PDA

View Full Version : Your reaction to the Age of Sigmar (one week on)?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Avian
18-07-2015, 18:53
So Age of Sigmar has been out for a week, so I thought it would be good to make another poll to see how people feel. Please choose the option that you feel best fits your reaction.

As always, try to limit your reaction to what we have actually seen (the starter box, legacy scrolls, additional book and the additional Sigmarite models + terrain), and not focus on rumours for things that may or may not happen further out. Try to stick to what we know.

Also, if you come across the same poll again on another website, please do not vote a second time.

logan054
18-07-2015, 18:59
I really like the chaos models. The marauders and warriors are awesome. The chaos Lord looks great for converting. Terrain looks really nice.

The rest doesn't really inspire me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AFnord
18-07-2015, 19:04
Models: Detailed and well made (as always). Not sold on the style of the Sigmarites, I feel the game has lost a lot of visual identity with them, as they are closer to 40k. I like the marauders though.
Rules: Core rules seem simplistic. I could see there being some fun games with them, but going more heavily into the "put all the special rules on the units" direction, rather than trying to work with a flexible system that can represent all the units properly through a single unified ruleset is the exact opposite of what I've been arguing for. It just forces the player to learn even more special case rules.
Armies: A good amount of flavour. The complete lack of balancing factor and forcing the players the balance the game themselves completely kills it for me. Any system that equates 1 dragon to 1 goblin in its "balance" (sudden death) is a fundamentally broken system.

Okuto
18-07-2015, 19:33
Like the chaos models, rules are unusable in current state, dislike fluff/aesthetics greatly, game does accomplish its stated objective though despite misgivings. Will not invest but will play if asked.

Thus slightly negative is what I voted, AoS does what it set out to do, down scales the game so its easier to start and introduce new blood. I lose nothing trying it, played it, tried to finger out how I fit in it but its not the same warhammer I fell in love with, thus I don't feel any desire to jump in, I'm not the demographic AoS is out to impress so it's a mutual contempt.

thesoundofmusica
18-07-2015, 19:35
I voted mostly positive. I think most people in the overwhelmingly negative category havent given the game an honest chance.

Vulgarsty
18-07-2015, 19:35
The khorne models stop it from being "overwhelmingly negative" for me. Not even those admittedly nice models can rescue it from being bilge at best though imho.

Haravikk
18-07-2015, 19:42
Taken on their own the Chaos models are great; tons of detail and very characterful. My main issue with them is that as a war band they're pretty boring (basically just a generic Khorne force), I'd have preferred if something a bit different were mixed in. I've said before, but I've found Valkia the Bloody to be a much more compelling Khorne character, rather than generic meathead warlord #987. They could have themed the force around a surviving old world tribe, or have them wearing pieces of old Empire armour or something, or even taken the chance to actually show a mixture of corrupted races (it's not just humans you know GW!).

The Stormcast Eternals are fine, I just feel they lack variety. For me, the two-handed warhammer models are the best of the lot and look fantastic, followed by the flying models which add some much needed variety to their play style. I guess my main gripe is that I don't see much point in the Liberators; to me the Stormcast Eternals seem better suited to leading a force of other allied troops (i.e- Humans, Aelfs and Duardin) rather than being a complete army in their own right. I don't much like the main character on the Stormcast Eternal side; I guess I'm of the opinion that if you're already a superhuman wearing giant armour, then you don't need to be mounted on something to; the characters on foot (not part of the starter set) are much more interesting IMO.

MiyamatoMusashi
18-07-2015, 19:48
I voted mostly positive. I think most people in the overwhelmingly negative category havent given the game an honest chance.

I've given it an honest chance, and put overwhelmingly negative because I think it's awful.

Thanks for projecting, though.

logan054
18-07-2015, 19:48
I voted mostly positive. I think most people in the overwhelmingly negative category havent given the game an honest chance.

Tbh, I don't really see why I would and I'm sure many people feel the same. If I wanted to be playing a round base skirmish game I would be playing more 40k or looking at a alternate system.

Removing the game I actually like and replacing it with something I didn't want doesn't inspire me to actually play it. It's a bit like someone giving me a packet of crisps when I ordered a mixed grill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thesoundofmusica
18-07-2015, 19:59
No its more like coming to someones house, being offered crisps and not having any but instead whining endlessly about there being no mixed grill.

logan054
18-07-2015, 20:02
Lol, well done on the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EmperorNorton
18-07-2015, 20:17
Mostly negative for me.
The terrain kits are kinda nice, which was the reason for me not to vote overwhelmingly negative.
The minis are well done, technically speaking, but absolutely not my cup of tea. They might be nice for some conversions, but the price kills that idea.
The main rules are poor. While I think that it is possible to play a good and interesting game with them, my impression is that that would be purely accidental.
And finally, the warscrolls for the old Warhammer armies are pure garbage and don't work with the game the way it obviously is supposed to work (by using pre-written scenarios).

Tailessine
18-07-2015, 20:29
Models are technically great but just are not different enough for a new game- we already have lots of khorne and in 40k the big, armoured classical/religious style army that stormcasts borrow from. The rules have loopholes my car would go through and will need lots of FAQs. However, i like the freedom to be able to create themed armies and play smaller games- so its a lot more accessible. The background could eventually be great as there is so much scope for an evolving story.

thesoundofmusica
18-07-2015, 20:30
Lol, well done on the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do my best.

But in all seriousness I like the models. All models are quality models although I'm not entirely sold on the Sigmarite aesthetic I think that with more factions released they will blend in better.

Fluff I dont really care too much about. It's mostly about the visuals for me and the new scenery looks great aswell.
I think big formations a'la 8th look awesome, but I also think AoS allows for more scenery and makes the board look better that way.

About the game then. Fluid, fast, fun.

logan054
18-07-2015, 20:36
I don't disagree on the models. The chaos bits are very nice and bought a load. I just won't be using them to play AoS. As ever I play the game I like with the models I like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AFnord
18-07-2015, 20:52
And finally, the warscrolls for the old Warhammer armies are pure garbage and don't work with the game the way it obviously is supposed to work (by using pre-written scenarios).
This is the impression I get as well. But I feel that by going purely to pre-written scenarios you remove one of the main strengths that miniatures wargames actually have, and that is the flexibility of being allowed to build your own personalized army.

EmperorNorton
18-07-2015, 20:55
This is the impression I get as well. But I feel that by going purely to pre-written scenarios you remove one of the main strengths that miniatures wargames actually have, and that is the flexibility of being allowed to build your own personalized army.
And all the while they are touting that the new systems grants you more freedom than ever.
Somehow they seem to think that you can have your cake, and eat it, too, regardless of the fact that they did not even bother to bake a cake to begin with.

TheFang
18-07-2015, 20:57
Nice chaos and terrain so far. The rest of it is utterly without redeeming features. Massive negative.

Avian
18-07-2015, 21:02
I must admit that personally, the legacy scrolls pushed me from "this could be reasonably fun with some minor house rules" to "forget it, if I need to rewrite all the army lists, I might as well make my own game from scratch".

The background isn't helping either.

logan054
18-07-2015, 21:04
I think warthrone is calling ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tau_player001
18-07-2015, 21:12
No its more like coming to someones house, being offered crisps and not having any but instead whining endlessly about there being no mixed grill.

This is the warhammer forum, not the AOS forum tho.

bound for glory
18-07-2015, 21:15
my son(12) and i tried it.
it is terrible.

BorderKing
18-07-2015, 21:32
Without a way to have a balanced army it's hard to have fun with. The addition of the space marines, with bolters make me want to puke. I can get on board with the reboot thing they are trying to do but without decent rules and a rich unique world built over 30 years, GW is just a company selling expensive models.

AFnord
18-07-2015, 21:54
I must admit that personally, the legacy scrolls pushed me from "this could be reasonably fun with some minor house rules" to "forget it, if I need to rewrite all the army lists, I might as well make my own game from scratch".

The background isn't helping either.

That's what the Swedish tournament scene is doing. Making their own game from the ground up.

RedKnightSpecial
18-07-2015, 22:19
The models are admittedly nice, I even kind of like the Sigmarines. But the rules are pure trash. Also, the models are in a weird scale that makes them only really usable for this game, so there is no point in buying them to proxy as something else in a game with good rules. Plus then you'd actually be paying GW for foisting this junk on you. The negatives are very overwhelming.

Sureshot05
18-07-2015, 22:26
Disappointed with the whole lot.

Models looking the wrong scale, pricing points, rules are terrible and backward compatibility is just insulting. GW successfully killed Warhammer in our group, with a few sell ups, majority no longer interested and myself and a couple of the last players staying with 7th for the odd game when not playing other things (which are of course becoming more dominant). Normally a new edition is a chance to reinvigorate and get collecting, but this really was a deathknell for warhammer and GW fantasy in general. :(

Gutting really, as its such a missed opportunity that could have been so much better.

Ultraloth
18-07-2015, 22:27
This is the warhammer forum, not the AOS forum tho.

According to the moderators this IS the AOS forum, so could you stop peeing round the boundries?

Voss
18-07-2015, 22:28
Went from a mostly positive opinion at the first pics of the boxed set, to an increasingly and finally overwhelmingly negative opinion of the rules and game. Just terrible trash.
The khornate models are ok, the sigmarines (and the game itself) have all the depth of a mud puddle. The get-you-buy warscrolls compare very unfavorably to the ravening hordes edition of warhammer- just a muddy mess of senseless rules and nonsense with autohits, rerolls, and all sorts of inconsistencies treated as equivalents.

Still no sign of battle boxes or other kits for ease of entry, just more overpriced trash compounding every error they made with WFB to date.

Shifte
18-07-2015, 22:39
GW have taken me for granted too many times, I think. I'm not supporting this. I wanted to buy the fluff book they brought out today, but I won't. Consumers, when organised, have all the power. If lots of players don't buy AoS they will have to fix it or bin it. Hopefully they do the former. They will never bring WHFB back, they'd never admit to failing with AoS, so that's that. At best they will salvage this mess with actual rules. Quickly.

Deadhorse
18-07-2015, 22:42
Minis are ok, esp. the chaos guys.
Sigmarines are technically ok, but why buy them if you can get real space marines?
Plus, they're pretty much necrons if you read into their fluff. War machines devoid of emotion serving their god-king. Their only purpose is eternal war.

And it's downhill from there.
Horrid rules that are immune to most attempts at fixing them.
Lack of points means the game is unplayable at tournaments and difficult to balance for casual games
Boring neverending 4+ 3+ 5+ game lacks any depth
Fluff is among some of the worst produced by GW in the past two decades

Shifte
18-07-2015, 22:44
Minis are ok, esp. the chaos guys.
Sigmarines are technically ok, but why buy them if you can get real space marines?
Plus, they're pretty much necrons if you read into their fluff. War machines devoid of emotion serving their god-king. Their only purpose is eternal war.

And it's downhill from there.
Horrid rules that are immune to most attempts at fixing them.
Lack of points means the game is unplayable at tournaments and difficult to balance for casual games
Boring neverending 4+ 3+ 5+ game lacks any depth
Fluff is among some of the worst produced by GW in the past two decades

It's better than the Nemesis Crown, at least!

High praise, I know ...

Avian
18-07-2015, 22:47
Amusingly, the same poll over on Dakka has half the number of replies, but about the same number of positive voters.

ShruikhanTK
18-07-2015, 22:51
They lost me right when I saw the first images, never mind the rules. The design alone turned me off completely. I have since been buying up WHF stock to survive the wasteland that is AoS....you know living in my basement....holding my movement trays close lol

Vazalaar
18-07-2015, 22:54
I voted slightly positive, because I think the models are very good and don't object the fluff changes. But objectivly speaking I think AoS failed big time.

Sephillion
18-07-2015, 22:57
Tbh, I don't really see why I would and I'm sure many people feel the same. If I wanted to be playing a round base skirmish game I would be playing more 40k or looking at a alternate system.

Removing the game I actually like and replacing it with something I didn't want doesn't inspire me to actually play it. It's a bit like someone giving me a packet of crisps when I ordered a mixed grill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly - if it smells like... and looks like... I can tell it's probably like...

So yeah, guessed it, I voted overwhelmingly negative. No, I haven't tried it. I was more likely to try FB 8th edition. If I want a fast, simple game I'll play Star Wars or Hero Clix or something similar.

I PUG essentially my games, got one friend who's into the hobby and he's the only one I'd ever be guaranteed to know what I'd get into before playing. For the rest, the lack of points is a big no-no.

If it were just that - I'd still not play. The stats are overly simplistic, the old armies (i.e. what I'd really be interested in) have dumb warscrolls with the stupid clown rules, I cannot understand how one can play a game with random turn order, cover rules are dumb and badly written. In fact, the more I read the rules, the more I feel it's a first draft - a beta. The absolutely insane pricing does not help either. I play WMH so I'm used to models with many rules, but it seems to go counter to what they aimed for, and they got it wrong, with multiple rules for shields inside the same army, rules with different names having exact same effects, and so on.

I'm not a huge fan of the new fluff. I feel it's like if Wizards told fans "OK, Forgotten Realms are destroyed forever, Elminster and Drizzt are Gods now in Planescape". I think the renaming are dumb and, essentially, pointless, since the models themselves still fit general tropes. I could probably find 3rd party models that could pass for decent Sigmarines already.

Finally, I'm not a huge fan of supporting a company that ditched a system like that, and that does not communicate its plan ("hey, in a few wekks, there's a new game, buybuybuy!"). I think the release was botched, with little info to go on, no clue where this is headed, no idea even of models/armies/expansions to come.

And I really wish they had given me a reason to buy Skavens; I'd have loved a game that appealed to me at least moderately to build a small Skaven army. And maybe a few Warriors of Chaos. They missed the mark by a mile.

ScruffMan
18-07-2015, 23:04
I'm still enjoying it, voted 'mostly positive' and I don't know about anybody else but the freakish sets of dice rolls seem to be more common. It's like they feel the more random nature of the game and have responded accordingly!

BramGaunt
18-07-2015, 23:12
I voted slightly positive, because I think the models are very good and don't object the fluff changes. But objectivly speaking I think AoS failed big time.

I feel the same, but still voted mostly negative. Fluff and miniatures don't make (or break) a game for me, it's the game itself. So far the only interesting part about it is the combat phase, wherein you can find a shred of tactic.

Sad part is, I think the setting is quiet interesting. I really enjoy the idea of 8 realms of magic. If we didn't have to sacrifice the old world, but this was a completly new setting, and if it had been voind of GWs usual over the top shennanigans, I think it has the potential to be a real treasure trove of stories and background.

I also think there'd be less negativity over the looks of the Sigmarines if a) we were not all fed up with space marines and b) they were not such a huge leap from the classic Warhammer design.

Still, none of this is any excuse for this horrible set of rules... What were they thinking...

Danceny
18-07-2015, 23:19
As many already posted, the minis are made very well, however not my cuppa. The rules... Well, theres no rules... More guidelines how to play. After a couple of goes I can honestly say I never had a game where we couldn't even figure out who won... Mainly due to the fact summoning rules are a joke... The only time I'd play this game is if there's no other alternative.

Lexington
18-07-2015, 23:22
I think most people in the overwhelmingly negative category havent given the game an honest chance.
I don't know about that. We have a longstanding group of grognard Warhammer players here in the Twin Cities (Skull Bros Awesome (http://www.skullbrosawesome.com/)), who were pretty pumped about AoS before its release. "I'm all in" was a pretty common phase. Then, on a night that's already becoming kind of a legend, they actually played the game. Now they're considering what other games to cover on their podcast.

Bloodknight
18-07-2015, 23:26
Amusingly, the same poll over on Dakka has half the number of replies, but about the same number of positive voters.

Dunno, I don't frequent Dakka really, but isn't it more of a 40K forum? I've noticed that in forums that are predominantly about 40K, AoS is not as reviled as it is in WHFB-dominated forums. But then even most 40Kers say that they're not really interested.


Other than that, I second BramGaunt. Which is a step up for me from the last poll since I think that there are people who might enjoy this stuff. It just won't be me.

Avian
18-07-2015, 23:32
Yeah. It's quite strange that this forum is getting so many more votes, when I believe this forum is overall not more active.

EDIT: Fantasy is about one third as active as here, and the ratio of 40K to Fantasy is around 7:1, while Warseer is around 2:1.

Scribe of Khorne
18-07-2015, 23:40
That ever present silent majority, not working out so well this time.

Shifte
18-07-2015, 23:46
People liking AoS have a reason to keep posting. Those of us who dislike it get bored of saying "it's ****". I suspect we're just coming here to see if anyone has found a way to make it balanced or if GW has changed their minds on army composition. That'll be why this poll is so damning; the majority of Warhammer fans aren't keen on it.

From what I can tell Age of Sigmar is not doing well where I live, at least. That's a major UK city, too.

Spiney Norman
18-07-2015, 23:47
I've gone for slightly positive

The chaos starter models are excellent, the terrain is also excellent, the game play isnt a total disaster, but after playing through the starter scenarios a few times each and having no way to set up balanced games for extended play (or any way of balancing home-made scenarios) I don't really see the game going anywhere fast.

If, as I suspect, the only way to get any more out of the game is to keep buying an endless stream of £45 hardback volumes filled with scenarios that require you to buy more and more models to play then I will very quickly lose interest and probably end up dumping the game.

Scribe of Khorne
18-07-2015, 23:55
I've gone for slightly positive

The chaos starter models are excellent, the terrain is also excellent, the game play isnt a total disaster, but after playing through the starter scenarios a few times each and having no way to set up balanced games for extended play (or any way of balancing home-made scenarios) I don't really see the game going anywhere fast.

If, as I suspect, the only way to get any more out of the game is to keep buying an endless stream of £45 hardback volumes filled with scenarios that require you to buy more and more models to play then I will very quickly lose interest and probably end up dumping the game.

