PDA

View Full Version : My first rounds of AoS and my experience with it



Pages : [1] 2

Anteater
26-10-2015, 21:09
So, I've bought the AoS starter set, traded my Bloudbound for more SE, bought a box of Judicators and a box of Protectors and felt like I had a pretty nice army. A friend who also plays SE and I decided to play a few rounds of AoS, and it was the best wargaming experience in my entire life. What I don't like about WH40K (I never played Fantasy before this):
-Games take really long, even if you know all the rules;
-I don't know about other stores, but in my store everyone says he wants to help you get started but actually just wants to kill a new guy and feel proud;
-A lot of planning has to be done before the game starts;
-A crap ton of special rules.

With AoS, basically all the problems I had with wargaming were gone. Games can take as long as you like, nice people in my area and planning and special rules are minimized. I like wargaming more as something you just do with your friends on an afternoon instead of going all competitive and powergamer, and, tbh, that's just how WH40K felt to me. AoS might not be as tactical and really simple, but I find it a ton of fun.

So, what does this mean to you? All I want to say is: please, give AoS a chance. I now it's not WHFB, but just play one round. Maybe you'll like it! Who knows. Maybe you won't. But please people, do not judge the game before trying and do not judge the game basing on what other people on the internet say. Me and my friends are having a lot of enjoyable afternoons, and it inspired me to finally do something with my miniatures instead of just painting and modelling them. I even wrote a story about the battle I had with one of my friends, because it was so epic!

I am sure that I may have brought some anger or something up, but please, don't hate in your responses and reactions and just make your oppinion sound in a nice way. Thanks for reading, and I hope you will try AoS for once, and see if it's something for you.

Cheers, Anteater

Sephillion
26-10-2015, 21:21
My answer is this:


In your description, it seems the people in your area magically changed from WAAC a-holes to actual, helpful players, but that’s not a game question, people wanting to WAAC in AoS will do so.
There is a ton of unique special rules in AoS, so I’m not sure what to make of that point.


If I’m going to spend money on any of GW’s grossly overpriced products, I’m going to set a higher standard for the products as “not being boring”. I have no doubt I could have some jiggle and fun with a few games of AoS… if I found a like-minded player. To use a car analogy, I’m not going to spend Ferrari money on a Lada, even if both get me from point A to point B.

Yrch
26-10-2015, 21:22
Exactly what i experienced with AoS.
As much as i like the 40k and play it, AoS feels more "relaxing" when playing with a few buddies.
Take a bunch of minis, take a scenario and have a nice evening with a game or two.
Also AoS is way more tactical than some people say. it doesnt rely on movement or positioning like WFB and 40k does, but the right charge at the right time can make or break a game and through synergies army planning and composition is as much a part of the game as in other wargames.

Enjoy your time (also try to get your hand son the scenario rules from the different books, they are awesome ;))

@Sephillon:
funny thing is, its way easier to sort out the WAAC players in AoS than its in 40k.

Dosiere
26-10-2015, 22:19
I'm glad you are liking it but don't assume people are hating on it and didn't try it. I probably played and watched more games than most of the pro AoS people here, including a small campaign and even a tournament.

I'm sure some have never played a single game, but I bet most have. I will say that playing the game changed my opinions of the game drastically from just reading the rules, both good and bad.

Geep
26-10-2015, 22:26
I never played Fantasy before this
This, to me, is the main issue. Yes you can have fun with AoS- with the right people you can have fun with anything- but AoS is not Fantasy. There's no rank and file, flank and rear- the importance of movement, which is one of the most tactical elements available to any tabletop wargame, is severely reduced. The entire game- from core rules to new models- has no appeal to me at all. I have no problem with other people liking it- but it's also fully understandable why so many Fantasy players look at this thing like its some kind of mutated monster. What we actually liked in the game was thrown away, and it feels like there wasn't even a second thought about it.

I do like skirmish games, but I already had a tonne to choose from earlier. Even if you're determined to stick with GW models and the GW game umbrella, it's not hard to find a copy of Mordheim, or you could find the old Path to Glory warband rules that used to be in White Dwarf. There's no incentive to choose AoS over what is already out there (and, rules-wise, I do find AoS terribly dull by comparison).


So, I've bought the AoS starter set, traded my Bloudbound for more SE, bought a box of Judicators and a box of Protectors and felt like I had a pretty nice army
You dropped that much money without even a playtest first? I know this isn't the place to rant on it, but the shameless price hikes on AoS products is another massive turn off. I sometimes look at the models on the GW site, and just have to laugh at those prices- I'd at least consider the models for conversion fodder if not for that!

Whirlwind
26-10-2015, 22:44
Well it's good that you are enjoying it. My only suggestion would be that before you go out an buy too many additional models, play about a dozen to two dozen games or so (taking proxy models if necessary).

As a game I found that after this number of games AoS quickly became stale and 'boring'. It just felt like We were doing the same thing over and over, even when taking different armies (and restricting some of more insane bits). That was our difficulty for the most part you are hitting/wounding on 4's and 3's etc and it the later games quickly felt like a grind (even on the scenario based games). Even a lot of the special rules are pretty similar in effect when it came down to it.

Our conclusion was that this seemed to be mainly because the how effective your unit was never depended on who they were fighting, the (for example) individual Sigmarine units always dealt out the same damage regardless of who they attacked. Combined that most armies started aggregating to the more elite units didn't help either.

This is one advantage that both WFB and 40k have (though I agree 40k is a convoluted mess now) in that it always felt that yours and your opponent choices made a difference to how well your units performed.

However if you are enjoying it great, but as previously I would make sure that you are happy with the longevity of the game before you go all out on the game (and I'd say this for any wargame).

Spiney Norman
26-10-2015, 22:44
So, I've bought the AoS starter set, traded my Bloudbound for more SE, bought a box of Judicators and a box of Protectors and felt like I had a pretty nice army. A friend who also plays SE and I decided to play a few rounds of AoS, and it was the best wargaming experience in my entire life. What I don't like about WH40K (I never played Fantasy before this):
-Games take really long, even if you know all the rules;
-I don't know about other stores, but in my store everyone says he wants to help you get started but actually just wants to kill a new guy and feel proud;
-A lot of planning has to be done before the game starts;
-A crap ton of special rules.

With AoS, basically all the problems I had with wargaming were gone. Games can take as long as you like, nice people in my area and planning and special rules are minimized. I like wargaming more as something you just do with your friends on an afternoon instead of going all competitive and powergamer, and, tbh, that's just how WH40K felt to me. AoS might not be as tactical and really simple, but I find it a ton of fun.

So, what does this mean to you? All I want to say is: please, give AoS a chance. I now it's not WHFB, but just play one round. Maybe you'll like it! Who knows. Maybe you won't. But please people, do not judge the game before trying and do not judge the game basing on what other people on the internet say. Me and my friends are having a lot of enjoyable afternoons, and it inspired me to finally do something with my miniatures instead of just painting and modelling them. I even wrote a story about the battle I had with one of my friends, because it was so epic!

I am sure that I may have brought some anger or something up, but please, don't hate in your responses and reactions and just make your oppinion sound in a nice way. Thanks for reading, and I hope you will try AoS for once, and see if it's something for you.

Cheers, Anteater

Awesome, firstly congratulations on actually trying out the game before judging it, too many people have executed a summary judgement based on 'this is not wfb'.

Secondly you need to be aware that you have just walked into a bull enclosure wearing neon red clothing with a 'come get me' sign protruding from the top of your head. Warseer is regrettably uber-hostile to AoS so the possibility of an avalanche of negative and inflammatory responses to this thread is extremely high.

Not having played wfb previously certainly removes one of the biggest barriers to enjoying AoS, you're not stood looking around in disbelief wondering where your favourite wargame for the past 30 years has vanished to. You certainly seem to have hit upon the great strengths of the AoS system and its good to hear another positive voice in amongst the swirling vortex of negativity that warhammer General has become.

There is a thread on this board called "Age of Sigmar-friendly active thread - fans only please!" (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412393-Age-of-Sigmar-friendly-active-thread-Fans-only-please!/page23) where those of us with a more optimistic and open-minded approach to AoS congregate to talk about the positives of the game without having to deal with all the rampant negativity.

There is also an Age of Sigmar tale of painters going on if you want some support and advice with your AoS painting efforts, the link is in my signature.

rmeister0
26-10-2015, 22:46
There's no incentive to choose AoS over what is already out there (and, rules-wise, I do find AoS terribly dull by comparison).

AoS is current and in print. You can find it at retail.

Models for AoS are current and in print. You don't have to kit bash unrelated products or scour eBay for the right ones.

Mordheim has a very limited scope of warbands and the unofficial rules are of considerable varying quality. Even the official rules had balance issues.

You can't play Stormcast in Mordheim. You can't play Khorne Bloodbound in Mordheim.

So, there are some incentives right there. The biggest problem I always have with GW's side games is that they represent a very small part of the larger universe they're set in, and rarely the part I'm actually interested in.

Smooth Boy
26-10-2015, 22:56
That's the only good thing we can say about AoS... its in print.

I'm also happy someone has played it and enjoyed it, after all I don't want everyone to be as miserable as me. But I have to agree, there are better alternatives to AoS like SAGA and Frostgrave which are in print.

Whirlwind
26-10-2015, 23:15
Secondly you need to be aware that you have just walked into a bull enclosure wearing neon red clothing with a 'come get me' sign protruding from the top of your head. Warseer is regrettably uber-hostile to AoS so the possibility of an avalanche of negative and inflammatory responses to this thread is extremely high.



