces (though this might still involve making a few D100 rolls to see what weapons your character ended up getting if you bought rolls from a weapons chart).

However, what may have been missing for playing straight pick-up games were rules for deployment, lenght of the game and determining winner at the end, and these would have needed to be sorted out by the players (unless playing for "last man standing" in which case the only thing needed would be deployment rules). Coincidentally, WHFB 3rd edition rulebook released same year had a specific section for competitive gaming that outlined rules for deployment, game lenght and victory points system, so the GW designers were not ignorant of such issues at that time.

However, the original rulebook also featured a boatload of material and scenario ideas that would really require a GM to make things work. These could include all sorts issues that would be initially unknown to players, such as strange terrain (a concept that was sort of re-invented also in WHFB 8th edition rules with mysterious terrain) or strange third party monstrosities skulking the battlefield and attacking unwary combatants. Especially the various types of death worlds with their nasty flora, fauna or environmental conditions could have given GMs a rather nasty arsenal of elements to hinder the players attempts to annihilate each others forces. There was also introduced a concept where players would be all on the same side, fighting against an enemy force controlled by the GM - this was not explored much further, though the concept was probably obvious for players coming from role-playing game background (and by my understanding, there was a big RPG boom taking place in the late 80's, with GW also taking part with their Warhammer Fantasy RPG).

What seems to be curious in the retrospective is that the additional material in WDs and supplements had much lower emphasis on GM role. Warhammer Siege supplement had a section on 40K usage that probably worked best with GM at helm, since a lot of the advanced weaponry of 40K seemed to be quite effective against fortresses, and the book discussed setting up scenarios that would necessitate assaulting a fortress rather than just bombarding it from space. Also Realms of Chaos books, introducing daemons and such, discussed how GMs could introduce third party daemonic incursions to harass their players. But beyond this, explicit ideas for scenarios or GM controlled elements seemed to become rare soon, with the emphasis on WD articles seemingly being in providing army lists as well as rules for all the new funky models that the company was cranking out at the time.

So while the initial RT rulebook had significant toolkit for GMs to organise scenarios, it also had points system for use in more competitive gaming, and the approach adapted in the later supplemental material seemed to focus more on material assosiated with such gaming, with army lists and point costs very much present. For example, the original "do-it-yourself" vehicle system, where the players could design (or randomly generate) their own vehicles and assign point costs, was later replaced by a more rigid datasheet system with fixed point costs (and no option to calculate point costs for your own designs).

In the end this all got replaced by the 2nd edition 40K, which was very much designed with competitive gaming in mind (though there were also the mission cards, which would introduce objectives other than "kill them all").

Of course, all of this does not have very much to do with AoS or the future of 40K.

Grndhog89
13-07-2015, 13:32
Honestly Griefbringer, what you just described to me of early RT sounds awesome. But then again I'm a guy who loves rolling on charts. Must also be why I enjoy Battletech (random hit locations and crit tables ftw).

rapaxvita
13-07-2015, 14:01
I should explain that I have never played fantasy before and I am not commenting on the status of fantasy before AoS. However I have played 40k for a while and after reading a little about AoS and going over the rules, I gotta say it seems like a positive step (I know I am the minority). For too long it seemed that 40k was just a series of overcomplicated rules each trying to patch up the last versions issues, for instance the eternal warrior and instant death dynamic. With the AoS style treatment, they are essentially going to a clean slate and making it much simpler (akin to chess or other simple strategy games). In the games of 40k that I had played I found it wasn't the core rules that were broken but the special rules that people were exploiting. By shedding those highly specific rules and going for a basic system I think it will play much better. Another positive is the free rules and "warscrolls", no longer will I have to shell out over 50 bucks for a rulebook or codex just to play with my models.

Now in saying this I agree that there are many issues with AoS, for instance the points per model and upgrades. I like to imagine what my characters are taking and make them special. Which is also relates to the scalability of the game in terms of being able to make balanced small and large games. There is also the fact that GW hasn't talked to anyone about this change. I really do feel for the players who have followed the game for the past 30 years and watch it just get cast aside. GW could have definitely handled this change better but overall in my humble opinion this is a positive change. If not a positive change then a great way to stir the pot, it is a refreshing way to play a warhammer game.

Again I know I am the minority here and I am just voicing my opinion. So please voice your criticism and opinions, just be constructive about it.

Griefbringer
13-07-2015, 14:12
[In relation to RT rulebook]

To be clear, the nearly endless tables of D100 in the original rulebook were mainly for pre-game organisation, such as rolling for weapons, mutations, psionic abilities or for random critters dwelling in the swamps. Though when the Realms of Chaos books came out, the designers decided that D100 did not give enough choice, so they wrote D1000 tables to generate chaos attributes and daemon weapons.

However, in the actual games tables and charts were not usually consulted, with attacks usually just causing wounds, even to vehicles. Though the later also had a critical damage chart, which you would sometimes roll on (often with a pretty good chance of destroying the target). This was later on replaced in WD by a new critical hit system, with 36 possible damage effects for vehicles (and another 36 for dreadnoughts) and lower chance of destroying the the target with a single hit. Robots had their own critical damage system which involved rolling D100, and they had also their own control programs that had to selected (or designed) pre-game and would limit the way they could react. This was later on replaced by another vehicle system with cut-out diagrams, targeting grids and new damage tables.

Randomly rolling armament for your models was quite problematic if you wanted to keep things WYSIWYG, unless you had a very large model collection, so it is not a wonder that the game designers did away with that. Though in the mean time they managed to introduce the kustom-kombi weapon rules for the orks, which could border on insanity - especially when it was possible to equip a whole ork mob with such weapons. This was demonstrated in a WD article where one of the studio members generated such a flash git mob and then actually converted models for it. Speaking of orks, madboyz back then had their own chart to determine what sort of erratic behaviour they would engage at a particular moment - there being 82 different options. Actually, the orks had so much stuff going on that their amy lists (each clan had separate one) had to be split over two books, and there was even third book released for their fluff.

While those multitudes of D100 charts might feel a bit odd to more modern gamers, it is worth keeping in mind that in the late 80's such charts seemed to be pretty popular in many gaming circles, especially in the RPG circles. Those who have ever encountered Rolemaster probably understand what I mean.


On another note, trying partially random force generation for a game or two could be something fresh for those willing to try it instead of usual list optimisation exercises. I don't expect it to make return to GW games, though.