This is the kicker in all this.

1. There is a gap now in the Fantasy realm, GW could have filled it.
2. Most people like at least the Khorne models and Terrain, the Sigmarines are a stretch, but whatever nobody is going to like every model.
3. Scenario books and rules SELL. Just look at the HH books and the 40K Campaigns, and the End Times!
4. You still need a solid base to build off of.

If GW had blown up the world, given us a nice quick but not **** rules system with a points cost mechanism, they could have seen success with this, I really believe that.

The fact I feel it will fail makes it all the more frustrating.

HelloKitty
19-07-2015, 00:34
My reaction is that after we have created our comp system and gotten a ton of games in, that the game is a lot of fun. Yes the key was after we created our comp system for it.

Scribe of Khorne
19-07-2015, 00:51
My reaction is that after we have created our comp system and gotten a ton of games in, that the game is a lot of fun. Yes the key was after we created our comp system for it.

I will be trying your system out with Slayers. :p

SimaoSegunda
19-07-2015, 00:58
It seems to have led to a massive switch at our FLGS. About 1/3rd of the old WFB players have picked up AoS, but the 2/3rds who have rage quit have been replaced by new players or players who had quit fantasy years before. So overall, the number of fantasy players has actually increased here.

I'm really enjoying it. I don't like the liberators, in all honesty, but I like the rest, and have been inspired to paint them. I've also found with the lack of points, that I've been restricting myself to things I've painted.

As an earlier poster said, I've also been using a small selection of Stormcast Eternals (rather fluffily, as I'm seeing from the new book) as a kind of elite force coming in to bolster my Sylvanath army.

HelloKitty
19-07-2015, 01:05
I will be trying your system out with Slayers. :p

Cool let me know how it goes we havent had much data on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shandor
19-07-2015, 01:30
Well i played around 15 Games now. I was negative at the rumors and im still negativ.

I dont like Chaos. (none of the gods are interesting for me) so the Half of the box is just uninteresting for me.
The other half are Fat Clone Warriors. They look all the same. Fat guys with Wings, Fat guys with Bow, fat guys with Hammers..
The funny part is: I really Love Paladin like Warriors with Plate Armor and heavy Weapons. I always play such Klasses in RPGs. But GW failed my personal image of an Holy Plate Warrior in such an absolut way....*shiver*

So i dont like the models. (Maybe it would be different if there would be other Factons in the starterbox. I dont know)

Lets come to the Rules. They might be cool if you make an full overhaul or heavy houserule them. But i dont Vote for any House rules here. I Vote for AoS like it is.. and its terrible and almost unplayable.. at least if you want to have fun with it.
I have to admit that its really kinda complex with all those Warscroll special rules.. in a way its more complicated then the 8th edition in some ways in bigger games.
And thats kinda strange for me.. The Tactical depth is gone for the most part but its complex like a big Rule book with Army books.. that wasnt the goal right?

The fluff.. well.. there isnt much fluff already. What i could read is kinda thin so far.. but i usualy like Warhammer books.. maybe they get better.

So my personal checklist:
Models: Negative
Rules: Negative
Fluff: Kinda negative so far but there is some hope here..
Result: The same as around 50% other users here.

PS: What i would really like to know is the Opinion of those peoples had "An absolut BLAST" when they played the first games. They are still on that Train after more then 10 Games? (without houseruling)

Tzar Boris
19-07-2015, 02:33
On reflection, my reaction is now "Meh"

Did convince me to get some Frostgrave and Deadzone stuff this weekend though...
And this time last month I was a lapsed gamer.
So it kinda worked. Kinda.

Deadhorse
19-07-2015, 08:57
Amusingly, the same poll over on Dakka has half the number of replies, but about the same number of positive voters.

I assume that's because 40k players can use the minis for chaos / ba armies and their game hasn't been desecrated to make room for this pile of poop.

If 40k was turned into a simplified rank-and-file mass battle system, I wouldn't mind as much, I guess.

Kerill
19-07-2015, 09:04
Hmmm. Not played warhammer for a long time due to being busy with RL and partly not liking 8th edition Chaos much but thought I'd look into returning to the game so popped over to Warseer to see this travesty occurring. I think having WHFB as the more serious counter to 40K was always a good thing but that is now gone- a shame. Basically I assume GW want to get the 40K gamers (far more numerous) to spend more money on this new game while saving shelf space. Still I guess cutting WHFB will make all of our WHFB miniatures worth a bit more on ebay in the future.

vlad78
19-07-2015, 10:25
Without a way to have a balanced army it's hard to have fun with. The addition of the space marines, with bolters make me want to puke. I can get on board with the reboot thing they are trying to do but without decent rules and a rich unique world built over 30 years, GW is just a company selling expensive models.

This is so true. Without the background and the playerbase, there's absolutely no reasons to buy from GW . (space marines not withstanding)

jet_palero
19-07-2015, 11:44
I wouldn't mind the Sigmarines if they were just an additional faction that saved the day during the "end times" and the rest of the old world remained. But when they killed the old world, they killed my interest.

Samsonov
19-07-2015, 12:29
Voted mostly negative. I like the new terrain and I love the new Lord Castellant. Beyond this, the new models look very good from a technical perspective even if I dislike them stylistically.

But everything else... They took a background and ruleset which had strong basis in actual history with added fantasy elements. They replaced the background with the generic unimaginative fantasy of modern computer games and replaced the rules with something severely lacking in tactics and balance. I fully understand why warmahordes players would be interested but people such as myself who like the historical element of WFB have just had their enthusiasm killed.

Vos
19-07-2015, 12:33
Its a completely new game, but with your old figures. No one is stopping anyone playing 8th (as long as you have all the kit!).
Personally, I've played 3 games now and its sucked me back in after a long hiatus. Just bought some wood elves for a 100 wound list (the size of game you can comfortably do in an evening).
Saying this, we are a mature group and we balance each other's lists through peer pressure and all round gentlemanly conduct e.g. someone turned up with 2 dragons and was told to take one off and replace it with 10 spearmen.
We don't play one on one games, we have multiple players a side and often have one person acting as host/referee. We're not a competitive group.
So all in all, AoS has been positive in our group.

Vos

Samsonov
19-07-2015, 12:40
Its a completely new game, but with your old figures. No one is stopping anyone playing 8th (as long as you have all the kit!)
Person 1: You are a big fan of band X. The have a new album out. Do you like it?
Person 2: All the things I liked about their earlier albums are missing in their new album.
Person 1: Well, you can also keep listing to their earlier albums.
Person 2: That was not your original question.

The response in your quote, notions often stated on this forum, is simply not relevant to how much someone likes AoS.

Shandor
19-07-2015, 12:54
Its a completely new game, but with your old figures. No one is stopping anyone playing 8th (as long as you have all the kit!).


Vos

Well its not 100% true.
My GW Store manager is stopping me playing the 8th edition. I was playing mostly in the GW store and its not allowed there anymone to play the 8th Edition.

ihavetoomuchminis
19-07-2015, 12:55
Person 1: You are a big fan of band X. The have a new album out. Do you like it?
Person 2: All the things I liked about their earlier albums are missing in their new album.
Person 1: Well, you can also keep listing to their earlier albums.
Person 2: That was not your original question.

The response in your quote, notions often stated on this forum, is simply not relevant to how much someone likes AoS.

And he doesnt even play AoS but a different game, with multiple players and referee.

And the first part of his post reads as propaganda (the size of a game you can comfortably do in an evening...where do i have read this before?). And i better dont tell anything about the "we are mature" part.

BTW, i voted Overwhelmingly negative. The models don't interest me, i don't see what's so great about the scenery(some coke cans would be as useful), and the rules have chased me off from the game.

Denny
19-07-2015, 13:07
True Neutral.

Where is my poll option? ;)

MiyamatoMusashi
19-07-2015, 13:10
True Neutral.

Where is my poll option? ;)

Get off the fence. You're not Switzerland. ;)

Gazak Blacktoof
19-07-2015, 13:10
Overwhelmingly negative

We're looking for other supported rule-sets to use with our existing miniatures.

My friend has been reading Warthrone and thinks its the best of the bunch. I'm going to be giving it a read this afternoon.

The terran that's up for pre-order now looks great though.

Vos
19-07-2015, 13:12
Samsanov - Your response seems spurious. I think its obvious I like the new album. Didn't seem much point in just saying this though.
Shandor - you need to find somewhere else to play 8th. If you can't then you are doomed to find another (non GW) hobby or be condemned to always have to play what GW want you to play in their shops.
Ihavetoomuchminis - The AoS I play uses AoS rules and minis, so how exactly am I not playing AoS? Just because I am not playing it the way you/others do? Using this logic, did I never play any other edition of Warhammer either? (and I've played them all, starting with 1st edition Warhammer from when I was in school). Its not a board game or a card game like bridge, where you have to play with a set number of players?

Vos

Holier Than Thou
19-07-2015, 13:39
Samsanov - Your response seems spurious. I think its obvious I like the new album. Didn't seem much point in just saying this though.
Shandor - you need to find somewhere else to play 8th. If you can't then you are doomed to find another (non GW) hobby or be condemned to always have to play what GW want you to play in their shops.
Ihavetoomuchminis - The AoS I play uses AoS rules and minis, so how exactly am I not playing AoS? Just because I am not playing it the way you/others do? Using this logic, did I never play any other edition of Warhammer either? (and I've played them all, starting with 1st edition Warhammer from when I was in school). Its not a board game or a card game like bridge, where you have to play with a set number of players?

Vos

But you HAVE stopped the person with 2 dragons playing the game by the 'rules' with his minis.

Denny
19-07-2015, 14:07
Get off the fence. You're not Switzerland. ;)

Not yet . . .:shifty:

logan054
19-07-2015, 14:17
Overwhelmingly negative

We're looking for other supported rule-sets to use with our existing miniatures.

My friend has been reading Warthrone and thinks its the best of the bunch. I'm going to be giving it a read this afternoon.

The terran that's up for pre-order now looks great though.

It looks really good and felix is willing to support warhammer lists among other games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dosiere
19-07-2015, 14:43
I'm one of those who is becoming more and more negative about the whole thing, but originally was willing to give it an honest try. It has killed warhammer in my area, I can't even get a pick up game most of the time. AoS has some great ideas, there is actually a good base for a game in there. But that's all it seems to be, the shell of a game that needs more to make it great.

Its inability to support quick pick up games between strangers is the most damning in my view, and GW compounded the issue with the legacy Warscrolls. I've noticed most of the hate from people is coming from those who have tried playing it to recreate WFB battles with the rules. AoS sucks at this out of the box and GW should never have encouraged it as they have with the war scrolls. It's unwieldy at battles that large and the base humping in the pile in phase alone is annoying.

WFB had some real issues that needed to be addressed, but it seems to me they threw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

Herzlos
19-07-2015, 15:02
Mostly negative; Maybe restrained optimism is a better term? I mean, I want it to be good. I really do. I love fantasy.

Positives: I like the Sigmarines to an extent, but I wouldn't use them as an army. They could make pretty cool bad guys for something like 7TV. I also like the warpgate scenery, though I have no idea what I'd do with it. As usual the pricing is high enough to put off any impulse buys. I'm also looking forward to seeing what they do with the other armies I may be interested in starting, safe in the knowledge that if they ruin them I'm not invested (beyond about 200 Dwarves which I can use in KoW).

Negatives: Everything else. Top of the list is the rules and balance. They aren't famous for good rules, but I think they've succeeded in producing the worst set of 4 page rules possible. As for balance, there isn't any. Most of my games are pre-arranged at a club, and points go a long way towards making that a straightforward expeerience.

If I need to GM games to keep it enjoyable I'll stick to SDE, though I'm seriously considering going to Hordes & Heroes in 10mm for my big battle fantasy and Frostgrave for skirmish.

Edit: Currently sitting at 74% negative 8 days after the launch. That's not a good thing, surely?

AlexHolker
19-07-2015, 15:14
Overwhelmingly negative. The rules are mediocre, the lore is terrible, six pounds per rank-and-file is insane and GW chose to focus on two armies of characterless, boring men.

HelloKitty
19-07-2015, 15:25
Mostly negative; Maybe restrained optimism is a better term? I mean, I want it to be good. I really do. I love fantasy.

Positives: I like the Sigmarines to an extent, but I wouldn't use them as an army. They could make pretty cool bad guys for something like 7TV. I also like the warpgate scenery, though I have no idea what I'd do with it. As usual the pricing is high enough to put off any impulse buys. I'm also looking forward to seeing what they do with the other armies I may be interested in starting, safe in the knowledge that if they ruin them I'm not invested (beyond about 200 Dwarves which I can use in KoW).

Negatives: Everything else. Top of the list is the rules and balance. They aren't famous for good rules, but I think they've succeeded in producing the worst set of 4 page rules possible. As for balance, there isn't any. Most of my games are pre-arranged at a club, and points go a long way towards making that a straightforward expeerience.

If I need to GM games to keep it enjoyable I'll stick to SDE, though I'm seriously considering going to Hordes & Heroes in 10mm for my big battle fantasy and Frostgrave for skirmish.

Edit: Currently sitting at 74% negative 8 days after the launch. That's not a good thing, surely?

It shows that 3/4 of existing players didnt really want to change systems.

When 8th was launched it is was overwhelmingly negative for months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tae
19-07-2015, 17:17
I want AoS to work.

I mean I really want it to work. It has, on the face of it, everything I've ever wanted - a skirmish game, based off the Fantasy universe using scenarios and round bases (I prefer them, so sue me :p).

But, unless GW actually bother to tighten up the rules and, more importantly, implement some sort of balancing mechanic other than the retardedly easy to abuse sudden death mechanic then not only will I not be playing it but chances are I'll probably sell it all as I've no interest in playing 8th anymore either (and haven't for over a year).

Shandor
19-07-2015, 17:34
It shows that 3/4 of existing players didnt really want to change systems.

When 8th was launched it is was overwhelmingly negative for months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You keep say this. But there are many peoples open for new stuff like myselve. If your Ice Cream vendor want to sells you Dog Poo Icecream peoples dont dislike it because its new.. they dont like it because of what it is :)

HelloKitty
19-07-2015, 17:38
I keep saying this because the pattern has not changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AFnord
19-07-2015, 17:47
I keep saying this because the pattern has not changed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I asked for a system change, I've been asking for it for a long time. The core design philosophy of Warhammer was still stuck in an 80's/early 90's mindset, and there was a lot of things that could be improved. I also think the game needed a big "shakeup" in order to stay fresh. I just did not ask for this.

MiyamatoMusashi
19-07-2015, 17:51
I asked for a system change, I've been asking for it for a long time. The core design philosophy of Warhammer was still stuck in an 80's/early 90's mindset, and there was a lot of things that could be improved. I also think the game needed a big "shakeup" in order to stay fresh. I just did not ask for this.

Same here, with emphasis added.

Avian
19-07-2015, 17:58
Results so far. 194 votes from Warseer, 176 from Dakka. In both cases we see that there are few Overwhelmingly Positive, and few on both Slightly Positive and Slightly Negative, but apart from that there results are quite different.

Weird. Though like last time it's trending towards around 1/3rd positive and 2/3 negative combined.

217400

fantasypisces
19-07-2015, 18:04
When everything came out my initial impression was negative, but I still wanted to give it a shot, so we are going to assume I started at neutral.
First game: was a small one, my Brett vs my friend's Chaos. He started off very positive, by the end I was slightly negative, he was slightly negative.

Second game: my Brett's vs opponents Ogres. He was overwhelmingly positive. By the end I was mostly negative, he was mostly positive. Regardless, I still bought the starter box.

Third game: Brett's vs Vamps. He started slightly positive. By end I stayed mostly negative, he went to slightly negative.
After those three games, unless I only kept playing two of them, then I couldn't get anymore games because my 8 other fantasy friends who play have all now quit due to AoS.

I have always been more interested in the fluff, so I still bought the new book, because I really wanted to give it a shot. After reading the book, I went to a mid-ground between mostly negative, and overwhelmingly negative. This is purely my opinion, but I think the new fluff is silly and stupid, and all I could see the entire time while reading it was fantasy marines vs chaos, from background to organization, I hated it. I hate the bubble verses, it's uninspiring. No mention of Brett's at all also didn't help coming from a guy that has played Bretonnia for the past nine years.

So overall, having not liked my games, not liking the rules and how much house ruling is required, hating the new fluff, I was between mostly negative and overwhelmingly negative. I voted mostly negative.

Shandor
19-07-2015, 18:06
Results so far. 194 votes from Warseer, 176 from Dakka. In both cases we see that there are few Overwhelmingly Positive, and few on both Slightly Positive and Slightly Negative, but apart from that there results are quite different.

Weird. Though like last time it's trending towards around 1/3rd positive and 2/3 negative combined.

217400

Thanks for your work. You really should keep this u. i am very interested in a "month since release" poll in 3 weeks. :)

Avian
19-07-2015, 18:09
Thanks for your work. You really should keep this u. i am very interested in a "month since release" poll in 3 weeks. :)
That is on my to-do list already, yes. :)

mdauben
19-07-2015, 18:13
When 8th was launched it is was overwhelmingly negative for months.


And in the end, sales were so abysmal that they discontinued the game.

Not trying to bash WFB, which I loved (although 8th wasn't my favorite) or justify AoS, which has some good points but is IMO seriously flawed in the end. What I am saying is that in spite of how much criticism or support AoS receives here, the true test of its success will be whether it can reverse the slump in sales for GW's fantasy line.

Coraxis
19-07-2015, 18:17
Results so far. 194 votes from Warseer, 176 from Dakka. In both cases we see that there are few Overwhelmingly Positive, and few on both Slightly Positive and Slightly Negative, but apart from that there results are quite different.

Weird. Though like last time it's trending towards around 1/3rd positive and 2/3 negative combined.