To be fair this sort of statement is like taking hot branding iron and stamping it on the back of the bull though! It isn't really necessary the conversation should just be let to flow regardless; highlighting a perceived or real issue (depending on which side of the fence you are on) is actually only ever going to inflame the situation as it can come across as belittling other peoples views - that makes them upset, more likely to fight back and we end up with the same issue of whole topic being derailed by a few people arguing.

As for the other skirmish games it really depends on whether you want to stick with GW. Yes Mordheim has some issues but is still a good game; it is unfair to say something is unbalanced when the game you are comparing it to doesn't have any. You should consider Mordheim with the same ideals as AoS to make a fair comparision (i.e. consider both in the light of a scenario driven, rather than balance driven games). Also a lot of the newer warbands were community driven which is only ever a good thing, because it meant the community was healthy). It would be relatively easy to create a Sigmarine faction for Mordheim (maybe representing them coming to the shattered remains of the old world to save souls or something). As with all games there would never be any harm in giving Mordheim a try as a comparison, the rules are freely available (they were distributed free by GW towards the end) and there are plenty of models that you can use to count as (you don't have to use the official OOP GW ones).

The same goes for all the Skirmish games, so Malifaux, Frostgrave, Godslayer, Batman to name just a few. Life is too short to limit yourself to just one thing without trying the others - for you the best thing since sliced bread might just be around the corner just waiting to be discovered! (just proxy the miniatures until you find the one you want to settle on!)

Red Skullz
26-10-2015, 23:15
Great seeing more people with the same experience a lot of people in my own club had :)

Make sure to at least buy one of the campaign books to get some great additional rules to further theme your games and scenarios to shake things up and make it more varied and fun.

Spiney Norman
26-10-2015, 23:28
To be fair this sort of statement is like taking hot branding iron and stamping it on the back of the bull though! It isn't really necessary the conversation should just be let to flow regardless; highlighting a perceived or real issue (depending on which side of the fence you are on) is actually only ever going to inflame the situation as it can come across as belittling other peoples views - that makes them upset, more likely to fight back and we end up with the same issue of whole topic being derailed by a few people arguing.

To be fair most of the comments against AoS found on Warseer these days are not fair-minded, well reasoned discussions of problems with the game, they are ill-humoured cheap shots like


That's the only good thing we can say about AoS... its in print.


Not to single smooth boy out for any reason than it was the post immediately above and provided a perfect example of the kind of pointless slander that does nothing to broaden the debate. If the majority of AoS opponents had the maturity to discuss the game properly rather than just the endless bashing we wind up with this forum would be a much more pleasant place to be.

I'd also say that comparing AoS to games like frostgrave and Mordheim is kind of unhelpful, those are both great games to be sure, but they are very, very different from Age of Sigmar and only work in a very specific context (a limited group engaged in an ongoing campaign), AoS is a lot more flexible in setting up a game than that.

Deus_Vult
27-10-2015, 00:53
The best thing about AoS in my mind has been all the high quality battleplans that GW puts in all their books. Playing AoS with these battleplans enhances the experience considerably. I'm glad you tried out the game and enjoyed it! I was skeptical at first too but after trying it I fell in love immediately.

smaxx
27-10-2015, 03:15
I liked the few games I tried too. It's not a bad game, and with the special terrains there was interesting moments. I just don't like the new models and background at all. Also having no points makes it a must to use some comp. If the miniatures and story were interesting I just might give it more time. Now I prefer Bolt Action and Saga for skirmish and Kings of War, Hail Caesar, Deus Vult and WFB for rank and file games. Anyway, If the minis look good to You I totally agree that the game has it's merits too.

Geep
27-10-2015, 09:02
AoS is current and in print. You can find it at retail.
It's not hard at all to find a heap of Mordheim rules for exactly the same price as AoS rules- free! But ignoring that, Mordheim was just one example of a competing game- there's a huge amount of other games out there, many in print, and new ones are being released all the time.
The 'in-print' argument also holds one major flaw- what if the game is failing and is discontinued? (Just hypothetically- I don't know enough to assess how it's going). A good game needs to be able to stand on its own merits, not just through company backing (look at the Epic and Blood Bowl communities for example- they lost GW support a long time ago, but are still going strong- Do you think AoS draws that kind of fandom?).


Models for AoS are current and in print. You don't have to kit bash unrelated products or scour eBay for the right ones.
28mm models haven't been a problem for a long time, and many just happen to be excellent for use in various game systems (take a look at the Avatars of War models, for example). Kit-bashing is also often no task at all- to go back to the Mordheim example, the Night Runners box is the old Skaven Warband box.
This argument also hits the same 'in print' issues the above rules issue meets- namely that many other models for competing games are also in print, and that being in print is not sufficient, by itself, to make a game good (as it may be a very temporary situation).


Mordheim has a very limited scope of warbands and the unofficial rules are of considerable varying quality. Even the official rules had balance issues.
True- except that there are heaps of fan-made things that expand the warband pool, to the point where pretty much any race (and many specialties in each race) are available. Are they all balanced? No- but I find that a hard argument to even consider when we're comparing it to the excessively balance-free Age of Sigmar.
Many competitors games also just happen to have very similar fantasy races to Warhammer in their fantasy worlds- so if you're willing to broaden your horizons there is a lot of variety out there.


You can't play Stormcast in Mordheim. You can't play Khorne Bloodbound in Mordheim.
Each to their own for aesthetics, but personally I consider this a plus for every non-AoS game :p


So, there are some incentives right there. The biggest problem I always have with GW's side games is that they represent a very small part of the larger universe they're set in, and rarely the part I'm actually interested in.
Here lies another (probably temporary) issue with AoS- the universe. It barely exists, and what does exist doesn't appeal to me at all. Right now we've had almost nothing but Stormcast on Bloodbound- which is a very, very tiny portion of what is supposed to be a virtually infinite universe*.
(*Here is another issue to me- by definition, an infinite landscape has every possible option in it, and nothing of major consequence can ever possibly happen. By their efforts to make the scope of the game amazingly epic, GW writers have basically nullified the importance of every life, death, victory and defeat- ever)

Spiney Norman
27-10-2015, 09:44
It's not hard at all to find a heap of Mordheim rules for exactly the same price as AoS rules- free! But ignoring that, Mordheim was just one example of a competing game- there's a huge amount of other games out there, many in print, and new ones are being released all the time.
The 'in-print' argument also holds one major flaw- what if the game is failing and is discontinued? (Just hypothetically- I don't know enough to assess how it's going). A good game needs to be able to stand on its own merits, not just through company backing (look at the Epic and Blood Bowl communities for example- they lost GW support a long time ago, but are still going strong- Do you think AoS draws that kind of fandom?).

You realise that just because Warseer is full of haters does not necessarily mean AoS will be discontinued right? Most of the anecdotes regarding AoS are exaggerated or just plain made up to support the authors point of view or simply represent their own personal gaming group which comprises a group of people with the same view as themselves. The fact is nobody really has a clue how many AoS products have been sold by GW so the expectation that the game will be cancelled tomorrow is kind of dumb.



28mm models haven't been a problem for a long time, and many just happen to be excellent for use in various game systems (take a look at the Avatars of War models, for example). Kit-bashing is also often no task at all- to go back to the Mordheim example, the Night Runners box is the old Skaven Warband box.
This argument also hits the same 'in print' issues the above rules issue meets- namely that many other models for competing games are also in print, and that being in print is not sufficient, by itself, to make a game good (as it may be a very temporary situation).

True- except that there are heaps of fan-made things that expand the warband pool, to the point where pretty much any race (and many specialties in each race) are available. Are they all balanced? No- but I find that a hard argument to even consider when we're comparing it to the excessively balance-free Age of Sigmar.
Many competitors games also just happen to have very similar fantasy races to Warhammer in their fantasy worlds- so if you're willing to broaden your horizons there is a lot of variety out there.


What is with comparing Mordheim to AoS? I mean have you actually read the AoS rule book at all (I'm assuming you know how to play Mordheim)? The two games are really nothing alike, in Mordheim the models move individually and the game only works in a continuous limited campaign setting, AoS is much more flexible than that and much broader in appeal (the setting comprising nine transdimensional realms rather than a single city). You may as well encourage people to play blood bowl instead of AoS because, hey, they both use round bases, they must be the same right?

Mordheim and blood bowl are both great games, but they don't scratch the same itch as AoS and there is space for all three games in my collection.


Here lies another (probably temporary) issue with AoS- the universe. It barely exists, and what does exist doesn't appeal to me at all. Right now we've had almost nothing but Stormcast on Bloodbound- which is a very, very tiny portion of what is supposed to be a virtually infinite universe*.
(*Here is another issue to me- by definition, an infinite landscape has every possible option in it, and nothing of major consequence can ever possibly happen. By their efforts to make the scope of the game amazingly epic, GW writers have basically nullified the importance of every life, death, victory and defeat- ever)

I guess you haven't read many of the books, they have definitely not been just about Stormcast vs bloodbound, there have been stories involving the Sylvaneth, nurgle Rotbringers, undead and Seraphon, I'm also fairly sure Tzeentch cropped up somewhere but I've not had a chance to read that one yet. Yes it will take a while to accumulate the level of detail that warhammer amassed over its 30 year existence. Also the setting is hardly infinite (well ok the realm of chaos might be, but that has always been the case), there is still plenty of scope for jeopardy threatening the other eight realms.

I've got to say I think the idea of an insurgent war against chaos in control is an interesting way to flip the classic warhammer narrative, I'm interested to see where it goes.