Sureshot05
13-07-2015, 14:52
After due thought, I decided that whilst I think AoS is terribly implemented, and one of the worst products I've seen since Dreadfleet (how GW can't learn about Random rules is beyond me), I've decided it is better that the smaller game (Warhammer) suffered this fate rather than 40k, which is skittering close to the precipice. It is very clear that GW need to sort their sales out. We've all seen the yearly turnover flatlining, which means that GW needed to do something. It is better they have a disaster with AoS and Warhammer, the smaller game (Sales wise) rather than 40k. If everything goes badly, maybe they'll learn.

Whether they will is another matter. I think that it will take a lot for the management to truly see that this is so far a disaster (judging by online reaction, reaction at my local GW and LFGS) or at least not the success they had hoped for, or whether they start to blame other factors for the failure rather than accept the poor design decisions that led to the product. I have joked in the local GW that the best thing players can do for 40k is not buy AoS (not even for Custode parts) to make sure that GW learn it is a mistake and don't try to repeat the success with 40k.

Karhedron
13-07-2015, 15:14
I have joked in the local GW that the best thing players can do for 40k is not buy AoS (not even for Custode parts) to make sure that GW learn it is a mistake and don't try to repeat the success with 40k.

I am avoiding it as I have no interest in it. I play BAs so I cuold potentially use the Sigmarines but since I already have 25 Sanguinary Guard, I think I am OK on that score.

I probably wouldn't voice that opinion in my local GW though as I like popping in for the odd pot of paint and a friendly chat. ;)

mrknify
13-07-2015, 16:05
There are so many rules, 40k could use a 3rd edition style rule restructuring. I do like tye ideas behind the warscrolls, if I bought a box of say khorne beserkers and the rules were included with them....

Cheers.

Grndhog89
13-07-2015, 16:07
Random rolling isn't always a bad thing. Indeed, the results can be quite humorous at times.

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 16:27
How you liking your place at the top of the heap these days Grndhog?

Variance is one thing, the level of Random tainting 40K these days is excessive.

Haravikk
13-07-2015, 16:31
While I like that Age of Sigmar leaves it up to the players to determine balance for themselves, I do agree that some kind of system would have been nice.

For example, one of the things that's great about the war scrolls is that aren't any units that just feel weak; even some of the traditionally underwhelming units have fluffy rules and so-on. This means that a large number of infantry unit war scrolls could easily be considered equal, if we had some idea of how many models each scroll was worth, e.g- a war scroll for 10 Dwarf Warriors could constitute a rank 1 unit, meanwhile a rank 1 unit of Chaos Chosen might be 5 models only, but a rank 1 unit of Goblins would be 20 models and so-on. To take bigger units you simply take multiples of a scroll, so 20 Dwarf Warriors would be two war rank 1 scrolls. Put another way, all scrolls would be designed to be comparable to other scrolls of the same rank, and higher ranked scrolls (for stuff like monsters, characters etc.) would be roughly equivalent in strength to the number of units you could take instead. In cases where some profiles aren't quite comparable, rules would close the gap.

Effectively there'd be a points system, but it would use incredibly low values; e.g- a small game could be 10 points, giving you room for 5 or 6 units, plus a couple of characters and/or monsters.


Of course this'd still be rife with balance issues, but if GW is serious about Age of Sigmar being a "living ruleset" that will evolve and progress over time, then these things could be easily sorted, especially since the trend seems to be that all new units on the GW site will be linked to the free war scroll PDF; the paper copy that comes in the box is just for convenience.


Also, I just wanted to mention that I'd love an Age of Sigmar style rules overhaul for 40k for one simple reason; they might finally make Chainswords be an actual, meaningfully different weapon. It's always annoyed me no end that 3rd edition made a frickin' chainsaw sword identical to an Imperial Guard's bayonet, meanwhile in the books and video games these things are regularly chewing through armour. For that reason alone we need a whole new ruleset, because the way things have been going GW just doesn't seem willing to change the humble chainsword because so many affordable units currently have them ;)

Grndhog89
13-07-2015, 16:32
Play Battletech. Then tell me that the rolling of hit locations and crit results are not amusing.

Or what about rolling on the D1000 mutation table for WFRP 2nd Ed? Gaming is about rolling with sudden and unanticipated changes. Not a set of universal constants that you can continually splice to divine the most efficacious route.

I like that with some games but even the most rigid of those types (looking at you euro board games) need randomness in them. Even Power Grid (great game) has elements of randomness in it. It enhances rather than dilutes the complexity of effort and level of critical thought needed.

Dr.Clock
13-07-2015, 16:42
AoS was clearly a gamble - but it was a gamble to 'save' a portion of the business that had mostly ceased to be profitable. We're in this for 'personal' reasons - this is a hobby... so as with all hobbies, we tend to take it 'personally' when those 'in power' do things we might not agree with, or even just run contrary to our expectations. For me this boils down to people wanting to be 'proven right', in their desire to play a certain kind of game, with a certain kind of minis, with a certain iteration of background/setting.

In the context of 40k, I don't fear much at all from this. I think primarily the AoS move IS a business decision designed to cast aside alot of the baggage that Fantasy had built up, rules, fluff and model-wise, to make it more approachable and hence, more profitable - I think at this juncture, GW feels like their own games were competing against one another, instead of allowing for a more diverse array of products to get people interested in BOTH, or at least cast a wider net for potential customers. This leads me to believe that 40k is mostly 'safe', as GW wants to keep their now-core strategy of 'keep making Space Marines' alive and well. For me, in fact, AoS actually seems like a decent way to do some 'Wars within the Eye' kind of scenarios with my Khorne Daemons vs. my buddy's Nurgle ones...

Even if GW decides that this kind of lighter format is the best thing for all their games, there're enough little avenues in the rules as they stand currently to keep me interested...

I also think that the other shoe hasn't really dropped yet, and that Vets are expecting something that won't materialize - a points system. This is the point on 'balance' - points have only really ever given the 'illusion' of balance, or indeed the 'assumption' of it... an illusion that wears thin in all our beloved games when you face an army that's just a poor match up. 'Points' as the be-all-end-all of game balance simply won't work when there are an almost infinite number of potential combinations across so many different unit types. We too often forget that it's just as much the things that you must do to 'build an army' outside expending points that should balance the game as it is buying a 5-point vs. a 10-point upgrade on a unit.