217400

Well Dakka is a 40k forum, Warseer is a mixed forum. I guess that 40k only players are more positive about AoS given that they weren't interested in WHFB to begin with. So they aren't pissed off because GW destroyed their game, they're more expectant and positive because of the possibility to start a new game. While us Fantasy or Fantasy/40k players are mostly dissapointed/angry/berserker about what GW has done with the game we loved.

I'd call this a sucess for GW, given that they wanted to get rid of the "old and bitter" players and get some new blood...

Smithpod68
19-07-2015, 18:23
I voted slightly negative as it really has divided my gaming group where people want to try it at least or not at all. All the veteran players absolutely HATE AoS as it has changed the way the game g looks and feels. I have yet to play a game and think there are some positives,but when those around you have played it and disliked it vowing to return to eighth or get out of WHFB completely after 10+ years it is disheartening.

TheFang
19-07-2015, 19:32
Results so far. 194 votes from Warseer, 176 from Dakka. In both cases we see that there are few Overwhelmingly Positive, and few on both Slightly Positive and Slightly Negative, but apart from that there results are quite different.

Thanks for that.
I don't go on dakka as the immense signatures and colours make it unreadable. Is there a consensus as to why they are so much more positive? All 40kers buying BA and Khorne minis?

Rakariel
19-07-2015, 19:35
I voted mostly negative.

If I can name one thing that AoS has achieved in my area, its a massive interest in other game systems (KoW, Wm/Ho). So much interest in fact, that its pretty hard to find games for 8th at the moment. For me AoS would honestly be not a bad game per se, it sure as hell can be alot of fun if its not played competitively and if you houserule the biggest problems that arise due to some of the head-scratchingly bad rules. I would even go so far and say that the new fluff has potential even tho I loved the old world (apart from those new names, ridiculous...). What I can`t wrap my head around is however, why the hell they had to create another skirmish based game. Fluff aside, the whole R&F mechanic was what pulled me into playing Warhammer in the first place, because it was something different no other game could provide. This is gone now, and with it my interest to even continuously give AoS a chance.

If they manage to miraculously get rid of the skirmish elements, or even better put them in alongside R&F rules to help new players into the game as some sort of easy, cheaper introduction (something they should have done in the first place) put back in R&F and a proper points system then I am all for it. I`m however not gonna play another skirmish game, if I wanted to do that I`d play 40k or Wm/Ho. The latter is especially far superior in rules design on top of it.

Avian
19-07-2015, 19:48
Thanks for that.
I don't go on dakka as the immense signatures and colours make it unreadable. Is there a consensus as to why they are so much more positive? All 40kers buying BA and Khorne minis?

Nobody said they were going to use the models for 40K.

Really, the reasons people on Dakka give for liking it is mostly the same ones people gave here. I guess it's possible that if you went from 40K to AoS, it seemed like more of an improvement than if you went from FB to AoS. ;)

Or maybe being active in the FB section of a mainly 40K forum means you are overall more likely to be positive towards the game. I don't know. Though I shall investigate further.

Bloodknight
19-07-2015, 19:51
s there a consensus as to why they are so much more positive? All 40kers buying BA and Khorne minis?

I guess most of them weren't invested in WFB, so they have more reason to look at it favorably. They also might not have realised that a success for AOS might mean that 40K gets AOSed soon as well.

HammerofThunor
19-07-2015, 19:54
Perhaps those that don't like AoS don't waste their time trawling through threads on AoS? Perhaps they spend their time actively developing and maintaining their community networks to play alternatives? Perhaps they've already given up hope that AoS will become anything close to decent?

Avian
19-07-2015, 19:58
Perhaps those that don't like AoS don't waste their time trawling through threads on AoS? Perhaps they spend their time actively developing and maintaining their community networks to play alternatives? Perhaps they've already given up hope that AoS will become anything close to decent?

That doesn't explain why there is a difference between the two forums.

Kahadras
19-07-2015, 22:28
Mostly Negative.

Models - OK but I'm not going to run out and buy them any time soon (certainly not a fan of the Sigmarines)
Rules - Poor. Just about get you by as long as you go to the effort of trying to figure out how to balance things.
Price - OK for the starter set. Abysmal beyond it (so far)
Fluff - Poor. Very little to inspire me past the different spheres dedicated to the different winds of magic.

King Julrf
19-07-2015, 23:19
Mostly negative at the moment.

- Love the Chaos miniatures in the box set
- Love the new terrain
- Not too keen on the new rules, although I think we need to give it a bit of time
- Hate the new fluff
- Despise the new Sigmarite army. Seriously, they're Space Marines. I could pick any of them, paint it and put it in my 40k army and it wouldn't look out of place.

I'll still keep an eye out for better rules and new models, but atm I'm not sold.

Eldartank
19-07-2015, 23:46
I voted "slightly positive." I don't know too much about the rules yet, and I never really played Warhammer. I bought some Empire stuff a while back and never quite got around to finishing them. However, I really like all the minis in the new boxed set, both the Khorne models and the Sigmarite models, so I bought the boxed set. I don't know if I will ever play the game, but I will assemble and paint the models and show them off in my display case.

JackStreicher
20-07-2015, 00:51
reaction: fluff and models: NOPE .

Zywus
20-07-2015, 01:06
I'd call this a sucess for GW, given that they wanted to get rid of the "old and bitter" players and get some new blood...
Well, as far as getting rid of the old players it's a stunning success indeed. As for getting new blood to fill the vacancies... remains to be seen :(



I'm overwhelmingly negative to this release to say the least. Last poll I voted 'mostly negative' since nothing I've seen that far was to my liking, but who knew what would come next.

The more I read about the release the more baffled I become about how lousy I perceive it to be. At this point I have absolutely no hope for any improvement and is just following the trainwreck along in complete befuddlement.

It will be interesting to see if AoS can keep a playerbase big enough to sustain it. I can't see why anyone would be interested in this product but apparently some people are, so fair game to them. I guess we should all take a step back and try not to take all this too personal.

Shandor
20-07-2015, 01:16
Well Dakka is a 40k forum, Warseer is a mixed forum. I guess that 40k only players are more positive about AoS given that they weren't interested in WHFB to begin with. So they aren't pissed off because GW destroyed their game, they're more expectant and positive because of the possibility to start a new game. While us Fantasy or Fantasy/40k players are mostly dissapointed/angry/berserker about what GW has done with the game we loved.

I'd call this a sucess for GW, given that they wanted to get rid of the "old and bitter" players and get some new blood...

Well i wasnt bitter. I was very happy playing Warhammer and End times. I did spend alot money last year. Well.. now im bitter and spend nothing this year.. i dont know if that should be the goal..

Groza
20-07-2015, 01:33
To me AoS is an abomination on all fronts.
I noticed most people at least like the models (usually just the chaos side) and hate the fluff and/or rules but for me they are all equally trash.
Just a downright insult of a product that no amount of criticism will ever do justice.

Kahadras
20-07-2015, 11:23
Well, as far as getting rid of the old players it's a stunning success indeed. As for getting new blood to fill the vacancies... remains to be seen

I really wonder were GW is expecting this 'new blood' to come from. I don't know about other people but it was the 'old players' that got me into the game to start with. IMHO vet's can be a great marketing tool for a company if treated correctly. FFG doesn't pay me a penny but I've done several demo games of Star Wars Armarda down at my local club. When other people have come up to me and expressed interest in the game I've taken time to show them the models, explain the rules, point them in the direction of websites that offer a discount on Armarda starter sets etc.

RevEv
20-07-2015, 11:32
I've voted mostly positive.

I found the increasing model count in 8th Ed was getting overwhelming, particularly as my regular opponent (my wife) relied on me to prepare the games we play and we had little time as it was to play.

Now we both want to play and getting an army together is so easy. As to balance, I've yet to try with monsters but unit v unit I have no complaints.

Buddy Bear
20-07-2015, 11:43
Overwhelmingly Negative.

Models
- The Sigmarines are uninspired. They pretty much just made a fantasy version of Sanguinary Guard and called them the new army. And their actual name, "Stormcast Eternals", is just so lackluster and silly. Will anyone ever really call them that? It says something about a name and how forgettable and unmemorable it is when nobody actually ever calls them by their actual name.

Rules
- Utterly awful in almost every way
- A spearman has an equal chance of hitting a Night Goblin as a Bloodthirster
- A spearman has an equal chance of wounding a Night Goblin as he does a Steam Tank
- Measuring from the model rather than the base, which creates absurd situations like having to expend movement in order to pivot a model on the spot, or having bases so big that you're required to overlap bases on top of each other in order to maintain coherency or get within melee range
- Being able to shoot ranged weapons while in combat, and even at other units which you're not engaged with
- The lack of any bonuses for flank or rear attacks, essentially turning every fight into a massive scrum in the middle
- The silly rules on old units, which a GW rep flat out admitted existed so that players using older models would feel publically humiliated using them and no longer use them in favor of the new models
- The lack of points which makes coming up with a fair battle utterly impossible, so much so that people all over the internet were coming up with house rules to balance it before the game was even officially released. How sad is it that, before I go play at a game store, I have to first ask "What house rules are you using?", because from what I've seen, everyone's houseruling it, and nobody can agree on any one way to do it. I don't want to have to keep track of half-a-dozen different house ruled versions of this game to play it

Background
- Sigmar has basically become Thor, and the Age of Sigmar setting is the Nine Realms of Norse Mythology. GW gave up the detailed and interesting Old World in favor or a blatant Norse myth ripoff with Sigmar playing the role of Thor and the Sigmarines serving as his Einherjar? If they were going to do that then they should have just made a game actually based on Norse myth and left Warhammer Fantasy alone

Price
- $50 for 5 models. Let that one sink in. And aren't they the basic infantry for the Sigmarines? For all the talk about reducing the cost of entry, so far I'm not seeing it. If anything, it's looking more expensive than ever. Saving money on an army book isn't much when you end up paying much, much more on the actual models

Kahadras
20-07-2015, 12:04
Price
- $50 for 5 models. Let that one sink in. And aren't they the basic infantry for the Sigmarines? For all the talk about reducing the cost of entry, so far I'm not seeing it. If anything, it's looking more expensive than ever. Saving money on an army book isn't much when you end up paying much, much more on the actual models

Yeah. I don't want to go too much into prices (there's a thread for that) but there seems little point in collecting AoS beyond the starter set if you want to talk about price of entry. £75 is already a chunk of money to throw down. Add in the glue modeling tools, paints and brushes you need you're looking at well over £100 (AoS plus Citadel Hobby Starter Set = £122).

Satan
20-07-2015, 12:07
Overwhelmingly negative.

I think the quality of the miniatures is alright, but everything about the release just further enforces my opinion that there is no business strategy founded in reality employed by GW. The rules release was a joke, as was the treatment of existing customers. Ideally, if you want to do a launch where you're going in, swords swinging, as it were, you'd want everything to line up perfectly.

Imagine for example if this had been a release from a software company? It'd been botched beyond belief already. The rules and composition are, to be generous, sorely lacking finetuning and polish.

Background writing and the quality of said writing is at the level I would come to expect of a GW product. No surprises there. I don't care for it myself as of late but I acknowledge that it's a subjective matter of taste.

The new scenery looks great, the price is at the level we've come to expect of GW. The new models look to be up to what I'd call "GW standard", which is high in quality, but varying in concept. However, I believe the reasons that are being given for the relaunch and rebranding and concept of this game are weak, to say the least. At it's core it's still about selling plastic models, and I don't think AOS brings anything new to that formula. The incentives are weak and wishful thinking is not going to sell products to new target groups - that's what a well executed strategy does, and this is being put out through all the usual channels with little to zero marketing or add-on products.

To me, both from a hobbyist and a business perspective, AOS clearly isn't what GW, according to conjecture, thinks it is. And it needed to clearly be that right from the start already.

Coraxis
20-07-2015, 12:34
I really wonder were GW is expecting this 'new blood' to come from. I don't know about other people but it was the 'old players' that got me into the game to start with. IMHO vet's can be a great marketing tool for a company if treated correctly. FFG doesn't pay me a penny but I've done several demo games of Star Wars Armarda down at my local club. When other people have come up to me and expressed interest in the game I've taken time to show them the models, explain the rules, point them in the direction of websites that offer a discount on Armarda starter sets etc.

The problem with this is that we "old and bitter" players know that, GW doesn't. Vets were the ones who recruited people back when I started. My vet friends introduced me to the hobby. But apparently GW doesn't want that kind of players anymore... How they will get new blood? No idea, but it seems they are unconcerned about it.

Crimson Reaver
20-07-2015, 13:32
I've moved from Slightly Negative to Mostly Negative, mainly because it has now become clearer that we aren't going to be seeing any army composition rules to actually give us a steer on making balanced forces.

I've also canvassed everyone I know who plays Warhammer, and none of them are going to pick this up. The game is essentially DOA for anyone I'd actually be able to get a game with. I'm actually more impressed with the quality of the models now that I've seen them in the flesh (plastic) but what's the point of having them if I can't get a game with them?

I'm disgruntled with the cheesy rules for legacy support, because I can't help but feel that veteran players are being mocked by GW. The fear that this will all come to 40K is making me consider a mass sell-off of all my stuff for games with a much lower buy-in, and therefore less to lose if it all goes wrong.

If GW can make the reboot of the Elves work, and we see things settle down a bit and maybe local attitudes soften, perhaps I'll consider changing my mind back towards something more positive, but I'm now not spending anything on GW, be it 40K, AoS or anything else.

On the plus side, I made enough money selling off stuff up to this point to buy myself a new PC :D Guess I'll be playing Final Liberation on it shortly! :)

ShruikhanTK
20-07-2015, 15:08
The worst thing about AoS is that it replaces WHF and any future releases at this point in time. Just picture it, the army you play gets no new releases you can use for 8th, don't even mention but you can use it in AoS!....no just no.

NatBrannigan
20-07-2015, 16:48
I started out as Overwhelmingly negative because it wasn’t the game I started playing. I’d literally just finished my Lizardmen when the rumours were confirmed so was understandably annoyed. Most of this was just the standard reaction to change though and I’ve still got a few friends and family members who will play 8th or Kings of War so I’m now over this annoyance. Armies finished so need to add to them more.

I then started to feel really positive about AoS. A faster game, with small, easier on the wallet, forces in a new setting that’s starting to sound pretty interesting. This could be great! I can start that Skaven army I always wanted but couldn’t motivate myself to collect for 8th. Maybe an all Tzeentch army as well that can do double duty in 40k. What’s not to like!?

Then the game was released… The latest models I like. Not my cup of tea but they are nice models without a doubt. More than happy to play against them and visually enjoy them as opponents

The setting had promise. The different realms a good if unoriginal idea (but isn’t everything these days) but it’s just so poorly executed. Sigmarite? Dracothian? It’s all so insipid, but this shouldn’t be unexpected. It’s like a primary school project with GW fluff at the moment. Look at Murderfang for the Space wolves… Murderfang? Armed with Murderclaws? But you can ignore the setting and make up your own or try and use the old world instead so not a disaster, even though it is a disappointment.

The game is dreadful though. I’ve tried, my lord how I’ve tried… We’ve played with old models, Sigmarines, proxied Bloodskullinators or whatever the new Khorne units are called. You either end up with a big scrum in the middle of the board, a big scrum at one end when the Sigmarines deep strike in or an army dead before it gets across the board, shot to bits. Summoning is obscene, magic is boring, it’s just no fun. The one game I’ve properly enjoyed was a multiplayer one where we gave every army a version of the “Grail Vow” rule with added drinking of the contents of the goblet, but is this supposed to be a drinking game!? I’m not sure… Hell I enjoyed one of the Harry Potter films when I was half cut!

So mostly negative I’m afraid. I can see that something needed to change with Warhammer, I can see it needed to be a big shake up, I can see what they were trying to do with this game and I can also see that they’ve failed miserably. Much like a striker missing an open goal you have to wonder just how exactly they’ve managed it when it’s all they do!?

skammadix
20-07-2015, 16:56
Initially, overwhelmingly negative. Right now however, I would fall under slightly negative.

There'd be a small chance I'd actually get the set - because I think it is fairly priced for what you objectively get - if it wasn't for some incredibly stupid details on the models, such as the scroll cape on the Sigmarine foot commander and the damn skulls coming out of that Khorne demon. They're coming out of his knees for Christs sake.

Bigman
20-07-2015, 18:44
Mostly negative. Again the models save it, along with it addressing entry problems in the hobby.

Haven't played but watched YouTube reports on a few games. Seen more balanced forces play and not just heroes all over.

The last one I watched turned me off.

Dwarfs vs orruks.

Dwarf player had

Lord on shieldbearers
Ungrim iron fist
Large unit of slayers
13 hammerers
20 or so longbeards
20 or so thunderers
Cannon
Organ gun.

Orruks had orruk chariot, large unit savages, 15 black orcs, grimgor, mangler, 3 fanatics, unit of gobbos.

What turned me off wasn't the game rules so to speak, but the gamey-ness of the dwarf players combo.

Ungrim was the general and his coand ability gives +1 to hit/wound on a designated enemy unit. His Lord on shieldbearers sandy general, but the longbeards special rule says if you grumble about anything in game, you can choose 1 of 3 rules, one of which is activate a units command ability within 8" even if it isn't the general.

So Lord on shield uses his to add +1 to wound as well. Nominates orruk chariot in shooting phase.

Thunderers go from 4+ to hit /3+ to wound to 2+ to hit and 1+ to wound...

I have looked at rules, there is no maximum...no "1's always fails, 6 always succeeds)....

I don't want to play games where I build a game winning combo attacks at home before I play.

HelloKitty
20-07-2015, 18:47
Thats kind of how list building strives to be in 40k and previous versions, but 1 always fails is a good house rule to adopt i think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bloodknight
20-07-2015, 18:52
What turned me off wasn't the game rules so to speak, but the gamey-ness of the dwarf players combo.