Greyshadow
27-10-2015, 10:23
Great to hear Anteater - I haven't played it yet, just been so busy over the last few months but I definitely plan on giving it a go. The sting from losing my beloved old game is starting to lessen to the point where I am really keen to give it a chance. My brother is keen to try it so I am sure it will happen soon too. May you enjoy many good games to come.

Holier Than Thou
27-10-2015, 10:55
You realise that just because Warseer is full of haters does not necessarily mean AoS will be discontinued right? Most of the anecdotes regarding AoS are exaggerated or just plain made up to support the authors point of view or simply represent their own personal gaming group which comprises a group of people with the same view as themselves. The fact is nobody really has a clue how many AoS products have been sold by GW so the expectation that the game will be cancelled tomorrow is kind of dumb.

Sorry, how exactly is it that you can state that most of the anecdotes are exaggerated or made up? Are you part of the Inquisition? Can you scan our brainwaves and detect deceit?

I'm more inclined to believe that the anecdotes advising of AOS struggling for 3 reasons.

1 - it's what I've seen (obviously this is anecdotal too)
2 - posters have put up links to evidence of it struggling (huge discounts, Limited Edition items failing to sell, etc.
3 - even the posters who are defending AOS have admitted that a large percentage of them, possibly a majority, have been playing but not buying anything. How long are GW likely to keep supporting a game that some people are playing but very few are making purchases? Hint. See Warhammer Fantasy for an example of GW's previous form.

Red Skullz
27-10-2015, 11:37
Didn't take long before OPs wish of no hating went astray.


I am sure that I may have brought some anger or something up, but please, don't hate in your responses and reactions and just make your oppinion sound in a nice way. Thanks for reading, and I hope you will try AoS for once, and see if it's something for you.

Cheers, Anteater

Holier Than Thou
27-10-2015, 11:40
Which of my claims about AoS would you describe as 'outrageous'?

There are a number of what I would describe as 'moderate' AoS-sceptics who have given the game a go and come to the conclusion they don't like it and accordingly contribute reasonably to the debate, then there is a considerable group of frothing haters who haven't even bothered to look at the game and simply derive enjoyment from bashing GW, the former I have respect for, the latter I do not, it shouldn't be too hard for each person to individually evaluate which group you belong to.

Isolated anecdotes of groups not picking up AoS are fine, but drawing conclusions that your own personal echo-chamber is somehow representative of the uptake of AoS worldwide is arrogant in the extreme.

I haven't played it, that makes me a frothing hater does it? I haven't played it because I read the rules and thought they were dreadful. The majority of the people who are playing it have admitted they don't play RAW as it is a dreadful mess (you might be one of them, I can't remember). I'm not willing to play a game whose own creators couldn't be bothered to make playable, instead relying on their customers to try and fix it.

Also, I wouldn't call the negative anecdotes 'isolated', it's more like a vast ocean of negative anecdotes with sporadic little islands of isolated positive anecdotes.

Spiney Norman
27-10-2015, 11:46
I haven't played it, that makes me a frothing hater does it? I haven't played it because I read the rules and thought they were dreadful. The majority of the people who are playing it have admitted they don't play RAW as it is a dreadful mess (you might be one of them, I can't remember). I'm not willing to play a game whose own creators couldn't be bothered to make playable, instead relying on their customers to try and fix it.

Also, I wouldn't call the negative anecdotes 'isolated', it's more like a vast ocean of negative anecdotes with sporadic little islands of isolated positive anecdotes.

Maybe not a 'frothing hater', but it is illogical to spend your time blasting a product you have no experience of, so I'm forced to wonder at your motivation, maybe you've been unduly influenced by the negative voices of the Internet or maybe the grief over the loss of wfb is still too raw.

At the end of the day for me it's as simple as GW make models I like and want to spend time painting so I buy them, so far PP and Mantic haven't made models that I like and want to spend time and money on so I haven't.

Niall78
27-10-2015, 11:56
Maybe not a 'frothing hater', but it is illogical to spend your time blasting a product you have no experience of

You did that for the best part of three months Spiney. You posted dozens of anti-AoS posts a day until a few short weeks ago you tried the game and had a complete conversion - turning from one of the highest post count haters to one of the highest post count defenders.

Geep
27-10-2015, 12:09
You realise that just because Warseer is full of haters does not necessarily mean AoS will be discontinued right? Most of the anecdotes regarding AoS are exaggerated or just plain made up to support the authors point of view or simply represent their own personal gaming group which comprises a group of people with the same view as themselves. The fact is nobody really has a clue how many AoS products have been sold by GW so the expectation that the game will be cancelled tomorrow is kind of dumb.

This is irrelevant to my actual point- as I tried to say. My point was that being in-print is not really a meaningful positive for any game. It certainly helps, but Warhammer Fantasy was in print and well...
A game needs to be able to stand on its own feet to be truly successful, not be propped up by the parent company. Maybe AoS will achieve that and really flourish, but that kind of thing takes time- and it's completely fair to be sceptical that GW will give it that time.


What is with comparing Mordheim to AoS? I mean have you actually read the AoS rule book at all (I'm assuming you know how to play Mordheim)? The two games are really nothing alike, in Mordheim the models move individually and the game only works in a continuous limited campaign setting, AoS is much more flexible than that and much broader in appeal (the setting comprising nine transdimensional realms rather than a single city). You may as well encourage people to play blood bowl instead of AoS because, hey, they both use round bases, they must be the same right?

The answer to this should be pretty obvious? Mordheim is GW's previous Fantasy skirmish game foray. Game play wise it may not be the best comparison to AoS, but there's a lot of people who never look outside GW for games, so when it comes to finding something to compare AoS with it's an obvious choice.
There are also more similarities than you seem to give it credit for- In Mordheim models usually move together as groups (smaller than an AoS unit, but still a functional group), and although the game works best in a campaign setting, it's also fine as a one-off thing (and has a great variety of scenarios to keep one-off games fresh). As a side note, one of the main things people like about AoS is the campaign books and continuing missions.
Mordheim may have started as a single city, but it drew in races from all over the old world, and the setting changed- I remember Empire in Flames, set in countryside, and the Lustria expansion- I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. There's really not much, if anything, that occurs in AoSs nine realms that can't have also been found somewhere in the Old World, and so have been the sight of a 'Mordheim' game.

Blood Bowl is very different to both Mordheim and AoS, obviously. Models there do truly move as individuals, and the scenarios are much more limited (basically regular, dungeon, and various types of shortened pitch, like Street Bowl).


I guess you haven't read many of the books, they have definitely not been just about Stormcast vs bloodbound, there have been stories involving the Sylvaneth, nurgle Rotbringers, undead and Seraphon, I'm also fairly sure Tzeentch cropped up somewhere but I've not had a chance to read that one yet.
You're right. I started reading the books to see if anything about the setting grabbed me, but it just didn't. Combined with what I perceive as a decrease in GW's writing talent (whether that's actually the case or if my expectations are simply higher now), I have no desire to try and immerse myself in the game. To be honest, it doesn't help that it makes me cringe when my beloved treemen and dryads, once rich in background, suddenly get mis-named as Sylvaneth for no good reason.


Maybe not a 'frothing hater', but it is illogical to spend your time blasting a product you have no experience of, so I'm forced to wonder at your motivation, maybe you've been unduly influenced by the negative voices of the Internet or maybe the grief over the loss of wfb is still too raw.
You don't need to try something to know if you like it or not, or to know if it's a good product. Not long ago my grandfather's friend gave him a bottle of 'miracle pills' (I forget their actual name), but all I had to do was read the label to know they were absolute garbage (if not actively dangerous, supposedly containing huge amounts of Vitamin A). I don't need to try AoS to know if I think it's a good game- I've read the rules. I know about many other games. I can tell that there is nothing in the game that appeals to me, and that the rules writing appears shoddy (though mostly workable).

This game hold no appeal to me, but to some it does, and that's fine. Let's see if we can sidetrack one of these many topics into something more productive: What does appeal to you about AoS that you can't find in another game, and what could be done to get you more hooked?

Spiney Norman
27-10-2015, 12:12
You did that for the best part of three months Spiney. You posted dozens of anti-AoS posts a day until a few short weeks ago you tried the game and had a complete conversion - turning from one of the highest post count haters to one of the highest post count defenders.

Indeed, although my 'conversion' was more than two months ago now, when I got over wfb being dropped and actually gave the game ago I was greatly surprised at how good it was, it also makes me acutely aware of how badly you can misjudge the game until you've actually played it. Are people not allowed to change their minds these days any more?


This game hold no appeal to me, but to some it does, and that's fine. Let's see if we can sidetrack one of these many topics into something more productive: What does appeal to you about AoS that you can't find in another game, and what could be done to get you more hooked?

Hmmm, good idea actually

1. I don't pay for the rules
A major source of annoyance for me with wfb and 40k was that I had to pay A LOT for the rules of the game and the rules of my armies. Having to pay out £50 for a new rule book and £30 for every army that I play (5 for wfb and 4 for 40k) every 2-4 years was taking a considerable toll on my rather modest hobby budget. Free rules (which I don't want to spend money on anyway) gives me more disposable income to spend on the one part of the hobby I really want to spend money on - models.

2. The models
While I'm not especially keen on the stormcast, I absolutely love the Khorne bloodbound, if they had packaged these as chaos marauders and chaos warriors of Khorne and released them for wfb I would have been building a wfb chaos army years ago.