Any game that gives each player carte blanche to decide 'what to put on the board' is going to be fighting an uphill battle in the balance department. Put another way, players may find at the end of the 'list building phase' that they're already at a disadvantage. If GW can build good, reasonably balanced scenarios for multiple styles of play, then I may take the plunge into Fantasy at some point as a more 'self-contained', 'ready to play' alternative to the 40k 'sand box' that I know and love. Space Hulk is a great example of a really excellent, tactically deep game based on a pretty darn simple rules, and what's more NO FREEDOM in unit selection. I've introduced a friend or two to Space Hulk, and I think we can too often forget that for 'new blood', remembering more than a few rules seems alot like 'work', and that the 'pre-game game' is entirely foreign to most people. Space Hulk does a great job, however, because things are pretty simple, especially for the genestealer player lol.

I see no reason why AoS can't become a more balanced game than its predecessors, other than that people will be 'forced' into a more standardized format. If this means that tournaments end up being playthroughs of GW-published scenarios with defined units at defined sizes, then that will take some of the power out of players' hands, it's true... but it WILL mean that everyone really IS 'playing the same game'.

In sum, I think there's room in the miniatures market for GW to offer BOTH 40k and Fantasy in ways that don't conflict with one another, and lead to MORE people being interested in their games, for more reasons and at more 'scales'.

Cheers,

The Good Doctor.

TwoStickZach
13-07-2015, 16:45
I think there is wayyy too much doom and gloom here - the drama is a little silly, if we are honest. My opinion is AoS will have ZERO effect on 40k.

The truth is, while much loved by fans, warhammer models didn't sell well. It is not even in the top five for wargame sales. 40k, by contrast, is the top dog, by a lot, beating the next several games combined.

This makes a situation where GW wants a new way to improve model sales for their weaker line. That's their business-they sell models.

Sadly, it was at the expense of longtime fantasy players who DID love the game. Maybe they lose those customers entirely, maybe they focus on 40k, maybe they will put up with AoS.

Either way, AoS looks like a smart business move, but one that has hurt a (relatively) small group of truly dedicated customers, some who have supported GW for decades.

I think 40k fans needn't worry about the same situation happening - 40k fans have voted with their dollars in numbers that WFB could not. While GW doesn't seem to listen to Internet feedback, they do listen to sales.

I am sad about fantasy changing, but I can always play 8th, and I am looking forward to trying AoS, it seems like a fresh light hearted game to contrast with 8th and 40k.

Thanks for reading :)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

itcamefromthedeep
13-07-2015, 17:43
I think that If Warhammer Fantasy tried to come back unchanged from its most popular incarnation it would be a failure.
Walls of text are bad. If you want to quote me, feel free to cut it down to the most relevant sentence.

People still play Mordheim. They still play Twilight Imperium and Settlers of Catan and Carcasonne. People still play Battletech, virtually unchanged for decades. For Warhammer you'd want a living rulebook for game balance and errata purposes, but if all you were trying to do was tighten the screws on the system, of course you go back to the way it was. People are going out in droves to watch Mad Max and Jurassic Park and Terminator this year (with Ghostbusters on the way). The times haven't changed *that* much.

---

Combined unit rules caused problems in 40k with things like range-sniping, LOS-sniping, Draigo-stars and Nob Bikers shenanigans, and most recently Super Friends lists. In fantasy it came up more rarely, but recent examples include the matter of whether Ogres get to stomp a unit that consists of one character on foot and one on a horse. It doesn't matter all the time, but it comes up once in a while.

If it were a big problem then they probably would have tried harder to clear it up by now. It's more of a problem that takes a lot of words to handle tightly, and it looks like GW simply gave up on rules to do it that are tight enough to fit in AoS. They may give up on it for 40k too.

---

I wouldn't expect you to find the fantasy-game portmanteau in Greenwood's prose. He described it as having a very specific purpose in marketing that doesn't apply elsewhere. When a game has made several hundred Goblin cards you need distinctive names in order to stand out and be remembered by a parent with a Christmas list. I think GW is misusing (and overusing) portmanteau as a marketing tool. It looks to me like GW saw other companies that successfully market to kids using portmanteau everywhere and just assumed that it was because kids like portmanteau, so GW started throwing portmanteau around like candy in an attempt to appeal to that demographic.

---

The super-soldier thing is pretty generic, but using a piece of a primarch (lower-case) as the template is more specific. Even Warriors of Chaos aren't described as having a part of Khorne or Nurgle's essence in them. That, combined wih the power armor look makes me think space marine.

---

I'm glad that you've had good experiences with the game, but if it has all been with the demo models rather than people's collections then it has always been in the context of forces that are designed to be balanced against each other (by all accounts the fairest starter set GW has ever produced). Once you leave the confines of preset forces, finding the kind of balance you see in the starter forces gets harder (I haven't seen it done). The problem here is roflstomps in the starter set, it's roflstomps once the training wheels come off and you have to guesstimate a fair fight.

---

The designers may have their hands tied by corporate. If the boss wants a cash grab, high churn game then the boss will get one.

itcamefromthedeep
13-07-2015, 17:45
I think that If Warhammer Fantasy tried to come back unchanged from its most popular incarnation it would be a failure.
Walls of text are bad. If you want to quote me, feel free to cut it down to the most relevant sentence.

People still play Mordheim. They still play Twilight Imperium and Settlers of Catan and Carcasonne. People still play Battletech, virtually unchanged for decades. For Warhammer you'd want a living rulebook for game balance and errata purposes, but if all you were trying to do was tighten the screws on the system, of course you go back to the way it was. People are going out in droves to watch Mad Max and Jurassic Park and Terminator this year (with Ghostbusters on the way). The times haven't changed *that* much.

---

Combined unit rules caused problems in 40k with things like range-sniping, LOS-sniping, Draigo-stars and Nob Bikers shenanigans, and most recently Super Friends lists. In fantasy it came up more rarely, but recent examples include the matter of whether Ogres get to stomp a unit that consists of one character on foot and one on a horse. It doesn't matter all the time, but it comes up once in a while.

If it were a big problem then they probably would have tried harder to clear it up by now. It's more of a problem that takes a lot of words to handle tightly, and it looks like GW simply gave up on rules to do it that are tight enough to fit in AoS. They may give up on it for 40k too.

---

I wouldn't expect you to find the fantasy-game portmanteau in Greenwood's prose. He described it as having a very specific purpose in marketing that doesn't apply elsewhere. When a game has made several hundred Goblin cards you need distinctive names in order to stand out and be remembered by a parent with a Christmas list. I think GW is misusing (and overusing) portmanteau as a marketing tool. It looks to me like GW saw other companies that successfully market to kids using portmanteau everywhere and just assumed that it was because kids like portmanteau, so GW started throwing portmanteau around like candy in an attempt to appeal to that demographic.