I think the Dwarf dude did exactly what the rules demand. The game is not about movement as we were used to, it's basically a Warmahordes clone about combos, and he comboed well.
Not my cup of tea, certainly (which is why I don't play Warmahordes either, it's just not my kind of game, even though I understand why other people play it, particularly gamers coming from a CCG background), but looking at the Warscrolls, it seems to be the way to play it.

Gharak
20-07-2015, 18:54
Should have killed the old world special characters. They're all long dead anyway. Just drop in generic heroes and lords for now and add new special characters as the fluff turns it's eyes on a a particular force.

G

Mateobard
20-07-2015, 18:57
The anecdotes about "synergy" stacking are what will continue to kill the game over time. In a normal war game, your play choices will determine your success or failure, even against really strong rules combinations. In this game, it's more like playing Magic the Gathering with Miniatures. And no deck limitations. And unlimited draws.

AngryAngel
20-07-2015, 19:53
Thats kind of how list building strives to be in 40k and previous versions, but 1 always fails is a good house rule to adopt i think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know if I agree there, if they left it in, that 1's can succeed, perhaps that dwarf player is doing things as he should ? Perhaps this is the kind of combos GW want to be the way of this game ? I mean you can try and house rule it, most I don't think can do such in their units, however those that can may have issue with a nerf just to them. Might as well just alter up unit stats at that point while your at it, but then are you even playing AoS anymore. The system is broke as a three dollar bill.

Edit: I just read the magic comparison, and yes that is true. Magic has its fair share of unlimited combos that can be frowned upon, but not illegal rules wise. Perhaps this is the kind of game GW are trying to make with AoS all about combos and synergy of list building ( as opposed to deck building ). A unit of thunderers auto wounding something though, still won't hold up super well against attacks to them, is one unit doing that game breaking or are people just going to react with a knee jerk " It's destroying the game ! ". The game is poorly designed, lord knows I think that, but if this is the design they are aiming for, it is simply the future, you can either accept it, or house rule it into a different game entirely. Time will tell if we see more combos like that and if it is a fluke with this one, or simply a sign of things to come.

sephiroth87
20-07-2015, 20:08
Mostly Negative. I played it, was unimpressed. I actually like the world of bubbles containing realms. Dislike the Sigmarines. Love the Khorne models. The rule system as a whole needs a lot of improvement, either from GW or a community standard. Needs another framework of rules on top of it to expand and clarify the game to make it more than a "buy it, play it once, and put it on the shelf" kind of fun. They'll have to seriously commit to improving their product if they want me to buy more.

I bought the "rulebook." I enjoyed the pretty pictures, but it was not worth 85 bucks. It feels like they took the aesthetic of Warhammer Visions, gave it a hard back, and charged twice what it was worth. I won't be buying another one without significant content improvement.

Ayin
20-07-2015, 23:04
The anecdotes about "synergy" stacking are what will continue to kill the game over time. In a normal war game, your play choices will determine your success or failure, even against really strong rules combinations. In this game, it's more like playing Magic the Gathering with Miniatures. And no deck limitations. And unlimited draws.

I'd say more like Magic with a full deck in hand (and deck-death replaced by time limit), no deck limitations, and no mana cost.

Voss
21-07-2015, 02:21
Local reaction seems to be to just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. I asked the local store manager why it was $25 off and he just shrugged. I asked how the local GW crowd reacted to it, and he said they just keep walking. He's pointed it out to them, as they came in after release and they just nod and keep walking, to keep playing with existing stuff.

In a very real way it has killed potential sales of GW products.

Buddy Bear
21-07-2015, 03:35
Your quote is certainly why my interest in 40k is withering on the vine. I have a sneaking suspicion that what was done to WFB is what GW will do to 40k, so I've slowed my purchases of 40k material to a crawl in response (It might be more accurate to say I've reversed it, because I've sold off Necron, Space Wolf, and Adeptus Mechanicus armies I was starting).

Erathil
21-07-2015, 03:59
I'm just waiting.

The setting has potential, but they haven't shown off much of it yet. The rules are overly simplistic, and the book is heavy with foreshadowing. They might be able to follow through with it and make something awesome. There's potential for a lot of neat things, but right now its fantasy space marines and chaos, and I don't like either of those.

So... I'm waiting, and I guess I'm vaguely optimistic, but there isn't an option for that in the poll.

Ayin
21-07-2015, 05:05
Your quote is certainly why my interest in 40k is withering on the vine. I have a sneaking suspicion that what was done to WFB is what GW will do to 40k, so I've slowed my purchases of 40k material to a crawl in response (It might be more accurate to say I've reversed it, because I've sold off Necron, Space Wolf, and Adeptus Mechanicus armies I was starting).

I don't see how most 40k players don't believe this is already happening to that game. They've got formation upon formation adding additional special rules and giving bonuses to it's use nearly identical to thins like the formations introduced in WHFB:EndTimes and which most feel will continue on (and some feel will be the "balancing factor" in AoS), so much and so quickly that Unbound was hardly even an issue for the game (because there's likely a Formation for what you want that's even better with extra bonuses), and with these formations come not only free rules, but even points-free models.

Buddy Bear
21-07-2015, 06:43
Age of Sigmar goes much, much further than that, though. The way 40k is now, sans Unbound, is mostly alright with me. What I don't want to see are fixed to hit/to wound rolls which don't take into account the targets abilities in close combat or their toughness, measuring from the model instead of the base, and a setting which looks like someone's taken a jackhammer to it. Age of Sigmar is way beyond where 40k is right now, and I don't ever want to see 40k get near that. I do agree, though, that trends do seem to be pointing that way. And that's why I'm buying X-Wing and Armada now instead of Warhammer and 40k. At least I can be certain that they won't bulldoze the setting...

Azazel
21-07-2015, 06:58
Mostly positive. But perhaps thats because I sold all my Warhammer Fantasy when the End Times began and now I have a nice clean slate.

If you voted overwhelmingly negative then you are the kind of player GW is looking to replace anyway. Either too competitive or not buying enough miniatures or just not enough of you.

ihavetoomuchminis
21-07-2015, 07:15
Mostly positive. But perhaps thats because I sold all my Warhammer Fantasy when the End Times began and now I have a nice clean slate.

If you voted overwhelmingly negative then you are the kind of player GW is looking to replace anyway. Either too competitive or not buying enough miniatures or just not enough of you.

I probably was buying more in a single year than most of the "positive people" in their entire life. One thing that leads me to think that is the thought that if you like AoS so much, it means you were not much invested in the old warhammer, so you werent buying at all.

I'm not a competitive player. I've never attended a tournament and never will. I just like to have fair games and enjoy the challenge of a good WARGAME. Wich AoS is not.

I voted negative mostly because the rules are crap and AoS doesnt seem to do nothing to fix Whfb problems, wich was mainly a disconnect between rules and prices. It wasnt needed to destroy a setting and make most of collections future uncertain to say the best just to keep doing the same mistakes.

So i'll ask you, white knights, team apologist and all the people who seem to think their money is worth more than mine and all the negative's money, to stop acting as if AoS and the warhammer dead is our fault, because it isn't. And its not good for a company to think such thing, as their ever diminishing numbers should have told them yet.

Azazel
21-07-2015, 07:20
Yes because Warhammer 8th was balanced and fair. ;)

And a dead setting that's near identical to every fantasy setting since fiction began.


Fact is Warhammer was dying, and that sucks but it was either do away the whole game or at least try give it one last chance in a new form, Age of Sigmar is what we got.

Ayin
21-07-2015, 07:34
And a dead setting that's near identical to every fantasy setting since fiction began.

Right? Thankfully now we've got a game built on seperate realms with portals to take our characters from one area to another, each based on some specific theme with it's own population that mirrors it's environment. I mean, I totally didn't play that in Champions of Norrath in 2004 on the PS2 or anything, it`s an entirely new idea in fiction. And a hammer wielding god of lightning overseeing the heavens and the Nine Realms? Brand new.

That argument is terrible. Move on from it.

Satan
21-07-2015, 07:56
Mostly positive. But perhaps thats because I sold all my Warhammer Fantasy when the End Times began and now I have a nice clean slate.

If you voted overwhelmingly negative then you are the kind of player GW is looking to replace anyway. Either too competitive or not buying enough miniatures or just not enough of you.

I think you made a good call on that.

You don't replace a target group. That's the kind of thinking that would have people who actually know what they're doing looking at you with their faces all screwed up in a look that says "Oh, we've got a crazy one here..."

andyc
21-07-2015, 09:39
Mostly negative for me. I play both 40k and Fantasy but Fantasy is my preferred game. I can understand wanting to '40kify' the game and in many respects I am happy with that, as I can still go and play my 10 fantasy armies using 8th edition rules which are pretty much complete anyway. I would have preferred that this was a third game and was built to simply play small games and have the larger ranked up game afterwards.

What I don't understand is why I would want to choose this over 40K? What I see so far is a very amateurish set of rules which have very few differences to 40k (basically an initiative roll and the combat phase) but the 40k rules are far superior. We use formations and the 12 different scenarios in 40k games and they are better than we have seen with AOS. Its also very much just an infantry game so far, and the Sigmarines look very boring on the battlefield next to my other armies which have monsters, cavalry, war machines etc and the sigmarines actually look completely out of place, even compared to the Khorne warriors in the box.

I have purchased the starter and the book and will read through it, and take the game to the club to see what the others think, as well as play 10 games or so (if I can get opponents), but at the moment it doesn't look like I will invest anything else until I see a way of building an army without just piling what I have on the table, as that is a large part of what I enjoy about my games. Formations might be a way of doing this, but I doubt the formations are going to be balanced against each other and even in 40K some formations give too much benefit to the armies.

Did they really start work on this after the release of 8th edition? Two years to create these 4 pages of rules?

Interestingly I think Warhammer Fantasy Battle had a rules update in its first year, so maybe Age of Sigmar will get one too and in 3 years time we will have a game to play, although it will be too late I suspect.

Holier Than Thou
21-07-2015, 09:47
Mostly positive. But perhaps thats because I sold all my Warhammer Fantasy when the End Times began and now I have a nice clean slate.

If you voted overwhelmingly negative then you are the kind of player GW is looking to replace anyway. Either too competitive or not buying enough miniatures or just not enough of you.

Maybe you're right, maybe I AM too competitive. I mean I've never been to any tournaments and only play against my friends but we do like to have a winner in our battles so, yeah, that's not the kind of attitude AOS and GW want poisoning their games.

And yeah, maybe I didn't spend enough on WFB, maybe I shouldn't have stopped at 3500 points of Vampire Counts models in the last two or three years. I can't believe how heartless I've been, I should have given GW more money, I should have given them ALL my money. Why oh why did I have to be such a terrible person?

Ayin
21-07-2015, 09:49
Formations might be a way of doing this, but I doubt the formations are going to be balanced against each other and even in 40K some formations give too much benefit to the armies.



The strange part about holding out hope for Formations is that there's a very good chance they are going to be extremely similar to what Formations in End Times were, which was baiscally,

Formation XYZ
-Character X
-Character Y
-On generic character
-two Warscrolls of one unit (of any size)
-on warscroll of three units (of any size)


I see how this in some way limits your force, since it's composed of, say, Elves and elf units and doesn't include any Chaos Giants, but it still has no limitations on unit sizes. I feel some people are thinking that the Formations for scenarios system will work much closer to the LoTR system or other historicals, but I just don't see GW putting a cap on unit sizes.

Noodle!
21-07-2015, 09:57
If you voted overwhelmingly negative then you are the kind of player GW is looking to replace anyway. Either too competitive or not buying enough miniatures or just not enough of you.

Why do people say stuff like this? What makes you think you have any kind of insight into the people who voted one way or the other? I don't try to speak for others or the reasons they voted, I speak for myself. Try to do the same.

I voted overwhelmingly negative and everyone that I play with (none are on this forum) have expressed their distaste. All of us are large spenders, love the hobby and play almost exclusively friendly games (that we still want balanced).

My reason for voting overwhelmingly negative is that even after testing the game I really dislike almost every facet of it, and to make it worse it replaced one of my favorite systems ever.

JWH
21-07-2015, 10:28
I have to congratulate GW on curing me of my model-buying itch. Their price policy had been slowly doing a nice job at that for some years now, but this means a sudden cure!

I mean, crap 'rules' (I'm not quite sure this massive dog's egg on paper can be described as such) with no way whatsoever to create equal armies, a crap world with crap background in a completely different style of fantasy (high instead of low), copyrightable names ('Orruks'...really GW?) and, where the sigmarines are concerned, crap design. What's to like? It has literally NOTHING to do with warhammer.

I just bought a few boxes I was still missing and that's it for me. I'll just keep playing 8th.

Shandor
21-07-2015, 10:31
I cannot express in words the enjoyment iget from these posts in warseer.
Please keep on crying about Age of Sigmar, keep on whining and telling how you sold your entire collections.
I'll be here, smiling bitterly, because I know you are the same people that defended The End Times, the same people
that actually asked for the fluff to move on, the same people that actually said that the fluff destroying the old world was good.
Enjoy Age of Sigmar, whineseer. It will forever be my sweet cold revenge.

...And forever will last, until you start declaring how much you enjoy the new ruleset, you pretentious *****.

Nice Theory but its wrong sorry. I liked End Times, i was asking for the story to move on finaly.. but AoS is just a Joke.. and not a good one. I always have to smile when i see peoples Playing AoS and try to make it work :)

hellsarcher
21-07-2015, 10:33
I voted mostly negative but it's verging on overwhelmingly negative. I really wanted to like this game because I usually like everything fantasy related gw produce. I don't like any of the models in the box set, sigmarines look incredibly dull and boring, having everything with hammers is boring for me to look at. The only one I like is the guy on the big lizard. The khornates I also dislike but I never liked the look of khorne models anyway or woc in general. I've played 8 games so far and have found it alright playing at a very small scale but lost interest at larger scales. Its also tedious to have to keep looking up special rules in the war scrolls and the way a shield isn't simply a shield annoys me. Even though I've mostly been playing at home with my oh we have struggled to balance our forces. If I want to play someone besides my oh I have to make a 60 mile round trip,usually an hour's drive each way due to traffic,pay an entry fee and parking fees, fuel costs and sometimes a bridge toll as well depending on where I'm playing. AOS isn't worth the time,effort and financial costs involved in making those journeys for a game. I used to sometimes play fluff lists, sometimes semi competitive and sometimes cheese lists depending on what my friends felt like playing. I'd happily play low points and high points games. I've spent 2k this year pre AOS launch. I spent 3k last year. That's not including paints and modelling supplies. I wouldn't say I was a bad customer for Gw. I've spent the money I had aside for AOS on hordes. Bought the starter set then another £150 on circle oboros models to participate in a journeyman league. Journeyman isn't highly competitive it's designed to teach new players the game and grow your force over 7 weeks.you get hobby points for painting. Iv also looked into KOW. At first I was upset but now I feel liberated, there's loads of really good games out there and its nice to step out of the gw bubble for the first time.

HereComesTomorrow
21-07-2015, 10:34
I cannot express in words the enjoyment iget from these posts in warseer.
Please keep on crying about Age of Sigmar, keep on whining and telling how you sold your entire collections.
I'll be here, smiling bitterly, because I know you are the same people that defended The End Times, the same people
that actually asked for the fluff to move on, the same people that actually said that the fluff destroying the old world was good.
Enjoy Age of Sigmar, whineseer. It will forever be my sweet cold revenge.

...And forever will last, until you start declaring how much you enjoy the new ruleset, you pretentious *****.

I find it funny that you think Warseer is full of prophets that can predict the future.

I'm sure if you asked those same people defending the fluff moving forward if they would still like it if they knew what we know now, then their responses would be much different.

swordofglass
21-07-2015, 10:46
I cannot express in words the enjoyment iget from these posts in warseer.
Please keep on crying about Age of Sigmar, keep on whining and telling how you sold your entire collections.
I'll be here, smiling bitterly, because I know you are the same people that defended The End Times, the same people
that actually asked for the fluff to move on, the same people that actually said that the fluff destroying the old world was good.
Enjoy Age of Sigmar, whineseer. It will forever be my sweet cold revenge.

...And forever will last, until you start declaring how much you enjoy the new ruleset, you pretentious *****.

Most pretentious post ever.

DinDon
21-07-2015, 10:54
The sooner people realise that AOS is what we got and its the only thing we ll get in the future regarding a fantasy setting, the better.
The choices people have are 3.
1)Try the new setting with the starter set and if they like it, continue playing it.
2)Dont try the new setting because for whatever reason the dont like the aesthetics, the rules, GW policy. move on to another game.
3) Wait for new armies to come out and if they like the new ones,jump in.

I voted mostly positive. The fluff is like a blank canvas where basicly they can draw anything in the next years. I also have the opportunity to get refreshed armies in terms of aesthtics. I bought the starter set and while it has many flaws, i enjoyed the game with the two armies out of the box. I didnt enjoy the game i had with my dwarves vs Orruks that much, cause its obvious for me that the rules are designed only for the new minis and the ones for the 8th ed armies are just there to "ease" the transition. They dont really work.

Wishlisting or hating wont get you literally anywhere.The sooner people understand this the better for the community of AOS. If people dont like the new game and are very negative about it, its time for them to move on into something else or quit the hobby entirelly. Lurking in the forums expressing negative feelings and bashing anyone that likes the game just makes you look like a monkey. You will accomplish absolutelly nothing.

Whatever they do, i wish them farewell.

JWH
21-07-2015, 11:11
I hate the 'this game isn't targeted at you' argument. I would agree if this was a new game. That however isn't the case and this replaces a game for which I have been part of the target audience for 20 years.

Also they couldn't have done a better job at making a completely different game than this.

The thing that upsets me the most is the complete lack of any empathy from GW towards their loyal customers. GW may be a company, but a company is only as good as its consumers. To first raise your prices gradually for years only to completely undo the game is just beyond revolting.