3. Removing points
This is kind of a love-it, hate-it thing in that it does create some tricky problems (like how do you balance a game), but at the same time it is also tremendously liberating. The problem with points is that writing an army list used to be a competition to build the most effective force you could for the points allowed. That meant there were some units in every army you just didn't go near, which is simply horrible for a guy like me who wants to use his favourite models but isn't keen on losing every game he shows up for.

Yes AoS takes far more maturity and mutual agreement to set up a game, but it allows all the units in the game to be viable which is something neither wfb or 40k has ever achieved. I'm at the point where I'd be up for talking about how to balance a game of aos but I wouldn't want to have a points system back because I know how limiting and oppressive that can be by comparison.

As to how they could hook me in more, that's easy, make more models that I like, which is great because they're doing it all the time.

Holier Than Thou
27-10-2015, 12:20
Maybe not a 'frothing hater', but it is illogical to spend your time blasting a product you have no experience of, so I'm forced to wonder at your motivation, maybe you've been unduly influenced by the negative voices of the Internet or maybe the grief over the loss of wfb is still too raw.

At the end of the day for me it's as simple as GW make models I like and want to spend time painting so I buy them, so far PP and Mantic haven't made models that I like and want to spend time and money on so I haven't.

I don't have any grief over WFB, as I've previously said I only play with my mates and we have everything we need for our armies. Yes, it's disappointing that I won't ever get any cool new units but I can still play the game we enjoy whenever we want. That doesn't change the fact I think GW have treated their customers with absolute contempt.

I'm a massive Star Wars fan, the original trilogy are my favourite films (not the best films, that goes to Memento in my opinion, but my favourites). That doesn't change the fact I think Episode I, II and III are awful. I'm disappointed they're not as good as the original trilogy but just because I don't like them doesn't mean I can't enjoy the originals.

If I see someone online say "I've never seen any of the Star Wars films but I can only watch 3 of them." I will obviously recommend they watch the originals. Likewise, if I see someone online say "I'm considering playing a fantasy wargame." I'm not going to recommend one I think is terrible.

You've already said the game is less important to you than the modelling/painting aspect so the actual standard of the game is a secondary concern for you. For those of us who view the game as an important part of the hobby, AOS isn't what we're looking for and we should be allowed to advise people of this.

Niall78
27-10-2015, 12:23
Indeed, although my 'conversion' was more than two months ago now, when I got over wfb being dropped and actually gave the game ago I was greatly surprised at how good it was, it also makes me acutely aware of how badly you can misjudge the game until you've actually played it. Are people not allowed to change their minds these days any more?

I think you judge many people by your own standards - commenting without experience of the game. Most people would find it strange that a poster would put up hundreds of anti-AoS posts about the mechanics of the game without having ever played the game. Then having a complete 360 conversion after playing one game - all the balance issues deeply explored over hundreds of posts magically disappearing in an instant.

Niall78
27-10-2015, 12:26
You've already said the game is less important to you than the modelling/painting aspect so the actual standard of the game is a secondary concern for you. For those of us who view the game as an important part of the hobby, AOS isn't what we're looking for and we should be allowed to advise people of this.

Anyone starting in modelling or painting would be well advised that there are much better products with much better value on the market as well. If they've no attachment to the game or fluff and unless they have a good job and little responsibilities they should go elsewhere.

Greyshadow
27-10-2015, 12:28
Buddy Bear - why does that guy feel he has to flame people like he does? Yes, it is sad we have lost our old game but you can't blame people for trying to make the best of things surely! Sometimes people do say seemingly contradictory things. Doesn't make them liars.

My advice Buddy Bear is if you feel you need to continually harass someone here it is time to take a break for awhile.

Buddy Bear
27-10-2015, 12:29
I always find it amusing when people talk about how great a game AOS is when 90% of the people who say that are playing one form of heavily fan comped AOS or another (with some comps being 30 pages or more long). Is there anyone out there who's playing AOS straight out of the box, with no modifications to the rules whatsoever? Because I have a hard time accepting the "AOS is a great game, really" argument at face value when even its biggest supporters aren't actually playing AOS.

Buddy Bear
27-10-2015, 12:31
Buddy Bear - why does that guy feel he has to flame people like he does? Yes, it is sad we have lost our old game but you can't blame people for trying to make the best of things surely! Sometimes people do say seemingly contradictory things. Doesn't make them liars.

My advice Buddy Bear is if you feel you need to continually harass someone here it is time to take a break for awhile.

Who am I harassing or flaming? I didn't personally insult anybody. The most I did was point out an out-and-out lie posted by someone else, and it was in the context of Spiney claiming that people who were anti-AOS were lying about their personal experiences, by pointing out that the only evidence I've found of people lying about their experiences was from the Pro-AOS side. And it's a pretty obvious lie when you cast your vote on a poll for "The Warhammer community in my community has grown as a result of AOS"... and then later state in the same thread that in actuality your community has shrunk. That's not a "seeming" contradiction. That's an outright contradiction, and it's a pretty obvious lie. So stating the unvarnished truth is considered harassment, now?

Let me ask you this, though. You think I'm flaming someone because I said they lied about something, and can back it up with ironclad proof that that's the case. Sooo... why aren't you accusing Spiney of flaming, when he called multiple people liars without a shred of proof to support his claim? Why aren't you telling him that it's time for him to take a break, given that he's made the claim that several, if not dozens of posters are outright lying about their experiences, and can't back up that claim in the slightest?

75hastings69
27-10-2015, 12:36
That has been my findings too. Not only are people not playing AoS, but the release of AoS has pretty much stopped everyone playing WFB. Guess those really were the end times.

Mind you apart from a bunch of Skaven I think all my Fantasy stuff is sold now :)

Captain Idaho
27-10-2015, 13:07
Didn't take long before OPs wish of no hating went astray.

So we either accept his opinion unquestioningly or we are hating and breaking his rules of the topic?

HelloKitty
27-10-2015, 13:17
I caught HelloKitty in at least one bald-faced lie. I posted a poll on what effect AOS has had on the local Warhammer community, if it's grown or shrunk it, and HK voted that AOS had grown the community. But later in the thread, HK admitted that the Warhammer community had actually shrunk from its original size.

As for "lying", I would love to be able to report that I'm having just as easy a time finding a Warhammer Fantasy game Post-AOS as I could Pre-AOS, but sadly, I can't report that. AOS utterly murdered the Warhammer Fantasy community here, and calling me or anyone else a liar who reports the same won't change those facts. Facts which are born out by every other bit of hard evidence, whether it's the utter failure of GW to sell out four limited editions in a row, the massive discounts retailers are giving AOS sets online, or GW's own unwillingness to make any claims about AOS being a success when being interviewed by an investment reporter. But hey, if someone wants to claim that all those posters, the online retailers purposefully taking a loss on their own sales, and GW itself are all part of a massive rightwing conspiracy to portray AOS as a failure, then go right ahead.

I've already discussed that exact accusation with you many days ago, and asked you to stop bringing me up in your replies. There was no "bald faced lie".

Katastrophe
27-10-2015, 14:08
3. Removing points
This is kind of a love-it, hate-it thing in that it does create some tricky problems (like how do you balance a game), but at the same time it is also tremendously liberating. The problem with points is that writing an army list used to be a competition to build the most effective force you could for the points allowed. That meant there were some units in every army you just didn't go near, which is simply horrible for a guy like me who wants to use his favourite models but isn't keen on losing every game he shows up for.


Didn't you recently post that you were looking at using points to balance the games you're playing, including Azyr Comp.

jtrowell
27-10-2015, 14:08
That has been my findings too. Not only are people not playing AoS, but the release of AoS has pretty much stopped everyone playing WFB. Guess those really were the end times.

Mind you apart from a bunch of Skaven I think all my Fantasy stuff is sold now :)


No, hastings, you were the chosen one ! :cries:

More seriously, come to Kings of War with your skavens, we have ratkins. :angel:

Geep
27-10-2015, 14:56
1. I don't pay for the rules
A major source of annoyance for me with wfb and 40k was that I had to pay A LOT for the rules of the game and the rules of my armies. Having to pay out £50 for a new rule book and £30 for every army that I play (5 for wfb and 4 for 40k) every 2-4 years was taking a considerable toll on my rather modest hobby budget. Free rules (which I don't want to spend money on anyway) gives me more disposable income to spend on the one part of the hobby I really want to spend money on - models.

This is an AoS positive I agree on, though GW shot themselves in the foot years ago with this, really.
I really liked the Fantasy background, and I also have an interest in game design (just casually- I'm not working on anything). I bought every rules edition there is (from 1st to 8th), and have collected as many army book as possible to go with them. When GW switched to very expensive, full-colour hard-back books, that killed it for me. Sure they're tough and look nice, but it was completely unnecessary and the associated price rise meant I couldn't keep buying every book as it came out. In the end I settled for acquiring the books through other methods, until I could afford them- which for me means that the free nature of the AoS rules is really not new anyway, and looks like GW just capitulating to something they must have known was happening, and which they'd encouraged.

smaxx
27-10-2015, 15:02
I always find it amusing when people talk about how great a game AOS is when 90% of the people who say that are playing one form of heavily fan comped AOS or another (with some comps being 30 pages or more long). Is there anyone out there who's playing AOS straight out of the box, with no modifications to the rules whatsoever? Because I have a hard time accepting the "AOS is a great game, really" argument at face value when even its biggest supporters aren't actually playing AOS.
Well, I've mostly played Warhammer comped so nothing new there. I wouldn't like to play uncomped WHFB. AoS is not a great game, but neither is it so bad as some like to tell. I like it that there are rules for all the old Warhammer units, and the fact that You can play now a new game with the same units - not just as proxies but with rules written for them. AoS is lacking anything really unique or interesting in game mechanics, that is unfortunate. But the combination of short core rules and warscrolls for each unit is a good system.