---

The super-soldier thing is pretty generic, but using a piece of a primarch (lower-case) as the template is more specific. Even Warriors of Chaos aren't described as having a part of Khorne or Nurgle's essence in them. That, combined wih the power armor look makes me think space marine.

---

I'm glad that you've had good experiences with the game, but if it has all been with the demo models rather than people's collections then it has always been in the context of forces that are designed to be balanced against each other (by all accounts the fairest starter set GW has ever produced). Once you leave the confines of preset forces, finding the kind of balance you see in the starter forces gets harder (I haven't seen it done). The problem here isn't roflstomps in the starter set, it's roflstomps once the training wheels come off and you have to guesstimate a fair fight.

---

The designers may have their hands tied by corporate. If the boss wants a cash grab, high churn game then the boss will get one.

Sephillion
13-07-2015, 17:47
I’m not concerned in the short run, right now the policy for 40K seems to be “sell as many books as possible for outrageous prices”, whereas one of AoS’ positive points is that (most) rules are free.
I wouldn’t play an AoSified 40K. But I think we’re safe for now.

Spiney Norman
13-07-2015, 19:55
After due thought, I decided that whilst I think AoS is terribly implemented, and one of the worst products I've seen since Dreadfleet (how GW can't learn about Random rules is beyond me), I've decided it is better that the smaller game (Warhammer) suffered this fate rather than 40k, which is skittering close to the precipice. It is very clear that GW need to sort their sales out. We've all seen the yearly turnover flatlining, which means that GW needed to do something. It is better they have a disaster with AoS and Warhammer, the smaller game (Sales wise) rather than 40k. If everything goes badly, maybe they'll learn.


If there is one thing I've learned about GW its that their capacity to make humongous mistakes, analyse them and come to precisely the wrong conclusions knows no limits. The very fact that they thought the solution to wfb's problems was to obliterate the rich, established setting and nuke the rules back to the stone age continues to astound me.

If AoS fails it wouldn't surprise me at all if they ditch the fantasy side of their business completely, decide AoS failed because it wasn't set in space and do exactly the same thing to 40k.

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 20:13
And this is exactly why everyone and their Grandmother should be flaming the **** out of every single blog, forum, and website over the debacle that is AoS. Every single 40K player should be calling out to stop this from happening to us in a few years time.

Griefbringer
13-07-2015, 21:29
I wouldn't expect you to find the fantasy-game portmanteau in Greenwood's prose. He described it as having a very specific purpose in marketing that doesn't apply elsewhere. When a game has made several hundred Goblin cards you need distinctive names in order to stand out and be remembered by a parent with a Christmas list. I think GW is misusing (and overusing) portmanteau as a marketing tool. It looks to me like GW saw other companies that successfully market to kids using portmanteau everywhere and just assumed that it was because kids like portmanteau, so GW started throwing portmanteau around like candy in an attempt to appeal to that demographic.


Regarding bizarre product names, it is not just a marketing thing - trademark lawyers also like them. It is difficult to claim trademark over generic or descriptive product names, but a whole lot easier to with original names. So now AoS will see products like Stormcast Eternals (TM), Orruks (TM), Duarding (TM) and Troggoth (TM). Actually 40K has already seen this previously with Astra Militarum (TM).

Expect to see also future 40K products feature names designed primarily for TradeMarkHammer (TM), though this can range from FakeLatinum (TM) to InventedAlienNames (TM) to BizarreCompoundWords (TM). In the last category, expect to see any combination of words [Blood, Imperial, Wolf, Claw, Eagle, Watch, Storm, Flame, Launcher, Skull, Sword, Brethren, Lord etc.] resulting in such combinations as Eaglestorm Deathflyer (TM) armed with Skullclaw Deathlaunchers (TM).

Beppo1234
13-07-2015, 21:45
I'd be ok with a GW reduction of factions into larger divisions: Imperium, Heretics, Eldar(s), Orks, Tyranids, Tau (with more races) and Necrons. Given that the rules that differentiate a large proportion of the marine and guard factions amount to a little more or less than a few paragraphs, I think even larger and conglomerated 40k tomes would be good.

Theocracity
13-07-2015, 22:28
And this is exactly why everyone and their Grandmother should be flaming the **** out of every single blog, forum, and website over the debacle that is AoS. Every single 40K player should be calling out to stop this from happening to us in a few years time.

Sounds like a great way to spend time enjoying the game we love - by making ourselves and others miserable with relentless fearmongering over a future that we ultimately have no control over.

dangerboyjim
13-07-2015, 22:35
If there is one thing I've learned about GW its that their capacity to make humongous mistakes, analyse them and come to precisely the wrong conclusions knows no limits. The very fact that they thought the solution to wfb's problems was to obliterate the rich, established setting and nuke the rules back to the stone age continues to astound me.

If AoS fails it wouldn't surprise me at all if they ditch the fantasy side of their business completely, decide AoS failed because it wasn't set in space and do exactly the same thing to 40k.


Yep!

I can't quite believe how stupid everything is in AoS. Everything! There's nothing about it that isn't howlingly stupid. And when it fails I expect they will burn down 40K as well.

I just hope someone buys them out before then.

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 22:52
Sounds like a great way to spend time enjoying the game we love - by making ourselves and others miserable with relentless fearmongering over a future that we ultimately have no control over.

You just need to work on your efficiency. I've got 7 Bloodcrushers almost done here!

Essentially though, I hope to create a blog, and spam the world with my view on what GW should do, in the hopes that someone at GW gets even a hint of the idea that maybe doing to 40K what they did to Fantasy would be a poor choice.

I dont need to change ideas, but I hope someone at least see's the ragefest online over AoS and gets second thoughts.

Theocracity
13-07-2015, 22:58
You just need to work on your efficiency. I've got 7 Bloodcrushers almost done here!

Essentially though, I hope to create a blog, and spam the world with my view on what GW should do, in the hopes that someone at GW gets even a hint of the idea that maybe doing to 40K what they did to Fantasy would be a poor choice.

I dont need to change ideas, but I hope someone at least see's the ragefest online over AoS and gets second thoughts.

Make a blog and yell at GW all you want, I have no problem with that. But I'd ask that you not direct your ire at people who selfishly decide to enjoy a game without thinking about your needs :p.