Holier Than Thou
21-07-2015, 11:37
@ dindon

If Games Workshop decide in a year's time to scrap Age of Sigmar after you have spent a couple of hundred pounds on models, books, dice shakers, etc and launches a brand new game which you can't use any of your stuff for, with even worse rules, will you happily put aside your AOS stuff and buy the new starter set just because that's what GW is now supporting?

Or would you quietly wander off thinking "Oh well, it's a shame the things I spent time and money on have been abandoned by a company that I supported but who clearly have no consideration for me. Never mind."?

These are the options you're suggesting we take rather than voice our disappointment, disillusion and distrust of the company who is responsible for it. Unless you're one of the people who claim anyone who doesn't like it is a horrible person who didn't spend enough and deserved to be treated so badly.

JWH
21-07-2015, 11:49
I can honestly see the appeal of the box for the general crowd: everything you need to play the game is in the box and it's a Quick to learn game.
Dreadfleet (which I, as one of the few, loved) was much the same.

However, after the initial dreadfleet box I would not have found much appeal in buying other stuff (if it would have been released), because of the shallow rules and scenario- based gameplay. With no way to create balanced armies outside of the scenario's, I can't see people buy much new Sigmar stuff either.

I also have the feeling that GW will provide free rules, while liberally saying thst they are free, but no context to use them in in a balanced or meaningful way outside of the scenario's, which it just so happens you have to pay handsomely for. (The new book is a nice example of this)

Poncho160
21-07-2015, 12:19
Went with mostly negative. A lot of people have already stated why they are not happy with the games and I agree with most of them, so I will just leave this comment;

I am not angry, I am just dissapointed....

DinDon
21-07-2015, 12:22
@ dindon

If Games Workshop decide in a year's time to scrap Age of Sigmar after you have spent a couple of hundred pounds on models, books, dice shakers, etc and launches a brand new game which you can't use any of your stuff for, with even worse rules, will you happily put aside your AOS stuff and buy the new starter set just because that's what GW is now supporting?

Or would you quietly wander off thinking "Oh well, it's a shame the things I spent time and money on have been abandoned by a company that I supported but who clearly have no consideration for me. Never mind."?

These are the options you're suggesting we take rather than voice our disappointment, disillusion and distrust of the company who is responsible for it. Unless you're one of the people who claim anyone who doesn't like it is a horrible person who didn't spend enough and deserved to be treated so badly.


Since i started this hobby(about two decades ago) i ve lost count of how much i ve spent. Sold armies, bought new ones etc. I m left standing with about 7000 points of dwarfs and about 4k of O&G.

Am i happy that GW ditched OldHammer?No.
Can i do anything about it?No.
Am i happy with AOS?I m positive regarding its future.
Will i sell my 8th ed armies?Hell No.
Will i buy more AOS stuff?Yes.
Do I like GWs policy?No
Will i achieve anything by expressing my hate on public forums?No.It wont bring Warhammer back.
Do i embrace the future or do i move on?Personally i ll embrace the future. And i understand people that will not.

But this whole rage thing or fanboyism achieves absolutelly NOTHING. Well i might be wrong there. It does. It creates two groups of people that will soon start hating eachother.
For those that love oldhammer, it will always be there.Just not supported by GW. We can support it ourselves.Noone forbids you of playing any games with your group. You dont like doing either?MOVE ON.
Its like the guy that got ditched by his ex who is with another guy now. Crying over it wont get her back. She moved in her life and so should you.

JWH
21-07-2015, 12:31
Since i started this hobby(about two decades ago) i ve lost count of how much i ve spent. Sold armies, bought new ones etc. I m left standing with about 7000 points of dwarfs and about 4k of O&G.

Am i happy that GW ditched OldHammer?No.
Can i do anything about it?No.
Am i happy with AOS?I m positive regarding its future.
Will i sell my 8th ed armies?Hell No.
Will i buy more AOS stuff?Yes.
Do I like GWs policy?No
Will i achieve anything by expressing my hate on public forums?No.It wont bring Warhammer back.
Do i embrace the future or do i move on?Personally i ll embrace the future. And i understand people that will not.

But this whole rage thing or fanboyism achieves absolutelly NOTHING. Well i might be wrong there. It does. It creates two groups of people that will soon start hating eachother.
For those that love oldhammer, it will always be there.Just not supported by GW. We can support it ourselves.Noone forbids you of playing any games with your group. You dont like doing either?MOVE ON.
Its like the guy that got ditched by his ex who is with another guy now. Crying over it wont get her back. She moved in her life and so should you.

I agree with you on most points, except that I can't go into a GW store and talk about my fav hobby anymore, and the player base will considerably wane for an abondoned game.

Also, I would like to voice my disappointment with GW and as GW has no forum of its own to do so, this is the best way to do so

Bloodknight
21-07-2015, 12:33
Most pretentious post ever.

I kind of agree with him, but then I'm one of those people who prefer stagnant settings to play in over progressing timelines. I've played enough games that imploded at some point because the writers did something dumb to the background and scared the players off. And that made me very wary of GW trying to do that because I don't think they still have a lot of competency left in the company.

Avian
21-07-2015, 12:36
Its like the guy that got ditched by his ex who is with another guy now. Crying over it wont get her back. She moved in her life and so should you.
Well, let's say your friend has been in love with someone for ten, fifteen or twenty years, and his girlfriend then leaves him. At some point he's going to get over it, but that point is probably not after just two weeks, yes? If you told him to "get over it and move on" after two weeks, do you think that would be well received?

Niall78
21-07-2015, 12:46
Since i started this hobby(about two decades ago) i ve lost count of how much i ve spent. Sold armies, bought new ones etc. I m left standing with about 7000 points of dwarfs and about 4k of O&G.

Am i happy that GW ditched OldHammer?No.
Can i do anything about it?No.
Am i happy with AOS?I m positive regarding its future.
Will i sell my 8th ed armies?Hell No.
Will i buy more AOS stuff?Yes.
Do I like GWs policy?No
Will i achieve anything by expressing my hate on public forums?No.It wont bring Warhammer back.
Do i embrace the future or do i move on?Personally i ll embrace the future. And i understand people that will not.

But this whole rage thing or fanboyism achieves absolutelly NOTHING. Well i might be wrong there. It does. It creates two groups of people that will soon start hating eachother.
For those that love oldhammer, it will always be there.Just not supported by GW. We can support it ourselves.Noone forbids you of playing any games with your group. You dont like doing either?MOVE ON.
Its like the guy that got ditched by his ex who is with another guy now. Crying over it wont get her back. She moved in her life and so should you.

What a strange defeatist attitude to have. We are now in an age where companies spend much time and treasure talking with and getting suggestions from their fan base. The days of a company dictatorially telling the fans what they'll have and they can like it or lump it - whether they are TT, computer or board games companies - are gone. Such companies are dinosaurs facing extinction.

I watched Battletech die and be brought back to life by the strength of its fan base - and that was before the internet had really taken hold. I take heart that one day WFB will rise like a phoenix from the ashes - if not brought back to life by GW then by another company that buys the IP.

Ollanius Pius
21-07-2015, 12:51
Utterly without merit, overwhelmingly negative. Will not buy, will not play and will not enter a GW store again. ;)

Niall78
21-07-2015, 12:55
People forget that settings in games are really just IP. They can and have been traded around companies as they wax, wane, die and are reborn.

With a potential tie-in to the new TW:Warhammer game the IP that is WFB is still a very valuable. Nature - and business - abhour a vacuum. I hope that some company will fill that vacuum eventually. The biggest stumbling block is GW actively trying to kill a healthy setting they already put on life-support.

DinDon
21-07-2015, 13:09
Well, let's say your friend has been in love with someone for ten, fifteen or twenty years, and his girlfriend then leaves him. At some point he's going to get over it, but that point is probably not after just two weeks, yes? If you told him to "get over it and move on" after two weeks, do you think that would be well received?

Well.....been there done that. I personally recieved it well. But i agree with you. The vast majority will not receive it well. That comes down to how easilly an individual adapts to new situations. How he discriminates between realism and wishful thinking. I am not very emotional as a person while others are. And i understand the diferrent types of personalities and accept them as they are without saying that mine is better than yours.

@ Niall78 Not a dedeatist attitude. I call it realism. Nothing is irreplaceable in this world apart from your familly. You live in a capitalistic society and that thing wont change no matter how much you might dream on. Everything has a price. My job is in the financial markets so i know. Even you have a price. The only way that you could get WHFB back is through another company buying its IP. But that propably wont happen for 2 reasons.

1) AOS has references with the old world.
2) It wasnt profitable before and that doesnt make it an attractive investment for another company.

What might only happen is AOS changing into a points system etc in a future edition. But the aesthetics and the fluff will remain the same. WHFB is DEAD.


Aaaaaand back to work....

Holier Than Thou
21-07-2015, 13:12
Since i started this hobby(about two decades ago) i ve lost count of how much i ve spent. Sold armies, bought new ones etc. I m left standing with about 7000 points of dwarfs and about 4k of O&G.

Am i happy that GW ditched OldHammer?No.
Can i do anything about it?No.

Yes, you can. You can stop supporting them when they release an inferior product.


Do I like GWs policy?No

Then stop supporting them with your wallet.


Its like the guy that got ditched by his ex who is with another guy now. Crying over it wont get her back. She moved in her life and so should you.
But what you're doing is constantly getting back with the ex that keeps hurting you and giving them money.

Groza
21-07-2015, 13:14
I'm really enjoying how the pro-AoS people are the biggest jerks in this thread.
Kinda odd how aggressive and spiteful they are while trying to explain how horrible the whining of negative people is.

All I see is a fanbase that has been mistreated for years and finally betrayed completely that is now expressing its disdain. And then some people with zero investment in the game and overall situation jumping in and calling them whiners and accusing them of being the reason all this is happening because they only spent all their hobby budget on warhammer and not double that. Well watch how that is changing now.

Oh and mr. whoever said those things, no I didn't support ET, nor did I ever ask for the wonderful setting we had to change in any way shape or form. Find someone else to blame for GW's incompetence (perhaps GW itself; or is that such a ridiculous thought?).

GrandmasterWang
21-07-2015, 13:21
I'm really enjoying how the pro-AoS people are the biggest jerks in this thread.
Kinda odd how aggressive and spiteful they are while trying to explain how horrible the whining of negative people is.

All I see is a fanbase that has been mistreated for years and finally betrayed completely that is now expressing its disdain. And then some people with zero investment in the game and overall situation jumping in and calling them whiners and accusing them of being the reason all this is happening because they only spent all their hobby budget on warhammer and not double that. Well watch how that is changing now.

Oh and mr. whoever said those things, no I didn't support ET, nor did I ever ask for the wonderful setting we had to change in any way shape or form. Find someone else to blame for GW's incompetence (perhaps GW itself; or is that such a ridiculous thought?).

I am 'pro AOS' Groza... am I a big, aggressive, spiteful jerk?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 13:25
I'm really enjoying how the pro-AoS people are the biggest jerks in this thread.

I would say that there are sterling examples of this on both sides, per usual.

Groza
21-07-2015, 13:27
I am 'pro AOS' Groza... am I a big, aggressive, spiteful jerk?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
I don't remember, I am talking about mr capitalist shark and a couple other people who posted in the last pages of the thread.


I would say that there are sterling examples of this on both sides, per usual.
I actually expected the same, after all I don't agree with AoS bashers either because most of them still like some aspect of it or liked 8th ed. WHFB, but I just don't see any negative people lashing out against others (with the exception of myself perhaps) or being blatantly unreasonable and provocateurish. They just calmly state their disappointment for the most part.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 13:42
@ Niall78 Not a dedeatist attitude. I call it realism. Nothing is irreplaceable in this world apart from your familly. You live in a capitalistic society and that thing wont change no matter how much you might dream on. Everything has a price. My job is in the financial markets so i know. Even you have a price. The only way that you could get WHFB back is through another company buying its IP. But that propably wont happen for 2 reasons.

1) AOS has references with the old world.
2) It wasnt profitable before and that doesnt make it an attractive investment for another company.


It wasn't profitable before? Or it wasn't profitable enough before? There's a massive difference. Even if it wasn't profitable for GW - with their enormous running costs - it could well be profitable for a small nimbler company.

At this moment one of the première computer game companies values the IP enough to hang one of their own very valuable IPs on the setting.

Are you seriously arguing the the WFB IP has no value to anyone? It is worthless? Did GW licence the setting to Creative Assembly for nothing I wonder?

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 13:50
Yes I agree with the above. Its not that WHFB is not profitable, its that its not profitable enough for a publicly traded juggernaut company. IMO once a company goes public, especially in the gaming industry, its fans are probably going to have some hard times because the focus shifts from a game the designers love, to moving units to fulfill stockholders desires.

Corax
21-07-2015, 14:42
No aspect of AoS appeals to me at all. Unless they come out with an advanced rules set for balanced competitive gameplay, think I'm pretty much done with GW. I might give something like Kings of War or Warmahordes a go instead, but GW has pretty much burnt it's bridges with me.

FaeLi-N
21-07-2015, 15:27
I wonder how long the community who hate it will stick around :(

Holier Than Thou
21-07-2015, 15:31
I wonder how long the community who hate it will stick around :(

Probably longer than Age of Sigmar will

thesoundofmusica
21-07-2015, 15:41
Probably longer than Age of Sigmar will

Definately. We still have haters from 8th here so why would this be any different.

Groza
21-07-2015, 15:43
If the forums are split I won't set foot on the AoS forum as much as I don't set foot on the 40k forum.
The reason you still have "8th haters" around is that it's still the game of warhammer that those people love and even AoS is in many ways the continuation of that, even if it isn't in any meaningful way.

DinDon
21-07-2015, 15:51
It wasn't profitable before? Or it wasn't profitable enough before? There's a massive difference. Even if it wasn't profitable for GW - with their enormous running costs - it could well be profitable for a small nimbler company.

At this moment one of the première computer game companies values the IP enough to hang one of their own very valuable IPs on the setting.

Are you seriously arguing the the WFB IP has no value to anyone? It is worthless? Did GW licence the setting to Creative Assembly for nothing I wonder?


It didnt generate enough! And yes the tabletop games IP is not worth enough for a big enough company to buy. Cause GW would sell that for MILLIONS!!! Now the IP in general for pc games etc is a totally dif thing. We ve already seen games made with that IP.

To sum it up its what HelloKitty said. Once the company goes public its the shareholders the ones that take over. And they want Dividends lad.

@ Groza Are you hurt lad?Did anyone offended you that much because they like AOS? Enough to call them capitalistic sharks? Enough to call them jerks?
Where are the moderators in this, seriously?

NatBrannigan
21-07-2015, 15:54
Good lord people let's all take a step back from the keyboards and take a deep breath.

To the "Pro Aos" side, surely you can see why people whi invested in WHFB are upset with this? And surely you can see that venting that frustrating and stating what their reaction to Aos is in a thread titled "Your reaction to the Age of Sigmar (one week on)? is perfectly fine? There are plenty of other threads that talk about AoS in a positive light, discussing tactics etc, and they are free of this kind of talk. I suggest you head off there.

To the "Anti AoS" side, surely you can see that some people like this new game? It might not be your cup of tea, maybe you'd like it if you didn't feel so let down by GW but some gamers out there might have a different experience to you. And once again i ask, surely you can see that saying what they like about the game and stating what their reaction to Aos is in a thread titled "Your reaction to the Age of Sigmar (one week on)? is perfectly fine!?

So, what I’m asking here today is, why the hate? Can't we all just... get along?

P.S I’m hoping for a slow clap here building to rapturous applause as people on both sides of the argument hug. I'm not sure how you can manage this over the internet mind you.

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 16:00
The pro side wants to see it succeed so that they have players. The anti side wants to see it crash and burn so GW fails and goes away so that they can get a game that appeals to them. This involves a great deal of emotional rather than logical reasoning, which is to say that a common point of reconciliation is probably not going to happen.

Humanoid
21-07-2015, 16:00
Even though I've mostly been playing at home with my oh we have struggled to balance our forces. If I want to play someone besides my oh I have to make a 60 mile round trip,usually an hour's drive each way due to traffic,pay an entry fee and parking fees, fuel costs and sometimes a bridge toll as well depending on where I'm playing.

I am writing rules for a fantasy game to use my GW miniatures, and you are in my target demographic.

My target demographic includes a couple who are living together and who play fantasy miniatures games together. Rather than leaving the home to find someone else to play, for example, I would like to see the couple host a dinner party for another couple (or two singles) to share their enjoyment of fantasy miniatures. In all likelihood, the invited couple may never have played a fantasy miniatures game nor own a fantasy miniatures army, so the rules cannot be overly complex or detailed, for example, all weapons are user strength. However, the fantasy miniatures game must leave an impression in the couple's mind that they participated in a balanced game where bad rolls and tactical errors affected the outcome of the game, but did not decide the outcome, and most importantly that the couple had fun and would like to play again.

To support the dinner party, I have to make the fantasy game appealing to women, whatever that may be, and if I can. And, this is the part where I see that you fit, because I need feedback from a woman's perspective.

Currently, my rough rules have armies of the undead, the humanoids of rodents and reptiles, and the peoples of humans, elves, dwarves and orcs. From another thread, I see that you have elves and rodents (Skaven). Myself, I have (Mantic) dwarves, (GW HE) elves, and orcs (that is, GW orks without guns).

As part of my obsession, I did a "mad money" purchase of two GW Skaven Battalion box sets (at discount) to build a rodent army. These two Skaven Battalion box sets should be enough to field a rodent army of a massed battle game which is at one end of the spectrum and the other end being a skirmish game.

Within the game, I have a mechanism to change a loose formation to open and then to closed, and back again. And, I would like a mechanism to link ranked formations together to create a ranked line. Thus, depending on the situation such as attrition after many game turns, the player may need to change formations and tactics. The mechanism of linking and unlinking ranked units to the ranked line is at the concept stage at this time.