Sephillion
27-10-2015, 15:11
You realise that just because Warseer is full of haters does not necessarily mean AoS will be discontinued right? Most of the anecdotes regarding AoS are exaggerated or just plain made up

You mean like this argument? *rolls eyes*

Do you have any shred of evidence that ďmostĒ of the anecdotes are made up or exaggerated by haters?

thesoundofmusica
27-10-2015, 15:12
Didn't you recently post that you were looking at using points to balance the games you're playing, including Azyr Comp.

Surely one can enjoy and see the benefits of both systems right?

Katastrophe
27-10-2015, 15:19
Surely one can enjoy and see the benefits of both systems right?

Well sure, but claiming that having no points is a value to the new system is contradictory to coming back and saying you need one to balance the games (the reason points are introduced to the game). Every reason people have said the like AoS existed prior to AoS on 8th. Anyone could have played 8th without points. The could have even ignored formation and force composition. Because a game has rules doesn't mean one can't ignore them or change them.

Spineys reason #3 appeared inconsistent with his prior post that I think stated his group was looking at incorporating points for balance and army building. It appears to me that he is not against points as much as he felt GW points in 8th and 40K are incorrect as some units are inefficient compared to others. Oddly, AoS fails to fix that problem as high attack high wound units are still more efficient than low attack low wound units (until you buff them to ridiculous nearly auto hit and auto wounds)

Holier Than Thou
27-10-2015, 15:21
Surely one can enjoy and see the benefits of both systems right?

Probably shouldn't list the lack of points as a positive for the game and say he wouldn't want a points system back if he is also saying he's going to use a points system to play with. That's why people are getting confused, because so many of the pro-AOS champions are constantly contradicting themselves.

Niall78
27-10-2015, 16:21
Probably shouldn't list the lack of points as a positive for the game and say he wouldn't want a points system back if he is also saying he's going to use a points system to play with. That's why people are getting confused, because so many of the pro-AOS champions are constantly contradicting themselves.

A recent classic is the big group of narrative gamers who now aren't interested in buying or reading the new narrative books.

HelloKitty
27-10-2015, 16:30
A recent classic is the big group of narrative gamers who now aren't interested in buying or reading the new narrative books.

Would that be equally valid then to say all tournament gamers have no interest in reading the narrative as well? Because what you are saying is that players accepting of playing narrative scenarios are also all universally into the narrative and desire to read all about it(which claims that what I said earlier is just a lie which I know is where you are trying to go with this because this wouldn't be a proper internet forum without some tasty ad hominem) - which is as fallacious as saying all tournament gamers are not at all interested in the narrative since they create army lists that are often contradictory to the narrative for the sake of power.

Which is why these discussions always dissolve into useless prattling and chest beating and flaming and trolling.

Niall78
27-10-2015, 16:40
Would that be equally valid then to say all tournament gamers have no interest in reading the narrative as well? Because what you are saying is that players accepting of narrative scenarios are also all universally into the narrative (which claims that what I said earlier is just a lie which I know is where you are trying to go with this because this wouldn't be a proper internet forum without some tasty ad hominem) - which is as fallacious as saying all tournament gamers are not at all interested in the narrative since they create army lists that are often contradictory to the narrative for the sake of power.

Narrative gamers that ignore the narrative of the setting? Why don't you just use the correct terms and say - 'Scenario gamers that ignore narrative'. That way words mean what they actually mean.

Of course saying AoS is great for scenario play isn't as exiting as saying it's a great narrative game - a term that's meaningless in any case as any game can be a narrative experience depending on how it is played. Especially if what you mean by 'narrative play' is actually good old fashioned scenario play that's as old as games themselves.

2DSick
27-10-2015, 17:02
Mr Ant's

I like how you dropped the OP then sat back with your popcorn. Bravo. I'm halfway through mine.

One question though. You said it's the best experience ever and go on to why you like it more than 40k. Have you played any other table top wargames other than 40k and AoS?

Just a yes/no will do.

HelloKitty
27-10-2015, 17:05
I said players that are open to narrative scenarios. Though narrative gamers could also be said to be players that are open to narrative scenarios. That doesn't mean that they are super up on the fiction of the story. Much like a lot of historical players I know just like the games and don't know much about the historical context.

It is of course fine when people have misunderstandings over terms. However, when we pick and pick and pick at those terms, we become pedantic to try and prove a point and be "right", which moves from civil discussion (what forums should be) and into the realms of hostile posting (what internet forums are often).

AOS is great for scenario play. And is a great narrative game because its great for scenario play. Of course any game can be great for those things, if the people involved want it to be.

Red Skullz
27-10-2015, 17:35
So we either accept his opinion unquestioningly or we are hating and breaking his rules of the topic?

Keeping within the topic will suffice but I assume that since everyone is going on repeat here there's nothing new nor interesting to contribute.

To the OP. I'd recommend tailing out of here as this thread is a good example of the monotonous back and forth "discussion" that's been going on here on Warseer and frankly I'm astonished that the same guys are going at it still. Join the AoS group on Facebook, that's a great place.

Spiney Norman
27-10-2015, 17:51
Well sure, but claiming that having no points is a value to the new system is contradictory to coming back and saying you need one to balance the games (the reason points are introduced to the game). Every reason people have said the like AoS existed prior to AoS on 8th. Anyone could have played 8th without points. The could have even ignored formation and force composition. Because a game has rules doesn't mean one can't ignore them or change them.

Spineys reason #3 appeared inconsistent with his prior post that I think stated his group was looking at incorporating points for balance and army building. It appears to me that he is not against points as much as he felt GW points in 8th and 40K are incorrect as some units are inefficient compared to others. Oddly, AoS fails to fix that problem as high attack high wound units are still more efficient than low attack low wound units (until you buff them to ridiculous nearly auto hit and auto wounds)

Our group has tried all sorts, and Azyr is not a precision pointed system, the point values are pretty approximate so they don't allow for the kind of min-maxing that 40k, wfb, WMH et al encourage. Personally I prefer to arrange AoS games by common agreement, I certainly wouldn't want to use a precision pointed system because all that accomplishes is to pigeonhole units into must-have and never-use like we used to have in wfb, and still have in 40k.

Like I said in the reply you are referring to, I'm still not sure whether I really like the lack of points or really dislike it (I can see it as both a positive and a negative), AoS has highlighted to me the big issues that precision point systems have, but it feels like having nothing to replace that (in my view, pretty broken) system with is a mistake.

Denny
27-10-2015, 17:52
This thread is a good example of the monotonous back and forth "discussion" that's been going on here on Warseer and frankly I'm astonished that the same guys are going at it still.


I AM THE ORCLORD - I HAVE THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF ORC FIGURES - KNEEL BEFORE ME MINIONS - IF YOU WANNA **** WITH ME MEET ME AT GAMESWORKSHOP WATFORD THIS SATURDAY. i WILL **** YOUR MUM BITCHESSSSSSSSSSSSS

. . . Well, at least the monotony has been broken . . .

EDIT: Where did Mr Orclord go? That post must have lasted seconds . . .

Anteater
27-10-2015, 20:58
Mr Ant's

I like how you dropped the OP then sat back with your popcorn. Bravo. I'm halfway through mine.

One question though. You said it's the best experience ever and go on to why you like it more than 40k. Have you played any other table top wargames other than 40k and AoS?

Just a yes/no will do.

I have not played any other wargames. Also, you said I was not watching this topic; it has been 1 day since it has been created. Don't expect me to be online everyday, I have a life outside of this.

Spiney Norman
27-10-2015, 22:14
Also, you said I was not watching this topic; it has been 1 day since it has been created. Don't expect me to be online everyday, I have a life outside of this.

And you begin to see why some people are so embittered about GW retiring WFB, they literally do not have a life outside of this. ;)

HelloKitty
27-10-2015, 22:39
As well as why a great number of people left forums for facebook groups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tyranno1
27-10-2015, 23:54
And you begin to see why some people are so embittered about GW retiring WFB, they literally do not have a life outside of this. ;)

Hmmm, whats that you posted earlier about insulting posts coming from the "anti-AoS camp"?

Bit hypocritical here.

Zywus
28-10-2015, 00:16
And you begin to see why some people are so embittered about GW retiring WFB, they literally do not have a life outside of this. ;)
That's pretty rich coming from the guy who's singlehandedly responsible for about every forth post in this sub-forum :rolleyes:

Spiney Norman
28-10-2015, 00:17
Hmmm, whats that you posted earlier about insulting posts coming from the "anti-AoS camp"?

Bit hypocritical here.

Sorry I should have realised irony doesn't translate well into text, if you take a quick look at my posting count and history you'll see that statement applies to me as much as to anyone else here ;)

Buddy Bear
28-10-2015, 04:44
Well, I've mostly played Warhammer comped so nothing new there. I wouldn't like to play uncomped WHFB. AoS is not a great game, but neither is it so bad as some like to tell. I like it that there are rules for all the old Warhammer units, and the fact that You can play now a new game with the same units - not just as proxies but with rules written for them. AoS is lacking anything really unique or interesting in game mechanics, that is unfortunate. But the combination of short core rules and warscrolls for each unit is a good system.

You have to admit that there's a huge difference in degree, though. I'm sure there are people who had house rules in their Warhammer Fantasy games, but how common was that? For instance, if I were to pick up and go to Minnesota with my army, I could have gotten a game in there and the other player would likely be using the rules as-is. I could then go to New York and likewise end up in a situation where the other player is using the core rules. I could then fly out to Seattle and, once again, find an opponent using the standard rules. I could cap off my whirlwind tour with a trip to London and once more find a player using the core rules with no house rules.