KingDeath
13-07-2015, 23:26
Hrm, the rules got even worse. The new fluff seems to be as shallow and soulless as it could be (seriously, 15th century germany mixed with Tolkien mixed with arthurian romance and horror > Sigmmuhreens vs evil chaosy mustachetwirlers) and as bad as 40k got, it still does not deserve to be turned into such an abomination.

itcamefromthedeep
13-07-2015, 23:43
Regarding bizarre product names, it is not just a marketing thing - trademark lawyers also like them. It is difficult to claim trademark over generic or descriptive product names, but a whole lot easier to with original names. So now AoS will see products like Stormcast Eternals (TM), Orruks (TM), Duarding (TM) and Troggoth (TM). Actually 40K has already seen this previously with Astra Militarum (TM).

Expect to see also future 40K products feature names designed primarily for TradeMarkHammer (TM), though this can range from FakeLatinum (TM) to InventedAlienNames (TM) to BizarreCompoundWords (TM). In the last category, expect to see any combination of words [Blood, Imperial, Wolf, Claw, Eagle, Watch, Storm, Flame, Launcher, Skull, Sword, Brethren, Lord etc.] resulting in such combinations as Eaglestorm Deathflyer (TM) armed with Skullclaw Deathlaunchers (TM).
The whole aelf and duardin thing seems odd to me. They already have asur/asrai/druchii and dawi, which are the ways those people referred to themselves in the background. It also looks like nobody else is rushing to trademark Greenskins either.

I could see someone getting upset over trademarking asur because that's already the name of a relatively obscure population of people in India, and asrai already refers to a kind of faerie, but druchii and dawi look free.

Wait a minute, I caught myself being surprised that they didn't respect existing background, and I really have no right to be surprised by that at this point. Forgive me.

Could someone please explain to me why the legal thing is relevant anyway? So what if GW calls elves elves and someone else calls elves elves. Legally speaking, who cares about what they're called when the copycats are fine calling it something different anyway? I don't see how this helps their copyright situation.

---

rageofsigmar.com looks free right now. Go nuts, Scribe of Khorne

MusingWarboss
14-07-2015, 00:20
Regarding bizarre product names, it is not just a marketing thing - trademark lawyers also like them. It is difficult to claim trademark over generic or descriptive product names, but a whole lot easier to with original names. So now AoS will see products like Stormcast Eternals (TM), Orruks (TM), Duarding (TM) and Troggoth (TM). Actually 40K has already seen this previously with Astra Militarum (TM).

Expect to see also future 40K products feature names designed primarily for TradeMarkHammer (TM), though this can range from FakeLatinum (TM) to InventedAlienNames (TM) to BizarreCompoundWords (TM). In the last category, expect to see any combination of words [Blood, Imperial, Wolf, Claw, Eagle, Watch, Storm, Flame, Launcher, Skull, Sword, Brethren, Lord etc.] resulting in such combinations as Eaglestorm Deathflyer (TM) armed with Skullclaw Deathlaunchers (TM).

Do you think they have a few D66 charts they roll on to come up with these names? Sounds a lot like the Star Trek TNG Technobabble method!!

Scribe of Khorne
14-07-2015, 00:30
Make a blog and yell at GW all you want, I have no problem with that. But I'd ask that you not direct your ire at people who selfishly decide to enjoy a game without thinking about your needs :p.

Here's the problem though.

My world allows for an AoS style game to be played.

AoS on the other hand, does not allow for a 40K type game to be played.

My needs, allow for all game types.

AoS forced Unbound and a Pointless System upon everyone.

My game preference allows for both Bound and Unbound, Points Based, Scenario Based, and Pointless.

This is the great fallacy of 6th, 7th (40K) now made manifest in its purest form in AoS, that only by removing restrictions, can people play what they want. Thats patently false, and despite some apologists arguments to the contrary (and no I dont group you into that) people could always do what they wanted, play how they wanted, within the framework GW was providing in 4th and 5th edition.

The reality is that a system of FOC + Points Costs allows for the greatest range of play style, removing all sense of limitation and balance does not provide any more freedom than what we already had in 5th, 6th, or today in 7th.

This is fact.

Theocracity
14-07-2015, 03:01
Here's the problem though.

My world allows for an AoS style game to be played.

AoS on the other hand, does not allow for a 40K type game to be played.

My needs, allow for all game types.

AoS forced Unbound and a Pointless System upon everyone.

My game preference allows for both Bound and Unbound, Points Based, Scenario Based, and Pointless.

This is the great fallacy of 6th, 7th (40K) now made manifest in its purest form in AoS, that only by removing restrictions, can people play what they want. Thats patently false, and despite some apologists arguments to the contrary (and no I dont group you into that) people could always do what they wanted, play how they wanted, within the framework GW was providing in 4th and 5th edition.

The reality is that a system of FOC + Points Costs allows for the greatest range of play style, removing all sense of limitation and balance does not provide any more freedom than what we already had in 5th, 6th, or today in 7th.

This is fact.

I'm not really interested in debating the merits of various play types, as that's well trod ground and not why I posted.

What it comes down to is that we fundamentally lack control over what GW's going to do. We all have our different ways of dealing with it - some by moving on to other games, some by continuing to play old versions, some by just enjoying the product as it is. My request was that you don't attack people in the latter group for deciding to enjoy a leisure product. There's enough negativity in this world without trying to make people feel bad for doing what they feel like with their free time.

If I've been misreading your intentions, then I apologize. But I've seen others around here proudly state that their goal is to crap all over AoS in the hopes that GW will fail (and that via some magical process this will make all of their wishes come true). That just strikes me as a way for people to take out their frustrations by dumping negativity on other people, in the vain hope that by doing so they will somehow gain control of GW's decisions and fate.

I wish you luck in your endeavor, even though I think there are more productive ways to spend one's free time. Just try not to be a jerk to people - it isn't going to help.

Inquisitor Shego
14-07-2015, 03:13
What it comes down to is that we fundamentally lack control over what GW's going to do.

I used to know someone with a semi-autistic daughter. Her behaviour pattern was always built around being naughty to get attention. She'd put her shoes on the wrong feet, try to eat soup with a fork, and even do things like go into the shower with her clothes on, just so mother and father could stressfully correct her actions. Eventually, they just stopped doing this, and their daughter began to get very stressed out. The stress was because she knew she was doing wrong, but had grown addicted to them fixing it for her, rather than doing it the right way. Eventually, she stopped putting her shoes on the wrong feet. She stopped eating her soup with a fork. She stopped going into the shower with her clothes on, because she (ran in front of a bus and died) got bored and behaved.