I have written a "universe" to support the fantasy game that I would like to play. The "universe" has infantry and monsters, but not horses (so no cavalry nor chariots, for example) nor warmachines. I have much more work to do on the rough rules, and my leisure time to work on the rules is quite limited until perhaps September.

If you would like to provide some feedback to me on my rough rules so far, then please send me a private message that you would like to do it. If you do, then I will need a few days (by Saturday) to tidy some rule writing before I send what I have to you in private messages.

Groza
21-07-2015, 16:01
@ Groza Are you hurt lad?Did anyone offended you that much because they like AOS? Enough to call them capitalistic sharks? Enough to call them jerks?
Where are the moderators in this, seriously?
Pretty sure you called yourself a capitalistic shark, one way or the other.
And don't worry, the moderators are doing their job (http://i.imgur.com/1HyrLGm.png), you can stop being so condescending.

Spiney Norman
21-07-2015, 16:03
I feel a little like a shuttle-cock flying bAck and forth between the two extremes, I can see the potential of AoS and am willing to put in a certain amount of effort to make it work (although that doesn't extend to high-level mathematics and hundreds of hours of play testing required to come up with my own points system), but equally I just can't find any way to satisfactorily balance two sides for anything beyond the starter scenarios.

How are positive people getting this game to work, are you just flying blind, or have you embarked on the epic journey of designing your own point system for AoS?

Shandor
21-07-2015, 16:14
The pro side wants to see it succeed so that they have players. The anti side wants to see it crash and burn so GW fails and goes away so that they can get a game that appeals to them. This involves a great deal of emotional rather than logical reasoning, which is to say that a common point of reconciliation is probably not going to happen.

I dont want GW crash and Burn. My Point of view is: I had a Great time with a wonderful Game and this is gone now. Cant play that game anymore in the place i used to play it. and its no longer supportet. It it got replaced by a wannabe Game that turns out to be a halfassed piece of crap.
I wish that GW would realize what they did and to see that it was a bad idea. Maybe that doesnt bring my Game back but at least that same wont happen again.

DinDon
21-07-2015, 16:24
Pretty sure you called yourself a capitalistic shark, one way or the other.
And don't worry, the moderators are doing their job (http://i.imgur.com/1HyrLGm.png), you can stop being so condescending.

I can call myself whatever i want. You on the other side, cant!

@NatBrannigan I salute your post.

Denny
21-07-2015, 16:27
P.S I’m hoping for a slow clap here building to rapturous applause as people on both sides of the argument hug. I'm not sure how you can manage this over the internet mind you.

I'm trying. When I clap are my palms supposed to bleed?

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 16:36
How are positive people getting this game to work, are you just flying blind, or have you embarked on the epic journey of designing your own point system for AoS?

I helped design and playtest the Azyr comp which is pretty popular with our campaign group. Not everyone likes it and we lost a lot of players but this is helping make the games enjoyable and have some semblence of structure and balance.

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 16:37
I dont want GW crash and Burn. My Point of view is: I had a Great time with a wonderful Game and this is gone now. Cant play that game anymore in the place i used to play it. and its no longer supportet. It it got replaced by a wannabe Game that turns out to be a halfassed piece of crap.
I wish that GW would realize what they did and to see that it was a bad idea. Maybe that doesnt bring my Game back but at least that same wont happen again.

Apologies. When I said "want to see it crash and burn", "it" refers to Age of Sigmar.

shandy
21-07-2015, 16:55
My reaction to the game is one of interest. It is an innovative approach in removing points from the game - looking at reports it seems that you can get a balanced game out of it even with forces outside of the starter set. There have been games that have been disasters in terms of balance but there have also been ones that have been fun from what I can see. Warhammer even with points could also produce the same results. That said the people that seem to have enjoyed AoS more are those that started off small and worked up to larger forces rather than jumping in with a huge battle although there are exceptions to both.

I'm glad that GW produced a war scroll for every miniture currently out there and gave them away free - a nice gesture to anyone who had invested money in Warhammer. If I am honest I expected them to charge may a pound or two for the downloads.

I think the next 12 months will see what the game is truly made of as more books get released and more rules - reminds me of Malifaux and X-Wing in approach.

Will I buy it - eventually yes I believe I will. One thing that stopped me getting back into Warhammer was the realisation on how expensive it was to get a decent size army - didn't have the desire for cash and time investment. Only thing that is stopping me for AoS now is that I want to finish my 30k army and Khorne Daemonkin army before I start something new.

I supose the advantage I have is that I am not emotionally tied to 8th (3rd for me was the best edition, also played 5th and 6th). If I still had a force I would be glad I could try the game without any cost to decide if I wanted to pursue it.

The arguements for\against that have had the most impact on me are the constructive ones. Appreciate people want to rant or enthuse but the ones that make a difference for me are the well articulated constructive ones. Some interesting points on both sides.

Currently mostly positive.

Buddy Bear
21-07-2015, 16:57
Even if Anti-AOS people want it to fail, so what? Pro-AOS people cheered the death of WFB. So if Pro-AOS folks don't care about the death of a 30-year-old game beloved by many people, then why should Anti-AOS people care at all about the survival of a 2-week old game for which their favorite game was trashed?

Though personally for me, I don't want it to fail. I know it will fail. There's a difference. This is GW's newest Dreadfleet, and recognizing its imminent failure isn't the same as desiring it.

GrandmasterWang
21-07-2015, 17:00
I dont want GW crash and Burn. My Point of view is: I had a Great time with a wonderful Game and this is gone now. Cant play that game anymore in the place i used to play it. and its no longer supportet. It it got replaced by a wannabe Game that turns out to be a halfassed piece of crap.
I wish that GW would realize what they did and to see that it was a bad idea. Maybe that doesnt bring my Game back but at least that same wont happen again.

You I can understand. If I recall you are no longer allowed to play 8th at your local GW which was your main source of games. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

I can see how that would grate as you feel like the rug has been pulled out from under you and you were enjoying playing 8th (my favorite edition of Warhammer by far)

Regarding my "Pro-Aos" stance... let me start by saying I have roughly 30,000 points worth of square based Warhammer fantasy and multiple armies so I have "invested" a lot more than most of the whiners.

For me personally there hasn't really been a downside.... 8th is still allowed and played at my local GW (Shandor mate I wish your local GW was as chilled as mine, I can't believe that they would ban you)

Chillhammer however is my main thing and that continues unchanged except for now we can bring in new units and terrain potentially so gaming wise I have lost nothing.

In AOS however I have gained a new Warhammer game which a couple of my mates who had no interest in 8th/Chillhammer can and have gotten into due to the free rules and easy to pick up Warscrolls. Also moving forwards AOS is much easier and cheaper to get into than 8th Edition was so I expect to be able to get more people to pick it up. I have also enjoyed sampling the differences between units as they have changed from 8th to AOS warscroll and how their power levels have shifted. Some of the Warscroll rules I find pretty cool and I am definitely looking forwards to trying many units in AOS which I haven't tried yet, like my Necrosphinx for example which seems pretty scary in AOS. As someone with 30k worth of Warhammer models I can safely say that having a new free set of rules for ALL of them (Thank you GW for all the free legacy warscrolls!!) has given many of my models a new lease on life and I am looking forwards to slowly working my way through my collection and seeing just how all my models fit and function in this crazy new AOS world.





Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 17:01
Even if Anti-AOS people want it to fail, so what? Pro-AOS people cheered the death of WFB. So if Pro-AOS folks don't care about the death of a 30-year-old game beloved by many people, then why should Anti-AOS people care at all about the survival of a 2-week old game for which their favorite game was trashed?

Though personally for me, I don't want it to fail. I know it will fail. There's a difference. This is GW's newest Dreadfleet, and recognizing its imminent failure isn't the same as desiring it.

My response was in relation to a poster saying we should slow clap and embrace and reconcile our differences. I was saying why that would likely never happen.

I am pro-AOS. I did not cheer the death of WFB. I was sad by the death of WFB.

Will it fail? Time will tell. In our area its picking up a lot of steam.

thesoundofmusica
21-07-2015, 17:04
The reason you still have "8th haters" around is that it's still the game of warhammer that those people love

Hanging around on a forum discussing a game you dont play but rather hate (8th edition) for 5 years... that is just perfectly normal? Because that was what I was referring to. "I can have an opinion about anything". 5 years really?

Teurastaja
21-07-2015, 17:06
I voted overwhelmingly negative.

I refuse to support AoS. I won't pay more money for less value.

Groza
21-07-2015, 17:10
What the hell are you talking about? I still play 8th. Most people here do.
What would be weird would be for people to be on an AoS forum complaining about AoS 5 years from now. This isn't an AoS forum and it's a transitional period, there is nothing weird about people complaining about/discussing AoS even if they don't play AoS.
And yea, even if people who didn't play 8th were here discussing it, why is that wrong? It's warhammer, it's the game they loved, if 8th ruined it and they want to talk about it what's the big deal? They're talking about it on the warhammer forum, not somewhere else.
When I say I am an 8th hater I mean in terms of aesthetics and (since ET) fluff, that doesn't mean I don't play the game (although I did drop it around the time 8th came but it was due to a variety of factors of which being disenchanted with the direction GW is taking is only one).

thesoundofmusica
21-07-2015, 17:19
You're taking it too personal. Nowhere did I mention your name. It was a general comment. And YES I think its weird for people to hate 8th edition and still be on a forum 5 years after it's release still hating and not playing. If that isnt you fine, but there are plenty of those people around.

There isnt a single thread about reactions to AoS that doesnt include hate of GW and/or hate of GW business model etc. It's just tiresome.

The_Real_Chris
21-07-2015, 17:23
I think also a lot of people who have played AoS can't believe a former WFP player would like it since the challenges in it have changed (I think it is more like a card game in terms of stuff affecting other stuff) or diminished (tactical movement). That makes the discussion more difficult...

There is also the issue that there are many more challenging games with greater depth than GWs offering out there. The average GW gamer who doesn't just quit does seem to move onto other systems and going back to play the GW one is a shock after you get used to better ones (writing, layout, challenge, pick any metric you like for something being better than another, though a few things crop up when talking about wargames). Here a lot of people have had a somewhat enforced shock as the system as become easier to pick up and play for a wider range of age groups and trying it is a bit like going back to play warhammer after enjoying, say, King of the Battlefield for the last 5 years.

Denny
21-07-2015, 17:41
Pro-AOS people cheered the death of WFB. So if Pro-AOS folks don't care about the death of a 30-year-old game beloved by many people, then why should Anti-AOS people care at all about the survival of a 2-week old game for which their favorite game was trashed?

Because two wrongs don't make a right?

Wishing for something to fail because you don't like it when others do is . . . well, let's just say it's not a trait that should be encouraged regardless of whether you are pro or anti.

Trust me. I'm neutral. ;)

Buddy Bear
21-07-2015, 17:44
Because two wrongs don't make a right? ;)

Wishing for something to fail because you don't like it when others do is . . . well, let's just say it's not a trait that should be encouraged where you are pro or anti.

Trust me. I'm neutral. ;)

I'm pointing out that it's a hypocritical position, demanding that people should root for the success of their two-week-old game when they've spent so much trashing our 30-year-old game and not caring a whit about its being cancelled.

And again, there's a difference between wanting it to fail and recognizing its impending failure. WFB failed because of GW's mismanagement. That's not something which has changed with AoS. It's going to crash and burn just like Dreadfleet.

logan054
21-07-2015, 17:48
Yes because Warhammer 8th was balanced and fair. ;)

And a dead setting that's near identical to every fantasy setting since fiction began.


Fact is Warhammer was dying, and that sucks but it was either do away the whole game or at least try give it one last chance in a new form, Age of Sigmar is what we got.

Why was warhammer dying? Has GW done anything differently than it was before? It's still expensive models with expensive books. The core rules are free (for now).

AoS is not saving warhammer, it's a new game with a different setting.


You're taking it too personal. Nowhere did I mention your name. It was a general comment. And YES I think its weird for people to hate 8th edition and still be on a forum 5 years after it's release still hating and not playing. If that isnt you fine, but there are plenty of those people around.

There isnt a single thread about reactions to AoS that doesnt include hate of GW and/or hate of GW business model etc. It's just tiresome.

Don't the fact that you see so few positive posts about suggest that perhaps GW has made a bit of **** up. One that could of been avoided doing some market research?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Denny
21-07-2015, 17:53
I'm pointing out that it's a hypocritical position, demanding that people should root for the success of their two-week-old game when they've spent so much trashing our 30-year-old game and not caring a whit about its being cancelled.

Are you sure that's what you've read?
I don't recall anyone 'demanding' you like the new game. People have suggested that it's pointless to rally against it because it's happened, or complaining that people are being overly negative about it, but that's not the same thing at all.

I might have missed something (there are a lot of posts).

monly0906
21-07-2015, 18:19
Why was warhammer dying? Has GW done anything differently than it was before? It's still expensive models with expensive books. The core rules are free (for now).

AoS is not saving warhammer, it's a new game with a different setting.



Don't the fact that you see so few positive posts about suggest that perhaps GW has made a bit of **** up. One that could of been avoided doing some market research?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The barrier of entry is soooooo low now with age of Sigmar, thats a GREAT positive in my book. I actualy like this direction more than WHF.

Sephillion
21-07-2015, 18:27
The barrier of entry is soooooo low now with age of Sigmar, thats a GREAT positive in my book. I actualy like this direction more than WHF.

How is it lower? The free rules? The models are extremely expensive outside of the starter box.

Sure you can play with a only few models – you ca with just about any game if you find an opponent who’s willing. The size of armies is in good part dictated by the meta; since army size will thus vary a lot from an area to the next, I feel using it to show a decrease in cost of entry is anecdotal/situational. The few FB players here played at around 1500, which, I’m getting, is not typical of WHFB for instance.

BramGaunt
21-07-2015, 18:30
They are even significantly more expensive IN the starterbox. IoB was 25% cheaper...

Groza
21-07-2015, 18:33
There isnt a single thread about reactions to AoS that doesnt include hate of GW and/or hate of GW business model etc. It's just tiresome.
Reality is tiresome :)

monly0906
21-07-2015, 18:34
How is it lower? The free rules? The models are extremely expensive outside of the starter box.

Sure you can play with a only few models – you ca with just about any game if you find an opponent who’s willing. The size of armies is in good part dictated by the meta; since army size will thus vary a lot from an area to the next, I feel using it to show a decrease in cost of entry is anecdotal/situational. The few FB players here played at around 1500, which, I’m getting, is not typical of WHFB for instance.

That's the thing I like about this new rules, the "Social Contract" you make before playing. If people will not play you because you have few models, tells you a lot about that person, who cant play with a starting player. Those type of people are hindering the game by not helping out new player who are starting by playing and scares the little Timmy from the stubborn community.

Malagor
21-07-2015, 18:40
and scares the little Timmy from the stubborn community.
Little Timmy can't afford the models to begin with so please stop bringing him up.
And if you think that GW is happy with people only buying 1 box then you are wrong.
See the 4-box package on their website? that's the one GW want you to buy and much like 40k, GW will make the in-game rewards so nice that you will be buying it.

thesoundofmusica
21-07-2015, 18:55
I dont mind actual critique of AoS. Thats fine and expected, certainly this close after release.

Kahadras
21-07-2015, 18:57
The barrier of entry is soooooo low now with age of Sigmar, thats a GREAT positive in my book. I actualy like this direction more than WHF.

The AoS entry level is the same as Warhammer was. One starter set. If the AoS box set is more expencive than the IoB box set then the barrier of entry is higher.

monly0906
21-07-2015, 18:58
Little Timmy can't afford the models to begin with so please stop bringing him up.
And if you think that GW is happy with people only buying 1 box then you are wrong.
See the 4-box package on their website? that's the one GW want you to buy and much like 40k, GW will make the in-game rewards so nice that you will be buying it.

People here are stubborn. Of course GW wants you to buy more models, but people start somewhere. With AoS you can literally start with one box. With WHFB you needed the Core book, the armybook, and several boxes to have heroes and core troops. With AoS you play box vs box and have a blast, and later over time Timmy or however you want to call him, will keep buying more because he enjoys the game. But if people start being stubborn about playing with few models and refusing to play like that with new players, guess what? The new player wont play anymore.

monly0906
21-07-2015, 19:00
The AoS entry level is the same as Warhammer was. One starter set. If the AoS box set is more expencive than the IoB box set then the barrier of entry is higher.

You can start with just a box o miniatures. NEVER has the starterset has been the WAY to start, it is a GREAT way to introduce new players yes, but if nobody wants to play Sigmarites or Chaos? They can download the rules for the models and buy a box of their favorite model/s and start playing, and it will most likely be cheaper than the starter box.

Groza
21-07-2015, 19:00
I don't think anyone here claims that the entry cost for WHFB was reasonable.
But AoS only barely addresses that while simultaneously breaking every other aspect of the game.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 19:05
People here are stubborn. Of course GW wants you to buy more models, but people start somewhere. With AoS you can literally start with one box. With WHFB you needed the Core book, the armybook, and several boxes to have heroes and core troops. With AoS you play box vs box and have a blast, and later over time Timmy or however you want to call him, will keep buying more because he enjoys the game. But if people start being stubborn about playing with few models and refusing to play like that with new players, guess what? The new player wont play anymore.

You couldn't play WFB with just the released box-set? You are seriously saying that all the starter/introductory boxes released for WFB were unplayable for new players without significant further investment?

Either you are gilding the lilly or you are correct and GW spent two decades releasing introductory box-sets that failed completely as introductory box-sets. I know you are gilding the lilly though as all the box-sets were perfectly playable without further investment if that's what the new player wanted.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 19:09
I don't think anyone here claims that the entry cost for WHFB was reasonable.
But AoS only barely addresses that while simultaneously breaking every other aspect of the game.