With AOS, however, it seems that everyone is not only using a house rule system, but they have to use it to make the game somewhat workable. To get in a game just in my own area I'd first have to find out what all the various comp systems used by various players are and familiarize myself with them before I could get in a game, nevermind going out of town with my army. What comp rules are being used in game stores in Orlando? Savannah? Baltimore? New York? Pittsburgh? It's created a Tower of Babel like situation where people are supposedly playing AOS but rarely does anyone speak the same language.

Dosiere
28-10-2015, 05:03
Our group has tried all sorts, and Azyr is not a precision pointed system, the point values are pretty approximate so they don't allow for the kind of min-maxing that 40k, wfb, WMH et al encourage. Personally I prefer to arrange AoS games by common agreement, I certainly wouldn't want to use a precision pointed system because all that accomplishes is to pigeonhole units into must-have and never-use like we used to have in wfb, and still have in 40k.

Like I said in the reply you are referring to, I'm still not sure whether I really like the lack of points or really dislike it (I can see it as both a positive and a negative), AoS has highlighted to me the big issues that precision point systems have, but it feels like having nothing to replace that (in my view, pretty broken) system with is a mistake.

The problem with all these comp systems is that they take away from a positive that AoS has, absolute freedom in deployment, with same old tired force restrictions. It's something I really like about games like Armada. Yes, it has points, but I don't have to take 3 Corvettes to take a Cruiser. I could just take 2 Cruisers. Or 6 corvettes. Kings of War is almost as good. It does have a few restrictions but they are nothing like the Core tax of WFB or 40K. You can pretty much make whatever type of army you want in KoW, with the exception that you do need a few actual units of troops but you have almost total freedom concerning what they may be. I hope you see my point. This potential freedom was something that really attracted me at first to AoS.

If AoS ever wants to crawl out of it's niche within a niche type of game it is now, it needs to promote pick up games. The easiest way to do that is with points and such, but we'll see. I like the fact that I can take an army of knights, an army of dragons, an army of pikemen, etc... in AoS, IN THEORY. In reality its a damn mess of a game with no easy way to get a half decent pick up game going with a stranger.

Truly though, the current system of using models as the power level determinant is pretty dumb. Almost anything would be better than that.

Geep
28-10-2015, 07:13
The problem with all these comp systems is that they take away from a positive that AoS has, absolute freedom in deployment, with same old tired force restrictions. It's something I really like about games like Armada. Yes, it has points, but I don't have to take 3 Corvettes to take a Cruiser. I could just take 2 Cruisers. Or 6 corvettes. Kings of War is almost as good. It does have a few restrictions but they are nothing like the Core tax of WFB or 40K. You can pretty much make whatever type of army you want in KoW, with the exception that you do need a few actual units of troops but you have almost total freedom concerning what they may be. I hope you see my point. This potential freedom was something that really attracted me at first to AoS.
This is a complaint I've never really understood- I hate the term 'core tax', because it's not a tax, and never has been: it's the core of your army! If you don't like the units which are the core of your army, then it seems like you've chosen the wrong force to play with.
I know 40k armies are often a bit more restricted here, as their 'Troops' sections can be pretty limited, but in Fantasy pretty much all armies have a huge amount of diversity possible among their core troops. Do you like lots of cavalry? Pretty much any force which can have cavalry will have a Core cavalry unit. Infantry? You'll always find some in core. Ranged troops? Yep, they're in core too. Mix and match or specialise as you see fit! It is completely possible to get a wide variety of army types using just the core troops of most books. Some armies are more limited than others, of course- don't collect Dwarfs if you want a glorious cavalry charge...
Special and Rare units are just that- special and rare! They are the cream of your army, or the things that add spice, not things that should be dominating your army.
Most AoS forces (and modern 40k forces) look awful to me because this has been forgotten- people just pick the elites and forget about the common trooper. The result is that, in my view, most armies just don't look like armies anymore.


Yes AoS takes far more maturity and mutual agreement to set up a game...
I would say it's the exact opposite. It may take a lot of maturity and mutual agreement to set up a good game, but the entire point of it is that little kids can buy what that they want and play a game without the slightest concern for force composition, tactics, or anything else complicated. Those things can come later if the kids are so inclined, but the initial barrier to play is nothing that a fat wallet can't cross.

smaxx
28-10-2015, 10:24
You have to admit that there's a huge difference in degree, though. I'm sure there are people who had house rules in their Warhammer Fantasy games, but how common was that?
I agree that there's more comps to AoS most likely, and none probably have much authority behind them. Don't really know. But for WHFB, I've played it a lot over the years, and of the games only a really few have been without any comps. I've played games mostly with ETC -comps, then with various tournament comps, with my own variant of Border Patrol comps etc. I've arranged also maybe one or two non-comped tournaments (and dozens of comped tournaments) and they weren't really too nice experiences... So, for me ETC comp was the most relevant comp.

Spiney Norman
28-10-2015, 12:30
The problem with all these comp systems is that they take away from a positive that AoS has, absolute freedom in deployment, with same old tired force restrictions.

Sorry but what do you mean by that? Azyr doesn't have any compulsory restrictions, all it does it place a value on each unit/character so that both forces end up approximately balanced. I think there is an optional set of force restrictions designed to make armies look a little more like armies than collections of characters leading a band of monsters, but you are free to ignore them (and we mostly do in our games when we use it).

Essentially you are free to take whatever you like up to the maximum available point limit.


You have to admit that there's a huge difference in degree, though. I'm sure there are people who had house rules in their Warhammer Fantasy games, but how common was that?

It wasn't common at all where I am from, and warhammer was all the worse for it, almost every army had swathes of units that no-one ever used because they were so bad and balance between different armies was dreadful.

If anything we're now in a better place because most people expect to use a comp system when they play AoS whereas most people I played with were very resistant to a comp system when playing wfb despite the woeful lack of balance in the game.

HelloKitty
28-10-2015, 13:18
I agree that there's more comps to AoS most likely, and none probably have much authority behind them. Don't really know. But for WHFB, I've played it a lot over the years, and of the games only a really few have been without any comps. I've played games mostly with ETC -comps, then with various tournament comps, with my own variant of Border Patrol comps etc. I've arranged also maybe one or two non-comped tournaments (and dozens of comped tournaments) and they weren't really too nice experiences... So, for me ETC comp was the most relevant comp.

Where I am I can't remember the last time I played a game without some form of comp, even if it was just minor. Even our touranment players played with comp all the time - the comp of whatever GT they were going to and practicing for. There were no uncomped tournaments around here.

Our end times campaign had very little comp - it was mainly forests blocked line of sight and that was it. But it was still comp.


This is a complaint I've never really understood- I hate the term 'core tax', because it's not a tax

I agree. Core is what your army is supposed to be primarily made of. Otherwise people wouldn't bother as if they had free reign to choose whatever they want - they often choose the best of the best and while that is certainly valid, for someone wanting to play a game of forces clashing as opposed to special forces every game, that can be an issue.

Of course the same thing can be said in reverse, people that want special forces games all the time aren't going to like "core tax" because "core tax" is often another way of saying "i have to take these models that are not optimal because the rules say i do otherwise i would never do so". Which leads us to play with people that want the same thing you do.

The problem with that of course is people also want a general system with no comp and everyone plays the same way (preferably, their way), which has been a source of conversation (and flame wars) on internet forums since AOL came out with "you've got mail".

Khaines Wrath
28-10-2015, 14:22
I've always been under the impression that the core "tax" is considered as such because it's a heavy restriction on your freedom in regards to army building that is kind've pointless when you think about it. Say someone wants an army of trolls for their O&G army.

A bare bones orc boy is 6 points.
A troll is worth 35 points, nearly the equivalent of 6 orc boys.

If the player chooses to have a troll only army they will have a powerful force but suffer in numbers.

The percentage quotas did nothing but force people to take units
they didn't want to bulk up their force to use the units they really want in the first place.
The obvious downside is the potential for abuse of powerful special and rare units, say an army of Phoenix Guard which is kind of what AoS has done but without a point system to at least impose some semblance of a penalty for choosing powerful units.

Arrahed
28-10-2015, 15:03
Our group has tried all sorts, and Azyr is not a precision pointed system, the point values are pretty approximate so they don't allow for the kind of min-maxing that 40k, wfb, WMH et al encourage.


I don't understand this point. I am pretty sure a the lack of precision in a point system makes it much more prone to min/maxing:
If one model costs 10Pts and a slightly better one costs 11Pts, I must decide whether I want to take 11 of the first choice for 110Pts or 10 for the second choice. Or maybe I have only 100Pts left and I need at least ten more models so I have to choose the weaker unit.

Without precision both units might cost 2? points. Why would I ever take the weaker unit?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

HelloKitty
28-10-2015, 15:21
Without precision both units might cost 2? points. Why would I ever take the weaker unit?

Precision never works precisely for one... precision is good for a small set of scenarios but once you deviate from those scenarios what is good at your standard scenrios suddenly may become bad (and vice versa)

Azyr was not built for precision points because it was not built as a tournament comp system. It was built to get a general form of balance from both sides in a campaign setting where both players aren't trying to win the game in the list building phase.

Also precision systems don't stop min/max from happening either. If a model costs 10p and a better model costs 12p, players will still largely max out on the 12p model - because its better. This is exasperated by GW when they have a model cost 10p and a better model costs 10p, or 9p. But I digress...