My point is we do have control over one thing GW is going to do: sink or swim. Our wallets are louder than any blog.

Scribe of Khorne
14-07-2015, 04:13
But it feels like russian roulette.

Nobody was buying WHFB - They turned it into AoS.

So do I buy with every *********** dollar I have to prevent AoS-40K? Or....do we say 'HEY GW DONT DO THIS WE ARE NOT BUYING ANYTHING!!' and they go 'Oh ****, look at 40K, we better bring in the ETERNALS!!'

AngryAngel
14-07-2015, 04:17
And this is exactly why everyone and their Grandmother should be flaming the **** out of every single blog, forum, and website over the debacle that is AoS. Every single 40K player should be calling out to stop this from happening to us in a few years time.

Nothing we say will stop this, if anything, this is already in progress. We already are losing slannesh, we will have the age of emperor and no amount of rage will stop it. Nor would even all 40k players even unite for such. Many would probably scream in joy at its coming saying how revolutionary it is. It frees them from any ideal of balance, still lets them pump out good models, and make the system agonizingly simple. I think saying it isn't coming is the dream, fearing the future is the reality and we, the current customers, don't matter.



Sounds like a great way to spend time enjoying the game we love - by making ourselves and others miserable with relentless fearmongering over a future that we ultimately have no control over.

I don't think it is fear mongering if you believe its coming, which I do. Though I do believe we will have no control over it happening, and that is the case because they blame us for not making as much money as they want to, they don't care really about current customers, they want new blood, which is why the drastic changes and why it will happen with 40k.

Scribe of Khorne
14-07-2015, 04:27
Man...you make me want to just start screaming like a madman. :D

The game, the setting, GW just doesnt even know what they have and it kills me to think they would wreck what they have.

Vaktathi
14-07-2015, 05:59
My thoughts on Age of Sigmar, particularly as it relates to 40k are thusly:

Aside from the box cover art, I'm not a fan. I'm not a fan of the rules, and I'm very much not a fan of the new fluff and background, particularly the naming. As has been touched on by others, GW's naming conventions of late have gotten increasingly ridiculous, and stupid to the point of being immersion breaking, and 40k is seeing this increasingly as well.

Fantasy needed a reboot, but it needed smaller, more affordablee armies with some of the magic scaled back and tweaked. AoS took a radically different approach, basically "imagination playtime with plastic army men". It's not really a game, it's just playing with toys using dice.

What is really starting to bother me a lot is the creep of GW's visuals more and more toward something akin to something you'd see out of Blizzard or League of Legends. I'm not a fan of their visual stylings, and 40k's "80's metal" and "Grimdark Realism" is what does it for me, and they managed to capture that very well with the box cover art and new logo I think, but a lot of the stuff, particularly the new Chaos models and Sigmarines, look like something out of WoW.

I've already dropped plans for re-expanding my Eldar and Imperial Guard and dialed back playtime as a result of the craziness of 40k's absurd rules and increasingly poor background and uninspiring art (impressive though it may be from a technical standpoint), a full AoS treatment would likely kill any desire I have to continue.

If we could go back to a 5E core rulset with a couple tweaks from 5E/6E (like being able to move and fire heavy weapons, even if at reduced ability, more functional rapidfire weapons, and 4E Victory Points, etc) with the visuals and style that GW put into their 3E and 4E publications, I think GW would be in much better shape.

AngryAngel
14-07-2015, 06:09
Man...you make me want to just start screaming like a madman. :D

The game, the setting, GW just doesnt even know what they have and it kills me to think they would wreck what they have.

I dig your sig, and when it burns you know I'll be there watching it with you.

Griefbringer
14-07-2015, 08:25
Could someone please explain to me why the legal thing is relevant anyway? So what if GW calls elves elves and someone else calls elves elves. Legally speaking, who cares about what they're called when the copycats are fine calling it something different anyway? I don't see how this helps their copyright situation.


By having lots of strong trademarks the lawyers can proudly put out an impressive trademark portfolio, which they can then present to the CEO, who can present it to the stockholders with the annual report, and the stockholders will be very impressed (or maybe not).

Trademark guys are then counting on that when Little Timmy decides to buy Eaglestorm Deathflyer (TM) for his Storm Angel (TM) marines to fly around, he will go for the genuine Games Workshop product. He will not even consider buying instead the Generic Futuristic Flyer that Miniatures Sweatshop has released recently. Hopefully he will never even hear about the later, and it might not even occur to him to look for something like it (especially when he does not know what it is called). And when Auntie Agnes goes shopping for Christmas gifts, there is no chance that she would accidentally pick another product with a name similar to Eaglestorm Deathflyer (TM).

Also, only the genuine Eaglestorm Deathflyer (TM) comes with real Skullclaw Deathlaunchers (TM) that shoots Flameskullmissiles (TM). That inferior Generic Futuristic Flyer only comes with miserable Generic Missilelauncher that will only shoot totally useless Generic Antitank Missiles.

Not that this will in any form prevent Miniatures Sweatshop from expanding their Generic Futuristic Vehicles line, including Generic Futuristic Flyer armed with multiple Dual Lasercannons and Generic Futuristic Armoured Personnel Carrier.

Spiney Norman
14-07-2015, 09:39
I used to know someone with a semi-autistic daughter. Her behaviour pattern was always built around being naughty to get attention. She'd put her shoes on the wrong feet, try to eat soup with a fork, and even do things like go into the shower with her clothes on, just so mother and father could stressfully correct her actions. Eventually, they just stopped doing this, and their daughter began to get very stressed out. The stress was because she knew she was doing wrong, but had grown addicted to them fixing it for her, rather than doing it the right way. Eventually, she stopped putting her shoes on the wrong feet. She stopped eating her soup with a fork. She stopped going into the shower with her clothes on, because she (ran in front of a bus and died) got bored and behaved.

My point is we do have control over one thing GW is going to do: sink or swim. Our wallets are louder than any blog.

That's all good in theory, but if anything AoS shows how spectacularly wrong that can go. As great a game as WFB was, it did have a multitude of flaws, so people didn't buy as much, in effect they "voted with their wallet", GW counts the votes and decides they need to do something, but because wallets only communicate disatisfaction they made precisely the wrong changes to correct the situation.