Cost of entry was dictated by GWs need to sell models. If this practice made the game less approachable for newer players GW should have done something to rectify the situation. Instead they made the situation worse in the chase for existing fans money. They choose to milk the fan base and close entry to newer players by their own actions. Why do some people see this process not repeating itself for AoS?

monly0906
21-07-2015, 19:10
I don't think anyone here claims that the entry cost for WHFB was reasonable.
But AoS only barely addresses that while simultaneously breaking every other aspect of the game.

I respect your point and its valid. I liked 8th a lot. But to be honest, I could never teach it to my girlfriend. Age of Sigmar looks SO MUCH EASIER to teach it to her that that is a HUGE plus in my book. Also I only play with my brother and he is handicapped so I have to move his models. Games back then when I played 8th took us 5 to 6 hour to play with 1500 points. Now with AoS and its focus on low model count, We can reduce the amount of time we play and get the same amount of fun. And I cant wait to paint some Sylvaneth and Vampire Counts so my girlfriend starts playing with us.Guess this new direction is not for everyone.It has been ALL I wanted, but for a lot of people its now. And I get it. Stuff happens and there is nothing you can do about it. But here is what I hate about this community. If I for example praise AoS, 10 to 20 very vocal people will try to diminish my points or my arguments. You have every right to hate any game, heck, sell your models and play something else. But why keep bashing people who like AoS, or not that, why keep bashing this new game, lets people enjoy it. If new players play this, wont that be good for the hobby? More players? heck, they could tire of AoS and play something else.

logan054
21-07-2015, 19:25
You can start with just a box o miniatures. NEVER has the starterset has been the WAY to start, it is a GREAT way to introduce new players yes, but if nobody wants to play Sigmarites or Chaos? They can download the rules for the models and buy a box of their favorite model/s and start playing, and it will most likely be cheaper than the starter box.

While you could start with a single box of models would it be enough to actually be enough? I'm going to go put on a limb and say minim to start playing a "decent" game (within the context of that game) the minim amount you will need is a starter box.

No one is going to turn up with a single model/unit. It would just be pointless and boring.

As AoS models seem to be moving towards the price of skullreaper type I infantry, on balance, the game isn't going to be cheaper. It's probably going to be a lot more expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shandor
21-07-2015, 19:30
You're taking it too personal. Nowhere did I mention your name. It was a general comment. And YES I think its weird for people to hate 8th edition and still be on a forum 5 years after it's release still hating and not playing. If that isnt you fine, but there are plenty of those people around.

There isnt a single thread about reactions to AoS that doesnt include hate of GW and/or hate of GW business model etc. It's just tiresome.

Woah Wait a minute here. Im one of the biggest defenders of GW. I played 90% of my Games in the GW store. I think the GW Models are the best Models out there. I even didnt care the Money. I did buy the Witchelves even if i had the Blood Vestals in my hands.. but i think the Witch Elves look much better. I would get 10% discount in another Shop for all Models but i bought them in the GW store to support it.

Sure im a bit pissed at GW at the moment but thats not the reason im negative about AoS. Im negative abut AoS because its simply not a good game. Not in any way. Yeah the rules are for free. But look at them.. would anyone really spend money for them? They are not worth the Paper.
I would rather buy a Rules book and have playable rules then get some wired stuff for free.

Grimnaud
21-07-2015, 19:38
I couldn't imagine how the core rules of AoS could be fun to play. After seeing the legacy warscrolls it felt like GW was actively trying to make fun of me. I was angry. I sold a pretty complete O&G army I hadn't started on yet. If not for the time, effort, and love I have invested in the other three I might have sold them as well. Then I found a link to Guerrilla miniature games battle report. And it actually looked like fun. So I kept watching. Now I'm seriously considering rebasing my VC army for AoS.

This is my take; AoS is not WHFB 9th ed. The legacy warscrolls are a temporary stop-gap. The game will come into it's own as more armies - oooops - "factions", are released. There seems to be a huge difference between the new warscrolls, the factions which will remain largely unchanged, and the frankly rediculous so-called humor of the warscrolls from the factions which will be heavily reworked.

So, new game, which is fast, not very balanced, based around synergy, and looks like fun. It's been compared to MtG in this thread, which is what it reminds me of as well. IF, if, GW is going for a modular, synergetic, game, which is what AoS looks like to me, then this could be a lot of fun. If not, well, I'm keeping my WHFB rulebooks ;)

monly0906
21-07-2015, 19:38
While you could start with a single box of models would it be enough to actually be enough? I'm going to go put on a limb and say minim to start playing a "decent" game (within the context of that game) the minim amount you will need is a starter box.

No one is going to turn up with a single model/unit. It would just be pointless and boring.

As AoS models seem to be moving towards the price of skullreaper type I infantry, on balance, the game isn't going to be cheaper. It's probably going to be a lot more expensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thsts an exellent point comming from a gamer. But for someone who wonders at a store? Store owner and people there will suggest to get the starter yes, but will suggest to get what models you like best. And if he has little to no money, and can only buy a hero or a box of core troops because he likes them, and after assemblying them, will you refuse to play him? He just stsrted playing AoS at a low budget and will probably hsve a good time, given people wont judge his tates or his decisions.

thesoundofmusica
21-07-2015, 19:40
Like I said I think it's fine to not like AoS. But there is no need to comment about GW in every thread.

Sephillion
21-07-2015, 19:41
Now with AoS and its focus on low model count

Sorry, how does it focus on low model count? Why could you not play 8th edition before with smaller armies? Especially with your brother (as opposed to going to a club)? I get that it is possible to play with few models, it’s the “focus” part I don’t get.


That's the thing I like about this new rules, the "Social Contract" you make before playing.

There is no more social contract in this game than in others – however, the fact that it is badly written and lacks a balancing mechanism means you really need to take extra steps to make sure you and your opponent are on the same page if you want a great experience. I see this as a flaw, not a pro.



If I for example praise AoS, 10 to 20 very vocal people will try to diminish my points or my arguments. ... If new players play this, wont that be good for the hobby? More players? heck, they could tire of AoS and play something else.

Or they just disagree with your praise. I could say the same “If I bash AoS, 10 to 20 very vocal people will try to diminish my points or my arguments…”

As for new players, I’d rather guide them to a better system.

Avian
21-07-2015, 19:42
If new players play this, wont that be good for the hobby?
Well, from the POV of a number of posters in this thread, these would be new people playing an *entirely different game* than the one they loved. About as desirable as new people starting X-Wing or Malifaux. ;)

Sephillion
21-07-2015, 19:44
Thsts an exellent point comming from a gamer. But for someone who wonders at a store? Store owner and people there will suggest to get the starter yes, but will suggest to get what models you like best. And if he has little to no money, and can only buy a hero or a box of core troops because he likes them, and after assemblying them, will you refuse to play him? He just stsrted playing AoS at a low budget and will probably hsve a good time, given people wont judge his tates or his decisions.

I’d play him a few times so he gets the mechanics, but it’s probably going to be boring – the game’s just not deep enough that a game this size will be particularly engaging, maybe a few times but it will get old fast. I’m not sure he’s going to enjoy himself, and even if he starts playing with a unit of sigmarines, at 60$ the box for 5 models, he’s not going to get value for money.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 19:45
Like I said I think it's fine to not like AoS. But there is no need to comment about GW in every thread.

Aren't the death of WFB, the birth of AoS and GW company policies not intrinsically linked? You can hardly discuss one without the others.

Kahadras
21-07-2015, 19:47
They can download the rules for the models and buy a box of their favorite model/s and start playing, and it will most likely be cheaper than the starter box.

Well it's running at £30 per unit and £20 per character.


Thsts an exellent point comming from a gamer. But for someone who wonders at a store? Store owner and people there will suggest to get the starter yes, but will suggest to get what models you like best. And if he has little to no money, and can only buy a hero or a box of core troops because he likes them, and after assemblying them, will you refuse to play him? He just stsrted playing AoS at a low budget and will probably hsve a good time, given people wont judge his tates or his decisions.

Sure but how much enjoyment is there in a single unit?

'Level of entry' is very subjective.

monly0906
21-07-2015, 19:51
Sorry, how does it focus on low model count? Why could you not play 8th edition before with smaller armies? Especially with your brother (as opposed to going to a club)? I get that it is possible to play with few models, it’s the “focus” part I don’t get.



There is no more social contract in this game than in others – however, the fact that it is badly written and lacks a balancing mechanism means you really need to take extra steps to make sure you and your opponent are on the same page if you want a great experience. I see this as a flaw, not a pro.




Or they just disagree with your praise. I could say the same “If I bash AoS, 10 to 20 very vocal people will try to diminish my points or my arguments…”

As for new players, I’d rather guide them to a better system.

Cool for you bro. Lets leave it at that, you dont like AoS and I do. Also I live in PR, there are no game stores here, so I only play with my brother and soon with my GF, and we will enjoy this. AoS made me com back to the hobby where in 8th, because of the high costs to play a descent game I quited and sold all of my stuff. Guess thats good for the hobby :)

Niall78
21-07-2015, 19:52
Well it's running at £30 per unit and £20 per character.



Sure but how much enjoyment is there in a single unit?

'Level of entry' is very subjective.

I just don't buy this 'Level of entry' nonsense some are espousing. GW killed WFB because sales and profits weren't high enough. Why would their new system attempt to limit the amount of miniatures sold? If anything their corporate strategy is to attempt to do the opposite - make AoS even more profit driven than WFB. Otherwise they'd simply have kept WFB even though it wasn't the money making machine they wanted.

DonkeyMan
21-07-2015, 19:58
I'm still slightly positive. Here is why.

I thought that 8th edition was going totally the wrong way and I actually blame it that it led us here.
AoS (while a radical change for WFB) is a better approach in my eyes. I can fully understand people been upset though. Also in my eyes there would have been a better approach than AoS or 8th for the matter.
The other plus point are the miniatures. As always top notch from GW (obviously style is dependant on the eye of the beholder).

Can't say much about the fluff yet (too early for that).

The rules seem not on the great side just yet (but there is a room for improvement). The prices though are the biggest issue for me. I'm not much of a fan of this, let's have a small playerbase that will pay ridicilous prices approach.
If it wouldn't have been for the prives, I would have given AoS a go.

So yeah, slightly positive just because I really didn't like 8th edition that much (it ruined a hobby for me).
If AoS would have followed 3rd or 6th edition it would have been negative for me.

monly0906
21-07-2015, 19:58
Well it's running at £30 per unit and £20 per character.



Sure but how much enjoyment is there in a single unit?

'Level of entry' is very subjective.

Subjective is right, in your eyes is not and in mine it is. Great little chat we had, and can finally(hopefully) be put to rest :3

Groza
21-07-2015, 20:05
I just don't buy this 'Level of entry' nonsense some are espousing. GW killed WFB because sales and profits weren't high enough. Why would their new system attempt to limit the amount of miniatures sold? If anything their corporate strategy is to attempt to do the opposite - make AoS even more profit driven than WFB. Otherwise they'd simply have kept WFB even though it wasn't the money making machine they wanted.
Because they're incompetent and refused to acknowledge what was actually killing the game (their own decisions and strategies).

Kahadras
21-07-2015, 20:13
Subjective is right, in your eyes is not and in mine it is. Great little chat we had, and can finally(hopefully) be put to rest :3

Sure. I mean it's stupid but sure. I'm not really certain we had a 'chat' but feel free to continue your arguement.

Ayin
21-07-2015, 20:21
I just don't buy this 'Level of entry' nonsense some are espousing. GW killed WFB because sales and profits weren't high enough. Why would their new system attempt to limit the amount of miniatures sold? If anything their corporate strategy is to attempt to do the opposite - make AoS even more profit driven than WFB. Otherwise they'd simply have kept WFB even though it wasn't the money making machine they wanted.

"Ease of Entry" is a fan theory, identifying what people online feel the problem with Fantasy was (despite it being no different than 40k which apparently doesn't have that issue) and concluding that the new system 'solves it'...somehow.

Kahadras
21-07-2015, 20:29
"Ease of Entry" is a fan theory, identifying what people online feel the problem with Fantasy was (despite it being no different than 40k which apparently doesn't have that issue) and concluding that the new system 'solves it'...somehow.

WeI think it stems from the fact that Warhammer games were getting bigger and models were getting more expencive. Ease of entry is pretty much the same in most systems. One starter box. Be it Dropzone Commander, 40K, Infinity, X-Wing etc. It's the gap between the 'entry level' and the 'expected level' of play that's a problem. Most systems are much cheaper to move between the two.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 20:48
WeI think it stems from the fact that Warhammer games were getting bigger and models were getting more expencive. Ease of entry is pretty much the same in most systems. One starter box. Be it Dropzone Commander, 40K, Infinity, X-Wing etc. It's the gap between the 'entry level' and the 'expected level' of play that's a problem. Most systems are much cheaper to move between the two.

Has GW ever quantified the 'expected level' of play and priced their miniatures accordingly? Or did they keep increasing the price of their miniatures while allowing the number of miniatures needed to bloat with every revised edition?

Have they expressed an opinion of what the 'expected level' of play will be with AoS? I presume with WFB not being a massive money maker for them the 'expected level' of play with AoS will be higher than WFB eventually. Or maybe about the same 'expected level' of play just with a dramatic increase in miniatures prices to help increase profits to a level they find acceptable.

Avian
21-07-2015, 20:52
They mention 100 models per side as being a number that should give a battle lasting an evening, though that's not a recommended number as such. They also say that more is better.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 20:57
They mention 100 models per side as being a number that should give a battle lasting an evening, though that's not a recommended number as such. They also say that more is better.

So GWs 'expected level' of play is nearly the same as WFB but with more expensive miniatures.

Makes sense. The new system is supposed to be more profitable than the old system - anything else at a corporate level would be a failure. AoS is expected to make more money than WFB. The ease of entry arguments are a nonsense - even before GW start to bloat the game with expansions.

Laniston
21-07-2015, 21:01
I voted mostly negative. I played a game at a lower model count and it was fun enough but it didn't leave me with any desire to play again. Usually when I demo a game I'll know pretty quickly if I like it enough to play more. Not this one.

Griefbringer
21-07-2015, 21:03
I would presume that possible battle reports in WD (or are they in Warhammer Visions now?) will start giving some indication of the expected level of play, once they get sufficiently large studio armies put together - though that may take a number of months.

Ayin
21-07-2015, 21:05
WeI think it stems from the fact that Warhammer games were getting bigger and models were getting more expencive. Ease of entry is pretty much the same in most systems. One starter box. Be it Dropzone Commander, 40K, Infinity, X-Wing etc. It's the gap between the 'entry level' and the 'expected level' of play that's a problem. Most systems are much cheaper to move between the two.

Yeah, this doesn't actually track in any way.

More models weren't required to play 8th than 7th (more than 6th because of ranks being 5 instead of 4), and in fact, for many forces the game could be played with significantly fewer models than in any edition in the last decade and a half or longer. Additionally, one starter box was all that was required to play 8th, 7th and 6th, whether it be the starter box for the game system containing two armies, or the ones released for each individual force.

Just because people were playing with bigger armies, because the game could support that, doesn't mean that the game required bigger armies to be played at all. That's the same baseless reasoning used when people complain that the existence of things like the Horde rule in 8th requiring them to have to go out and buy more models if they wanted to be competitive. It provides options to allow the game to play at larger levels, not limit what can be used.


Additionally, models becoming 'more expensive' wasn't some kind of design flaw of either 8th edition or Warhammer Fantasy itself. It's an ongoing trend with Games Workshop, and is apparent in Age of Sigmar as well. Using it as some kind of argument supporting the perceived flaws of Fantasy is silly.

HelloKitty
21-07-2015, 21:10
The tournament standard rising from 2000-2250 to 2500 had something to do with the model count issue as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shandor
21-07-2015, 22:12
The tournament standard rising from 2000-2250 to 2500 had something to do with the model count issue as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So and if there ever AoS tournaments require 100 models where is the difference? We had alot fun tournaments with 500, 750 and 1000 points and it was really fun.
Yeah most games in 8th edition had around 2500 points. But there wasnt a rule for that.
New players had around 700 points and always got someone to play with here. Ive never ever seen someone refuse to play against a new playe r because he has only the starter box and some models.

And AoS is not different. Yes you can play AoS with 1 model. wich is Boring. You can also play it with your 10000 point army. The thing is.. you can play both games with a Big army and a small one. I really cant see the "lower entry point" here. The rules are free.. ok.. but the models are more expensive.. so .. well.. if you want to build a Big army, not always play the same 20 models you lose more money really quick. And if a new player enters the Shop and look around seeing a Dicecup for 40$ and a small combat guache for 33$ they flee in terror :)

Niall78
21-07-2015, 22:23
So and if there ever AoS tournaments require 100 models where is the difference? We had alot fun tournaments with 500, 750 and 1000 points and it was really fun.
Yeah most games in 8th edition had around 2500 points. But there wasnt a rule for that.
New players had around 700 points and always got someone to play with here. Ive never ever seen someone refuse to play against a new playe r because he has only the starter box and some models.

And AoS is not different. Yes you can play AoS with 1 model. wich is Boring. You can also play it with your 10000 point army. The thing is.. you can play both games with a Big army and a small one. I really cant see the "lower entry point" here. The rules are free.. ok.. but the models are more expensive.. so .. well.. if you want to build a Big army, not always play the same 20 models you lose more money really quick. And if a new player enters the Shop and look around seeing a Dicecup for 40$ and a small combat guache for 33$ they flee in terror :)

AoS has to make more money than WFB. Therefore it will ultimately be more expensive to collect and play. Hopes of AoS being cheaper than WFB defies all logic from a GW standpoint. Why would they replace a system that wasn't making them enough money with a system that makes them even less? It's extreme fuzzy logic for posters here to argue that AoS is designed to be cheaper than WFB - its goal from a GW perspective is to make more money than WFB.