As a precision tournament system using tournament scenarios, there are better comps out there for that.

Arrahed
28-10-2015, 15:29
Precision never works precisely for one... precision is good for a small set of scenarios but once you deviate from those scenarios what is good at your standard scenrios suddenly may become bad (and vice versa)

Azyr was not built for precision points because it was not built as a tournament comp system. It was built to get a general form of balance from both sides in a campaign setting where both players aren't trying to win the game in the list building phase.
I accept that Azyr is not designed to deal with this problem. But I quoted a post stating that precision point systems are more prone to min/maxing and I am fairly sure it is the other way around.



If a model costs 10p and a better model costs 12p, players will still largely max out on the 12p model - because its better.
Here I disagree. Sure, the 12Pt model is better than the 10Pt model. That is why you can take more of the weaker one for the same costs. Ideally, 12 of the 10Pt models should be equal to 10 of the 12Pt models.

HelloKitty
28-10-2015, 15:36
Ideally yes but there are a number of reasons why the 12 pt models will be taken

1) they should be mathematically better
2) i need less of them, so need to hobby less to get them onto the table
3) as i need less of them i don't need to take as many models to the game with me, less models to move, etc

This is a very common answer to why people don't really take what used to be core in age of sigmar. In the wild raw, age of sigmar games that I see are mainly the elite stuff fighting the elite stuff. I've only seen a small handful of games that had the old core stuff for those reasons.

There's also the problem that equal points of the 12 pt models should equal equal points of the 10 pt models (ideally this would be true) - getting to that level of balance is very difficult so likely wrong, and they will only be be roughly equal in a limited number of scenarios.

If the 10 pt model was faster, for instance, it would be worth more than 10 pts in a mission where you needed speed to win you the game. Which is one of the most cited complaints from people when deviating from the core battle line scenario, or "its not fair" because the army they bought is tuned for pitched battle, not some narrative scenario in the back of the book that they are now at a disadvantage over because they don't have the right models, and their models which are optimal for pitched battle now suddenly are worth less (and should be pointed less) - the main drawback as I see it of precision points.

Arrahed
28-10-2015, 15:58
Ideally yes but there are a number of reasons why the 12 pt models will be taken

1) they should be mathematically better


Better per model yes. But that is why build armies with point values not model count.



2) i need less of them, so need to hobby less to get them onto the table
3) as i need less of them i don't need to take as many models to the game with me, less models to move, etc
True, but those points are not directly related to the rules or a point system.


Ihis is a very common answer to why people don't really take what used to be core in age of sigmar. In the wild raw, age of sigmar games that I see are mainly the elite stuff fighting the elite stuff. I've only seen a small handful of games that had the old core stuff for those reasons.
That is probably one of the reasons people are negative towards AOS when coming from a WFB background.




There's also the problem that equal points of the 12 pt models should equal equal points of the 10 pt models (ideally this would be true) - getting to that level of balance is very difficult so likely wrong, and they will only be be roughly equal in a limited number of scenarios.

If the 10 pt model was faster, for instance, it would be worth more than 10 pts in a mission where you needed speed to win you the game. Which is one of the most cited complaints from people when deviating from the core battle line scenario, or "its not fair" because the army they bought is tuned for pitched battle, not some narrative scenario in the back of the book that they are now at a disadvantage over because they don't have the right models, and their models which are optimal for pitched battle now suddenly are worth less (and should be pointed less) - the main drawback as I see it of precision points.

True, but equally true for none precision point systems. It is just not as obvious because units are not balanced in all scenarios. A precision system could at least balance units for one scenario. In an ideal world for all scenarios but that would certainly be challenging and therefore expensive.

Spiney Norman
28-10-2015, 18:35
I don't understand this point. I am pretty sure a the lack of precision in a point system makes it much more prone to min/maxing:
If one model costs 10Pts and a slightly better one costs 11Pts, I must decide whether I want to take 11 of the first choice for 110Pts or 10 for the second choice. Or maybe I have only 100Pts left and I need at least ten more models so I have to choose the weaker unit.

Without precision both units might cost 2? points. Why would I ever take the weaker unit?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

It's more of an attitude thing, a precision-pointed system encourages you to min-max by selecting only the best value units, a more approximate system on the other hand promotes a more relaxed style of play.

The other colossal advantage of a more approximate system is that units that it's much harder to get unit points values *badly* wrong, which was a colossal problem with wfb and 40k, to the point where in most games it dictated which units got used and which didn't.

HelloKitty
28-10-2015, 19:03
What Spiney said is pretty much how I've experienced as well.

You can min/max a lot harder with general system, I won't dispute that though, but with more relaxed players this is not an issue.

Also the strength I found with general point systems is that you can play a wider variety of scenarios without someone calling out "this isn't fair for my army" because the wider point values take into account more than just pitched battle scenarios.

In a precise system, the 10 pt model that stays 10 pts even though its super useful in a mobility scenario (in which someone would min/max it because of its now better abilities, and in which his opponent would say "i'm never playing narrative scenarios again" because that 10 pt unit is now worth 18 pts because of the scenario), the 10 pt model becomes a 2 pt for an entire unit model in a say 10 pt game.

Units can escalate or depreciate in value, which on a precise system can't happen, but in a general system is not as noticeable. I'm sure there are outliers that can be used to break that but again no system is perfect.

MDSW
28-10-2015, 21:58
@Anteater - I totally get your point and agree that the WHFB rules had just gotten way too complex and took such a huge intellectual investment and time to play the game properly, that I had moved to the KoW rules quite a while ago. Although I have not played an AoS game, I did review the rules and I can really see what GW was trying to do, but the army faction background really just doesn't do much for me, as I am a little more traditional in my army likes (as actaully set up, developed and nurtured by GW over the many past years.)

I may try the AoS rules with my favorite army, but kind of feel the lack of army character for my favorites - Brets, etc.

Spiney Norman
29-10-2015, 00:20
I suspect the repulsion to AoS has little to do with an inability to game the system through net-lists or winning the army construction phase. It has a lot to do with it being a bad game lacking the type of tactical depth most gamers are looking for. But we can all call it something else if we like.


I'm sorry to bring this up, but 'lack of depth' is basically the battle cry of people who haven't bothered to try AoS, people said the same thing about LotR SBG for years and they were every bit as wrong then as they are now.

Also 'bad game' is a relative term, I can legitimately describe 8th edition or 40k as a 'bad game' because they are so badly balanced you can easily win a game in the list building phase so that playing the game becomes completely irrelevant.

Katastrophe
29-10-2015, 00:48
I'm sorry to bring this up, but 'lack of depth' is basically the battle cry of people who haven't bothered to try AoS, people said the same thing about LotR SBG for years and they were every bit as wrong then as they are now.

Also 'bad game' is a relative term, I can legitimately describe 8th edition or 40k as a 'bad game' because they are so badly balanced you can easily win a game in the list building phase so that playing the game becomes completely irrelevant.

I didn't say there was no tactical depth. I said "type" of tactical depth.

Sephillion
29-10-2015, 14:44
I'm sorry to bring this up, but 'lack of depth' is basically the battle cry of people who haven't bothered to try AoS, people said the same thing about LotR SBG for years and they were every bit as wrong then as they are now.

Also 'bad game' is a relative term, I can legitimately describe 8th edition or 40k as a 'bad game' because they are so badly balanced you can easily win a game in the list building phase so that playing the game becomes completely irrelevant.

Actually I read numerous comments from people who tried the game (and who tried to like the game) and they said they disliked the lack of tactical depth. That there is tactical depth is actually one of the straws grasped by some of the white knights.

And bad game is bad; it’s badly written, it has dumb rules, it makes unintuitive choices.

HelloKitty
29-10-2015, 15:42
There are about a dozen youtube videos and blogs that give examples to tactical depth. That there is no tactical depth is one of the straws grasped by some of the "haters" (white knights, haters, this is an internet forum i guess we must use the proper vocabulary). There is plenty of "tactical depth", its just a different type of tactical depth that some people want.

The same things were also said about 8th edition whfb. That there was no tactical depth, that it was ranDUMB, and that it was dead and warmachine finally would be the #1 tabletop wargame for fantasy battles.

And there were a host of blogs and videos that showed how that also was not true.

Arrahed
29-10-2015, 16:03
There are about a dozen youtube videos and blogs that give examples to tactical depth. That there is no tactical depth is one of the straws grasped by some of the "haters" (white knights, haters, this is an internet forum i guess we must use the proper vocabulary). There is plenty of "tactical depth", its just a different type of tactical depth that some people want.

The same things were also said about 8th edition whfb. That there was no tactical depth, that it was ranDUMB, and that it was dead and warmachine finally would be the #1 tabletop wargame for fantasy battles.

And there were a host of blogs and videos that showed how that also was not true.

Can you give a few examples of what you would consider tactical depths in AOS? I am genuinely curious because different people consider different things 'tactical depths'.

Zywus
29-10-2015, 16:18
It seems to me that there is indeed lots of little things one can influence in a AoS battle to improve ones chances of winning. It does however seems like the kind of fiddly micromanaging tactics that to me just feels 'gamey' and immersion breaking. I'm certainly not claiming that it doesn't take any skill or that it's somehow wrong to play the game that way, but it's like a worse version of Warmahordes, and I have no desire to play those kind of games.

Besides, it does feel like pushing around models to gain tiny millimeter advantages in a system where you constantly have to take care that you don't build your army too stong kinda defeats the purpose. The game isn't about winning but about having a cooperative battlenarrative. If you just want to win you don't really need to use tactics, you can just load up on the Bloodthirsters and Nagash's.