The problem is this, GW doesn't have a clue how to deliver a good product, by just holding up a sign saying "no" every time they release something crap you don't actually help them to get better, you just give them another opportunity to create a different something that is equally (or in the case of AoS, even more) crap.

From what I have seen of AoS, GW is so thoroughly divorced from a good understanding of the market and its customers that I'm fairly confident that they will go bankrupt before they accidentally hit on a game the majority of us want to buy.

A blog probably isn't going to do anything either, because even if GW is aware of it (highly unlikely), it only represents a single voice. Letters might do some good (as in actual physical letters, not emails), as long as they were politely worded, clearly explained what we want from a good game, and GW recieved literally thousands of them making consistently the same points.

insectum7
14-07-2015, 10:02
What is really starting to bother me a lot is the creep of GW's visuals more and more toward something akin to something you'd see out of Blizzard or League of Legends.

I also don't like it, but I could easily consider myself to be out of touch with what kids think is cool these days. That said I definitely believe there is a distinct and powerful draw to more mature/respectful aesthetics, and that it is smart business to retain differentiation in design. I'd be really curious to know what's going on in their art department.

But hey, why buy a new awkward looking $30 Chaplain anyways when you can get a better looking "classic" for $6.50 on Ebay.

ehlijen
14-07-2015, 10:46
By all evidence I can see, GW doesn't want (semi)serious gamers as their customers. They want the people who'll buy minis cause they're cool and then laugh at whatever they achieve or don't on the table. 6th and 7th 40k made it clear they don't want to make a tournament game (in fact they stopped holding big tournaments, didn't they?) and now AoS is the game for their ideal customer: the bright eyed fan who'll buy, play and laugh with not a care about winning.

Are there enough of those customers in the world to support them? They'll find out. But GW isn't interested in making balanced games for players interested in such. That leaves us hanging, and understandably annoyed. We can try to tell GW that, but they have proudly announced their unwillingness to listen. I don't see much choice other than to walk away if they wont' make the game you like.

Konovalev
14-07-2015, 14:12
I wouldn't want the entirety of AoS translated to 40k, but I'd like to see a return to save modifiers rather than the clumsy AP system.

And Monsters/Vehicles becoming less effective as they lose wounds/hp could be good mechanic.

Theocracity
14-07-2015, 14:50
I used to know someone with a semi-autistic daughter. Her behaviour pattern was always built around being naughty to get attention. She'd put her shoes on the wrong feet, try to eat soup with a fork, and even do things like go into the shower with her clothes on, just so mother and father could stressfully correct her actions. Eventually, they just stopped doing this, and their daughter began to get very stressed out. The stress was because she knew she was doing wrong, but had grown addicted to them fixing it for her, rather than doing it the right way. Eventually, she stopped putting her shoes on the wrong feet. She stopped eating her soup with a fork. She stopped going into the shower with her clothes on, because she (ran in front of a bus and died) got bored and behaved.

My point is we do have control over one thing GW is going to do: sink or swim. Our wallets are louder than any blog.

GW is not an individual and we are not their parents.

It's fine to tell yourself that your individual decision to not buy GW products was a deciding factor in changing their behavior. It does exert a small amount of influence, after all. But that's a way to cope with the stress of not having control, even if you have influence. Others choose different coping mechanisms, like figuring out ways to enjoy the game as it is. My point was that browbeating others isn't going to significantly increase influence, will definitely not increase control of the situation, and just makes others feel lousy about a game we ostensibly enjoy.


But it feels like russian roulette.

Nobody was buying WHFB - They turned it into AoS.

So do I buy with every *********** dollar I have to prevent AoS-40K? Or....do we say 'HEY GW DONT DO THIS WE ARE NOT BUYING ANYTHING!!' and they go 'Oh ****, look at 40K, we better bring in the ETERNALS!!'

That's what I mean by not having control. As with the inexorable march of time, sometimes things will change regardless of our input or desires. That sucks, but I think it's something we should accept as a given. I'd rather spend mental energy enjoying the game as it is now than worrying about the future when some capricious executive will change it to increase profit margins (or the future when I'm dead and my children will wonder why we wasted so much precious oil on plastic toys).


That's all good in theory, but if anything AoS shows how spectacularly wrong that can go. As great a game as WFB was, it did have a multitude of flaws, so people didn't buy as much, in effect they "voted with their wallet", GW counts the votes and decides they need to do something, but because wallets only communicate disatisfaction they made precisely the wrong changes to correct the situation.

The problem is this, GW doesn't have a clue how to deliver a good product, by just holding up a sign saying "no" every time they release something crap you don't actually help them to get better, you just give them another opportunity to create a different something that is equally (or in the case of AoS, even more) crap.

From what I have seen of AoS, GW is so thoroughly divorced from a good understanding of the market and its customers that I'm fairly confident that they will go bankrupt before they accidentally hit on a game the majority of us want to buy.

A blog probably isn't going to do anything either, because even if GW is aware of it (highly unlikely), it only represents a single voice. Letters might do some good (as in actual physical letters, not emails), as long as they were politely worded, clearly explained what we want from a good game, and GW recieved literally thousands of them making consistently the same points.

Well said. My personal coping mechanism is to make peace with the fact that my personal interpretations of GW's output are often better than the source.

Inquisitor Shego
14-07-2015, 18:29
GW is not an individual and we are not their parents.


I'm aware, Theo, but ultimately, the only gamer I care about is me, and that's how I choose to look at it. GW is an entity that in my eyes is doing things wrong, so I communicate to it via my wallet. I know I'm not alone, because GW's sales are gradually decreasing. I'm not being a doommonger and saying its demise is imminent and inevitable, but these are turbulent times. If it does go under, I won't be standing there, demanding my medal for doing my part with some silly boycott, because my relationship with GW is personal to me. However if you break it all down into factions, it simply becomes GW + the Players.

GW can be represented through its games, its models, its rules, its stores, its video games, its books, forge world, etc, and the players can be those who are pro-GW, anti-GW, boycotters, apologists, those happy and content, those miserable and dissatisfied. People come and go, joining and leaving all the time, and even returning from the distant cold. Many different faces, but two collective masses working together in a precarious balance. I may not be their parents, but like any child without parents, GW will promptly die in the wilderness if the gamers sod off and stop taking care of it.

I feel a blog will do nothing, just like the feminists on tumblr. Usually things become a circle of friends patting each other on the back, and flocking to opinions they want to hear. Still, a man is entitled to voice his dissatisfaction.