Shandor
21-07-2015, 22:44
AoS has to make more money than WFB. Therefore it will ultimately be more expensive to collect and play. Hopes of AoS being cheaper than WFB defies all logic from a GW standpoint. Why would they replace a system that wasn't making them enough money with a system that makes them even less? It's extreme fuzzy logic for posters here to argue that AoS is designed to be cheaper than WFB - its goal from a GW perspective is to make more money than WFB.


Well in my logic.. they would sell alot more if it would be cheaper then the other Models like Avatars of War and such. They would attract alot more players to even start. .. well but im not GW so my logic is wrong i guess :)

Kahadras
21-07-2015, 22:53
Just because people were playing with bigger armies, because the game could support that, doesn't mean that the game required bigger armies to be played at all. That's the same baseless reasoning used when people complain that the existence of things like the Horde rule in 8th requiring them to have to go out and buy more models if they wanted to be competitive. It provides options to allow the game to play at larger levels, not limit what can be used.

I found the game naturally trends up. Now I'm not saying that Warhammer was a bad game at 500 or 1000 points but when I started playing 1,500 was concidered to be a 'standard' game. By the time I clocked out mid way through 8th ed our groups 'standard' had gone to 2,250 with 2,500 and even 3,000 points concidered to be the 'norm'. Now that's fine if you're like us and have large armies but for somebody just starting out 500 or 1,000 points are easier to reach.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 22:54
Well in my logic.. they would sell alot more if it would be cheaper then the other Models like Avatars of War and such. They would attract alot more players to even start. .. well but im not GW so my logic is wrong i guess :)

I've used many proxies for over a decade. I refuse to be price gouged by any company.

Hoffa
21-07-2015, 22:56
The tournament standard rising from 2000-2250 to 2500 had something to do with the model count issue as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The reason for this was the change from slots to a percentage system. People still wanted to use their dragon riders and greater deamons and so on and those models cost more than 400-450 pts. The size of the standard game increased because GW decided it should.

Cheeslord
21-07-2015, 22:56
AoS has to make more money than WFB. Therefore it will ultimately be more expensive to collect and play. Hopes of AoS being cheaper than WFB defies all logic from a GW standpoint. Why would they replace a system that wasn't making them enough money with a system that makes them even less? It's extreme fuzzy logic for posters here to argue that AoS is designed to be cheaper than WFB - its goal from a GW perspective is to make more money than WFB.

It does not have to be more expensive to make more money. If that were GW's reasoning they could simply have doubled the price of 8th edition. If it can sell more models to a wider audience, the price per individual to collect could come down while net profits go up.

Mark.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 23:01
No but I've found the game naturally trends up. Now I'm not saying that Warhammer was a bad game at 500 or 1000 points but when I started playing 1,500 was concidered to be a 'standard' game. By the time I clocked out mid way through 8th ed our groups 'standard' had gone to 2,250 with 2,500 and even 3,000 points concidered to be the 'norm'. Now that's fine if you're like us and have large armies but for somebody just starting out 500 or 1,000 points are easier to reach.

Why wouldn't newer players play 500 or 1,000 points instead of trying for 2,250 or 2,500 points? I've just started Star Wars Armada. I don't expect to be owning 300 or 400 point fleets straight away. I'll be playing with the starter box for many months before I ramp up to higher points levels.

Holier Than Thou
21-07-2015, 23:05
They mention 100 models per side as being a number that should give a battle lasting an evening, though that's not a recommended number as such. They also say that more is better.
So 100 models for a game that will last an evening and with Sigmarines costing £30 for 5 basic troops that's how much? £600 for a game that will last an evening. My games of WFB at 2500 points lasted an evening and cost a lot less than £600 to put together. Is Age of Sigmar still cheaper? Doesn't look like it.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 23:07
It does not have to be more expensive to make more money. If that were GW's reasoning they could simply have doubled the price of 8th edition. If it can sell more models to a wider audience, the price per individual to collect could come down while net profits go up.

Mark.

They've just binned a thirty year old setting that had thirty years worth of fans. In the process they've alienated lots of those fans. They've also brought into question their continued support of any of their other product lines. They also face stiff opposition from many different companies offering better rules and much cheaper price points. Not only do they need to replace a lot of lost loyal customers they also need to substantially increase the old player base. At the same time their already eye-watering prices are increasing. Where is this influx of new fans coming from?

Spiney Norman
21-07-2015, 23:09
I would presume that possible battle reports in WD (or are they in Warhammer Visions now?) will start giving some indication of the expected level of play, once they get sufficiently large studio armies put together - though that may take a number of months.

That would be good, my experience of playing through the starter set scenarios is quite positive, I actually think the game rules work quite well once you actually get started, unfortunately AoS falls over before you get to that point because it fails comprehensively at the 'mustering armies' stage which just fundamentally doesn't work using the rules as written.

If they would put out even a very rough guideline for creating approximately balanced forces then I feel like this game could actually go somewhere, however it is currently stuck with the starter set 'stabilisers' on and has no way of removing them without falling over.

Twido
21-07-2015, 23:10
It does not have to be more expensive to make more money. If that were GW's reasoning they could simply have doubled the price of 8th edition. If it can sell more models to a wider audience, the price per individual to collect could come down while net profits go up.

Mark.

I think the reasoning from GW is this:

Warhammer has not sold as well as they like and that is mostly down to players already having large collections.

By changing the aesthetic of the races and perhaps even the scale, players will want to purchase new armies to replace their existing ones that although they are useable, they just won't quite fit in with the new setting.

Therefore even if the game has less players, it could make a larger profit.

Niall78
21-07-2015, 23:18
So 100 models for a game that will last an evening and with Sigmarines costing £30 for 5 basic troops that's how much? £600 for a game that will last an evening. My games of WFB at 2500 points lasted an evening and cost a lot less than £600 to put together. Is Age of Sigmar still cheaper? Doesn't look like it.

You could buy four 28mm main battle tanks for the science fiction setting KyroMek from the Scotia Grendal miniatures line for £30.

That's how insane GW prices are getting. They are completely out of line with industry norms.

Kerill
21-07-2015, 23:23
I think the reasoning from GW is this:

Warhammer has not sold as well as they like and that is mostly down to players already having large collections.

By changing the aesthetic of the races and perhaps even the scale, players will want to purchase new armies to replace their existing ones that although they are useable, they just won't quite fit in with the new setting.

Therefore even if the game has less players, it could make a larger profit.

There is some truth in this as well. Every edition options are boosted/nerfed/disappeared in an attempt to make players spend more money on models (e.g shortbow, blowpipe, javelin skinks over several editions). Chaos was split for mostly the same reason (and allied allowances removed). GW never seemed to want to expand much on other parts of the warhammer world (shelf space issues). What better way to get players to spend more than to immediately get rid of a ton of models and then phase the rest out soon as well.

Edit: In some ways the increase in quality of the sprues kind of worked against them as well since it has become oh so much easier to convert things with all the extra bits and pieces.

babylonia
21-07-2015, 23:31
If I ever play AoS, it will be as a favour to friends who want to play it. I'll use my existing GW miniatures or the Reaper miniatures I own. I will not buy the newer, expensive GW miniatures for AoS. After killing off Warhammer, I refuse to reward GW by buying their Sigmarines or Orrukhs etc.

Ayin
21-07-2015, 23:35
I found the game naturally trends up. Now I'm not saying that Warhammer was a bad game at 500 or 1000 points but when I started playing 1,500 was concidered to be a 'standard' game. By the time I clocked out mid way through 8th ed our groups 'standard' had gone to 2,250 with 2,500 and even 3,000 points concidered to be the 'norm'. Now that's fine if you're like us and have large armies but for somebody just starting out 500 or 1,000 points are easier to reach.

Indeed, you and friends, who started years ago, slowly collected armies until the games you played reflected your larger collections by being set at points allowing you to play with more of what you had.

That in no way stopped anyone else from playing games of 10 infantry, 1 war machine and a wizard.

babylonia
21-07-2015, 23:47
The most important element of Warhammer for me was the Old World setting. I bought expensive miniatures because of their aesthetic and the setting. There is nothing in the new AoS setting that I find appealing, this coupled with the flimsy rules and higher priced models means GW lost me as a customer. I didn't abandon GW, they dumped me.

Spiney Norman
22-07-2015, 00:05
You could buy four 28mm main battle tanks for the science fiction setting KyroMek from the Scotia Grendal miniatures line for £30.

That's how insane GW prices are getting. They are completely out of line with industry norms.

That's simply disingenuous, do you know how many primarch tee-shirts I could buy for the price of one bench brand shirt? Somewhere around 8-10. GW is top of the business for model quality, just because you can buy x number of models from a cheap, small-scale operation for the price of one GW model does not necessarily make them excessive. GW models are approximately of similar price to Warmahordes in the case of similar models, their games have just traditionally required a larger number of models, which is why they can seem more expensive.

Ayin
22-07-2015, 00:07
The most important element of Warhammer for me was the Old World setting. I bought expensive miniatures because of their aesthetic and the setting. There is nothing in the new AoS setting that I find appealing, this coupled with the flimsy rules and higher priced models means GW lost me as a customer. I didn't abandon GW, they dumped me.

To some people, the lack of a "Space Marine like force" in Fantasy severely limited their interest, as did the idea that everything was always getting worse and moving towards the inevitable bad ending that was always talked about (despite this being the exact same situation in 40k, the game of Space Marines...). To them, these changes are extremely positive, as it's all a matter of taste (unfortunately, a vocal group of these people seem...jubilant, maybe, that they are finally 'right' and the Old World with it's mortal-centric view and historical influence is gone).

Niall78
22-07-2015, 00:10
That's simply disingenuous, do you know how many primarch tee-shirts I could buy for the price of one bench brand shirt? Somewhere around 8-10. GW is top of the business for model quality, just because you can buy x number of models from a cheap, small-scale operation for the price of one GW model does not necessarily make them excessive. GW models are approximately of similar price to Warmahordes in the case of similar models, their games have just traditionally required a larger number of models, which is why they can seem more expensive.


It isn't disingenuous - both companies are supplying miniatures for a tabletop game. For the price of five 28mm soldiers figures you can get four 28mm main battle tanks. In fact GW have scale on their side and so should be cheaper.

Model quality doesn't mean that much to me - nearly anything can be kit-bashed and painted to a decent standard. I wont buy dirt but if the price-quality ratio is good then I'm buying. I don't usually find the price-quality ratio with GW any good any more - not because of the quality but because of price. Hence I proxy a lot - as do many who I game with.

Maybe GW have it wrong and WFB players weren't not buying new miniatures - they were just voting with their wallet and buying miniatures from different companies.

Sparowl
22-07-2015, 00:37
GW is top of the business for model quality, just because you can buy x number of models from a cheap, small-scale operation for the price of one GW model does not necessarily make them excessive.

GW lost out on being top for quality a bit ago. There are several companies that produce miniatures with better details. Kingdom Death is well known for producing some incredibly fine resin models. Titan Forge have some great quality stuff. As far as plastics go, PP's new plastics are very finely detailed, and a joy to work with.

By comparison, GW's finecast was absolute crap. They claimed to be going to a better, cheaper material, then produced models with no quality control, which would require 2, 3, 5, etc. returns to get a decent cast. And they charged you more for the privilege of switching.

GW makes quality models. Their monsters especially tend to be very good. But just like many other companies, they can be hit or miss. Sometimes a great mini in their line is one stock code away from something designed by a twelve year old. Other companies do it too - Reaper has some beautiful pieces. And some horrendous ones. PP has some characters from early on that are terrible need of a resculpt.

But "top"? I cannot look at all the other producers of minis and still think that GW produces the highest quality, most aesthically appealing, and most solidly workable miniatures out of everyone.


GW models are approximately of similar price to Warmahordes in the case of similar models, their games have just traditionally required a larger number of models, which is why they can seem more expensive.

Except GW's models raise in price all the time. Not just new models, but also older models that haven't changed in forever. They had annual price raises, regardless of market forces. If a model switched materials, it went up in price. At one point, they reboxed units, putting smaller model counts, but raised the price.

To compare to PP, older models are not raised in price. When they switch metal models to plastic, they drop the price, sometimes dramatically. Reboxing normally means a slight price drop compared to buying the old box plus attachments.

Spiney Norman
22-07-2015, 00:42
GW lost out on being top for quality a bit ago. There are several companies that produce miniatures with better details. Kingdom Death is well known for producing some incredibly fine resin models. Titan Forge have some great quality stuff. As far as plastics go, PP's new plastics are very finely detailed, and a joy to work with.


Fair enough, though I respectfully disagree with your opinion, I've not seen any company that makes plastic models anywhere near the quality of the AoS starter set, PP models are particularly poor and ugly in my opinion, there is a lot to like about the warmahordes rules, but the models are so bad I will not waste the time and money to buy and paint them.

Maybe GW should consider making models for someones else's game :D

Sparowl
22-07-2015, 01:00
Fair enough, though I respectfully disagree with your opinion, I've not seen any company that makes plastic models anywhere near the quality of the AoS starter set, PP models are particularly poor and ugly in my opinion, there is a lot to like about the warmahordes rules, but the models are so bad I will not waste the time and money to buy and paint them.

Some of the newer plastics are better. I liked their old metals, hated their new plastics for awhile, and now enjoy some of their new plastics. I still hunt for some old metals, though. There's some good companies making quality stuff on Kickstarter that may never make a website to sell for general public, as well.


Maybe GW should consider making models for someones else's game :D

"Temba, his arms wide."


-------
I didn't want to add to the "first game of sigmar" thread, but I agree with your baking analogy. It was very apt, in my mind.

TashSunrider
22-07-2015, 02:18
Fair enough, though I respectfully disagree with your opinion, I've not seen any company that makes plastic models anywhere near the quality of the AoS starter set, PP models are particularly poor and ugly in my opinion, there is a lot to like about the warmahordes rules, but the models are so bad I will not waste the time and money to buy and paint them.

Maybe GW should consider making models for someones else's game :D

Tastes are very different apparently.

Maybe the quality of the models in the AoS starter set is great but the design is horrible. Those models fit better in a 40k setting than a fantasy game. Compared to old empire and chaos units it sure is a step down in aesthetics.

HelloKitty
22-07-2015, 02:56
Thats true if the aesthetic one is after is Tolkien style fantasy.

The new models fit in a clash of the titans style fantasy.

Ayin
22-07-2015, 03:13
Thats true if the aesthetic one is after is Tolkien style fantasy.

The new models fit in a clash of the titans style fantasy.

They fit into modern generic fantasy,they have the over-sized WoW weaponry and armour plating, ect.

akai
22-07-2015, 04:06
With the release of Age of Sigmar I voted "Slightly Negative." One to two weeks into it, I am still "Slightly Negative." I am not negative about Age of Sigmar the game itself, but with Games Workshop. Age of Sigamr is a completely different game, but Game Workshops seems to be doing the same things as they did in the past (which I don't care for).

In my opinion, anything positive that Age of Sigmar the game itself might bring is completely offset by GW target market audience and product pricing. Reading through the fluff, it seems very much targeted to young male adolescents. It is very repetitive to drive their message into our head. I got hooked and baited at that young age by Battle Masters/Heroquest. Those Milton Bradley boxed games had advertisements for free GW magazines. The photographs of all the miniatures and battle scenes were so wonderful, that i took a good chunk of time saving up money to buy 5th Edition Starter Set. I was disappointed not at the game itself, but for me to get the "full" experience of Warhammer Fantasy with the cool lizardman and bretonnian miniatures I got, I would still need to purchase more and more miniatures. Most young people won't have the money unless their parents is willing to indulge their children with tons of money. So for years, I basically was just browsing through the free catalogs of miniatures until I got old enough to buy miniatures for an army.

Age of Sigmar starter set is definitely a lot better than 5th Edition and it seems much more of a "complete game" in the box. However, when I read the rules where they say having more miniatures is more fun and getting 100 miniatures per side = one game in the evening...its the same exact strategy as the past. Let's just use the Stormcast Eternals...for the suggested 100 miniatures, you wold have to spend 800+ US dollars outside of the starter set for one game to last an evening. If the target audience is adults, I think the books and their website need to have more substance and catered to that age group. If the target audience 12-16 year olds, price of hobby is too high.

Things I find positive about AoS:
- All fifteen legacy armies were given a Ravening Horde update for AoS
- The relaxed rules allow for a lot of different unit combinations to be fielded. I like collecting miniatures from all 15 different armies, but with previous versions of Fantasy, I would not have been able to field a legal army 1000 points or more for most of them.
- AoS Starter Set gives a nice size starter armies to start with. In my opinion, it's on par with 7th and 8th Edition Starter set.
- 9 Realms - Celestial, Chaos, and the Seven Mortal realms. More variety to your battles. If you want a low fantasy type of setting you can do that. If you want to try a high fantasy type of setting you can do that.
- Seems to give GW more opportunity to make very unique and different models (though I think the Stormcast Eternals resembles too much to their 40K Brothers).

Finnigan2004
22-07-2015, 04:24
Maybe GW should consider making models for someones else's game :D

Between Kings of War second edition and Age of Sigmar, we might be there within a few short weeks :).

Buddy Bear
22-07-2015, 05:23
the previous comments about accessibility are pretty interesting, especially given that the rules say that a game of 100 models per side should last an evening. I've found that my 2000 point games last an evening, so I worked out the cost of my typical 2000 point Empire list. That came out to $403.50.

Meanwhile, I figured out th cost of 98 Stormcast Eternals, including the starter set models (and presuming you paid half cost for the set and split it with another person, and the rest of the army made up of an even mix of Liberators and Judicators). That army comes out to $862.50. Whatever GW means when they talk "accessibility", they clearly have a different definition of what it means than other people.