AngryAngel
14-07-2015, 19:51
I wouldn't want the entirety of AoS translated to 40k, but I'd like to see a return to save modifiers rather than the clumsy AP system.

And Monsters/Vehicles becoming less effective as they lose wounds/hp could be good mechanic.

Which I think both are good, the monster degrading thing I've pushed for awhile now on here, so some good ideas they could swing over.



Nooooooo it's a tambourine made of Space Jam posters purchased in a Delaware movie theatre :eek:. I'm aware, Theo, but ultimately, the only gamer I care about is me, and that's how I choose to look at it. GW is an entity that in my eyes is doing things wrong, so I communicate to it via my wallet. I know I'm not alone, because GW's sales are gradually decreasing. I'm not being a doommonger and saying its demise is imminent and inevitable, but these are turbulent times. If it does go under, I won't be standing there, demanding my medal for doing my part with some silly boycott, because my relationship with GW is personal to me. However if you break it all down into factions, it simply becomes GW + the Players.

GW can be represented through its games, its models, its rules, its stores, its video games, its books, forge world, etc, and the players can be those who are pro-GW, anti-GW, boycotters, apologists, those happy and content, those miserable and dissatisfied. People come and go, joining and leaving all the time, and even returning from the distant cold. Many different faces, but two collective masses working together in a precarious balance. I may not be their parents, but like any child without parents, GW will promptly die in the wilderness if the gamers sod off and stop taking care of it.

I feel a blog will do nothing, just like the feminists on tumblr. Usually things become a circle of friends patting each other on the back, and flocking to opinions they want to hear. Still, a man is entitled to voice his dissatisfaction.

To be completely fair, the death of GW is inevitable, all things die and fade away. Question is, how soon, the company was just growing, now its shrinking which isn't a good sign if it doesn't right the ship, it could be sooner as opposed to later. Considering they don't do market research or even really understand their customers, well what will be will be.

People should always voice their opinions however, even if it doesn't help the problem, as sometimes people just don't want to feel alone in their sadness or anger, it is only natural.

jeffersonian000
15-07-2015, 05:02
I'm starting to think Warhammer Fantasy existed solely in the mind of the Emperor, with Sigmar as His avatar within His own mind. End of Times was yet another shattering of His psyche, while Age of Sigmar is an attempt by the various fragments to reintegrate. Of course, that's just a thought (pun intended)

SJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

turtle123
15-07-2015, 10:35
The Sigmarines make pretty good Hammernators if you swap heads.

I'd like to see 40K advance like WH FB did fluff-wise. Make it WH 41K. I don't think AoS will happen to 40K since the game is such a good seller (from what I heard). There's no reason to overhaul things.

Losing Command
15-07-2015, 23:09
Well what does look promising is that the limited edition AoS book, of which there are only 2000 copies, still hasn't sold out after more than half a week of bein up for pre-order :D

TheFang
15-07-2015, 23:42
Well what does look promising is that the limited edition AoS book, of which there are only 2000 copies, still hasn't sold out after more than half a week of bein up for pre-order :D

and there's no limit on how many you can add to an individual order. Someone try to buy 2000 and see how many are left. ;)

Denny
16-07-2015, 14:29
and there's no limit on how many you can add to an individual order. Someone try to buy 2000 and see how many are left. ;)

Sadly the limit is 10 copies.

(Not that I tried or anything :shifty:)

Bloodknight
16-07-2015, 15:22
(in fact they stopped holding big tournaments, didn't they?)

They're sponsoring a tournament for AOS with prizes, giftbags and stuff in Germany. In 6 weeks, up to 200 players. So far, 2 people clicked on the "maybe" button on T3 (a German tournament aggregator website), no real registrations yet. It's been up for at least a week.

TheFang
16-07-2015, 15:32
Sadly the limit is 10 copies.


Actually you can keep on adding ten at a time.

I got up to 2010 copies at £160,800 so it seems as if it doesn't check the number until you log in which I'm not going to do. ;)

Denny
16-07-2015, 16:11
Actually you can keep on adding ten at a time.

I got up to 2010 copies at £160,800 so it seems as if it doesn't check the number until you log in which I'm not going to do. ;)

Huh, I saw the max dropdown was 10 and assumed that was it. :)

ehlijen
17-07-2015, 01:18
They're sponsoring a tournament for AOS with prizes, giftbags and stuff in Germany. In 6 weeks, up to 200 players. So far, 2 people clicked on the "maybe" button on T3 (a German tournament aggregator website), no real registrations yet. It's been up for at least a week.

That's interesting, hopeful and sad all at the same time...

Grubnar
17-07-2015, 01:44
I am afraid.

I'm afraid that there are enough people out there who just want to throw dice around, dont care what happens, dont care if they have any real say in the game (Random is Fun!) and dont have an (unhealthy) investment in the fluff, the rules, the factions, and the deep history of the setting.

I'm afraid of the people who read the article on BoLS that think having no points is better, because if you have issues with balance with points, the answer is to just throw out balance completely.

I'm afraid of people who want to just run scenarios, design their own scenario's with frozen unit lists, and think thats enough depth to last for another 15 years.

I'm afraid of people who think CSM 3.5 was 'too hard to write lists for'.

I'm afraid of a company disavowing the rules side of the hobby completely, completely denying that PLAYING THE GAME drives sales.

I'm afraid of how horribly they could render the game experience for a setting I have spent 16 years, and thousands of dollars (lol probably well over 10K...) on over those 16 years.

I'm afraid that GW will ruin 40K, because they certainly did it to Fantasy.

I'm afraid of the people who think competition is this evil thing that has lead to the decline of the game, when the most finacially successful years where when 'ardboyz was being ran, and the GAME was in ascendance.

Good rules does not mean people cannot have fun. Good rules does not mean casuals, fluff types, or scenario loving players have no where to go. Good, restrictive rules, improve the game for everyone.

I'm afraid, because GW continues to go the wrong way for competitive gaming, and they are ignorant enough, to think that is the right choice.

I am not afraid.

I am terrified!

It looks like, to me, that nowdays GW are unable to do something even as simple as "stay the course" for just a year, and release codexes for all the factions for that have the same ... vision, for lack of a better word. It just seems to me that nobody knows what they are doing anymore, that they are changing direction every several months now.

How can it be that Forge World's Horus Heresy series, that for the most part uses THE EXACT SAME RULES as regular 40k feels so much better?

I am terrified that 40k is in free-fall, and that if Age of Sigmar does well, it will spill over into 40k and effectively ruin it!