Arrahed
29-10-2015, 16:27
It seems to me that there is indeed lots of little things one can influence in a AoS battle to improve ones chances of winning. It does however seems like the kind of fiddly micromanaging tactics that to me just feels 'gamey' and immersion breaking.
That was may impression after a few games as well. But maybe I overlooked something.

HelloKitty
29-10-2015, 16:38
It does however seems like the kind of fiddly micromanaging tactics that to me just feels 'gamey' and immersion breaking.

I have that exact same problem with kings of war and 7th edition whfb, particularly with the 1/8" dance that tends to occur instead of two blocks of troops crashing into each other, so i can understand definitely disliking rules that are immersion breaking to someone because thats also something i weigh heavily for myself.

Arrahed
29-10-2015, 17:32
I have that exact same problem with kings of war and 7th edition whfb, particularly with the 1/8" dance that tends to occur instead of two blocks of troops crashing into each other, so i can understand definitely disliking rules that are immersion breaking to someone because thats also something i weigh heavily for myself.

But isn't that quite similar to the pile-in min/maxing in AOS? Of course you can simply roll a dice to resolve close calls but the same is true for charge range dancing.

I ask because that is, at least as far as I can tell based on the few games I played, one of the very few cases where the player can actually influence the odds a bit. If there is more to the game, please tell me. I know a few AOS players so if I would enjoy AOS enough to play it I would increase the number of possible opponents.

Spiney Norman
29-10-2015, 17:53
And bad game is bad; itís badly written, it has dumb rules, it makes unintuitive choices.

And a personal opinion is an opinion, you thinking the rules are 'dumb' or 'unintuitive' doesn't make it so.

HelloKitty
29-10-2015, 17:53
Age of Sigmar games look a lot like screenshots from Total War - which for me is a lot more appealing. Now I love rank and file games as well, but one of the biggest reasons I hated 7th edition fantasy and kings of war is watching people stop moving units and start laterally sliding them to try to game who charges who first. This is why I was a fan of 8th edition's random charge so much - it pretty much totally got rid of the absurdity of the dance.

Pile in to me is nowhere near as immersion breaking as the lateral 1/8" dance stuff. In fact to me piling in is more flow of battle, which is more realistic than sticking to rigid lines (shield wall not withstanding). Units did not scream towards each other and then stop and start dancing around each other laterally like they were in a bro-down or some 80s gang turf war michael jackson video, but that is what happened a lot in 7th edition and what I see in kings of war now.

Spiney Norman
29-10-2015, 18:00
Age of Sigmar games look a lot like screenshots from Total War - which for me is a lot more appealing. Now I love rank and file games as well, but one of the biggest reasons I hated 7th edition fantasy and kings of war is watching people stop moving units and start laterally sliding them to try to game who charges who first. This is why I was a fan of 8th edition's random charge so much - it pretty much totally got rid of the absurdity of the dance.

Pile in to me is nowhere near as immersion breaking as the lateral 1/8" dance stuff. In fact to me piling in is more flow of battle, which is more realistic than sticking to rigid lines (shield wall not withstanding). Units did not scream towards each other and then stop and start dancing around each other laterally like they were in a bro-down or some 80s gang turf war michael jackson video, but that is what happened a lot in 7th edition and what I see in kings of war now.

I agree actually, games of AoS feel much more like an actual fight than wfb ever did, not that it wasn't a brilliant and tactical game, but it was a poor combat simulator, AoS reverses this in my view, it's less like chess and more like a battle.

Drakkar du Chaos
29-10-2015, 18:07
Its amazing how the two of you are there, every day on every single page of every thread defending AoS and repealing the truth no matter what. Really amazing.
At some point you have to let it go, AoS is garbage, you dont want to admit it but you know it.

HelloKitty
29-10-2015, 18:25
Repealing the truth lmao hahahahahaha.

The only truth is that people have opinions and people think that their opinions are truth. But opinions are just opinions. I happen to think Kings of War is garbage. Is that the truth?

Probably not huh ;)

Confirmation-bias also doesn't prove that anything is or is not garbage. It just means some people like one thing and other people like something else.

But you're right. We should leave warseer to be the anti echo chamber that it wants to be.

Hasta.

Sephillion
29-10-2015, 18:26
And a personal opinion is an opinion, you thinking the rules are 'dumb' or 'unintuitive' doesn't make it so.

So getting bonuses for having a bigger beard isn’t dumb? Measuring from models and moving them base over base isn’t unintuitive? Having models with a melee range but needing to finish a charge within .5” no matter what isn’t unintuitive either? Oh I know, playing two turns in a row is SO not dumb. Especially with more models, I LOVE watching my opponent play for 30 minutes moving all his goblins. That is SO good design!

I have a good idea – we’ll have stores all over the world where people can play pick-up games, while promoting a game that has no system for determining what constitutes a fair game!

Admitting there is a shred of tactical depth, what good is it? You cannot know for sure whether you won because of your tactical acumen, because you pranced like a fool or because your army was no match for your opponent’s! What’s the point of making tactical decision in game when you’re doing your utmost to create a list that will not brand you a WAAC by the hippie crowd? Or how can I make great decisions in-game when the game is so badly written that there are some auto-win combos, or something very close to it?

Bad game is bad.

Drakkar du Chaos
29-10-2015, 18:37
Repealing the truth lmao hahahahahaha.

The only truth is that people have opinions and people think that their opinions are truth. But opinions are just opinions. I happen to think Kings of War is garbage. Is that the truth?

Probably not huh ;)

Confirmation-bias also doesn't prove that anything is or is not garbage. It just means some people like one thing and other people like something else.

But you're right. We should leave warseer to be the anti echo chamber that it wants to be.

Hasta.


The difference between you and me is : because i like something it doesnt make it a good product in my mind. A bad movie ? A bad game ? Yeah, technically its bad but if i enjoyed it its just because it was fitting my taste at that moment and i dont feel the need to justify to others about it. McDonald's food is garbage but from time to time i buying it because i just dont want to cook or whatever. AoS is the fastfood in the wargaming genre, no discussion about that. You like it ? Good for you, but stop trying to make it something its not and arguing all the day about what we cannot see because we are too dumb for that.

WHFB is not perfect but still a way lot better than AoS. AoS is not some kind of "Wargaming by Michael Bay", its just a bad game without strategic depth whatsoever.
Thats my opinion, the opinion of a lot of people, its not gonna change, deal with it.

Katastrophe
29-10-2015, 18:38
Is there clarity in AoS whether changing facing costs movement?

Sephillion
29-10-2015, 18:41
AoS is not some kind of "Wargaming by Michael Bay", its just a bad game without strategic depth whatsoever.


No, it’s more like “Wargaming by Uwe Boll” or “Ed Wood”.

NoobLord
29-10-2015, 18:44
I agree actually, games of AoS feel much more like an actual fight than wfb ever did, not that it wasn't a brilliant and tactical game, but it was a poor combat simulator, AoS reverses this in my view, it's less like chess and more like a battle.

Blimey, what kind of fights have you been in? Ones where people throw a handful of dice at one another? To talk of a game featuring magic, dragons, etc. as being a good or bad 'combat simulator' is a bit odd imho - what 'reality' is it we are attempting to simulate?

Karak Norn Clansman
29-10-2015, 18:45
You dropped that much money without even a playtest first? I know this isn't the place to rant on it, but the shameless price hikes on AoS products is another massive turn off. I sometimes look at the models on the GW site, and just have to laugh at those prices- I'd at least consider the models for conversion fodder if not for that!

Agreed about the prices being high enough to make you think sometimes that it could be an April's fool trick, but what else than the models would you really buy the starter set for? If the price for the minis you get is decent enough for you, then why not buy it? Should the rules not appeal to you, then just proxy your AoS miniatures for something else or use upcoming 8th edition/9th Age Stormcast army lists. Rules are always secondary at best. Models take the driver's seat any day of the week, followed quite closely by background.

Buddy Bear
29-10-2015, 18:54
So getting bonuses for having a bigger beard isnít dumb? Measuring from models and moving them base over base isnít unintuitive? Having models with a melee range but needing to finish a charge within .5Ē no matter what isnít unintuitive either? Oh I know, playing two turns in a row is SO not dumb. Especially with more models, I LOVE watching my opponent play for 30 minutes moving all his goblins. That is SO good design!

I have a good idea Ė weíll have stores all over the world where people can play pick-up games, while promoting a game that has no system for determining what constitutes a fair game!

Admitting there is a shred of tactical depth, what good is it? You cannot know for sure whether you won because of your tactical acumen, because you pranced like a fool or because your army was no match for your opponentís! Whatís the point of making tactical decision in game when youíre doing your utmost to create a list that will not brand you a WAAC by the hippie crowd? Or how can I make great decisions in-game when the game is so badly written that there are some auto-win combos, or something very close to it?

Bad game is bad.

Don't forget firing out of melee combat. Because when your cannon is being swarmed by 20 Bloodletters, it makes perfect sense that the crew can reload the cannon and fire it at the dragon on the other side of the battlefield.

Or a spearman having an equal chance of wounding a goblin warrior as he does to wound a dragon or even a Steam Tank. A spearman can wound a goblin on 4+? Then clearly he can also wound a dragon, bloodthirster, and Steam Tank on a 4+, too, because a goblin's skin is just as thick as the armored plates on a Steam Tank, right?

So by all means, someone feel free to explain why those rules aren't dumb and are intuitive.

Dosiere
29-10-2015, 18:55
I agree actually, games of AoS feel much more like an actual fight than wfb ever did, not that it wasn't a brilliant and tactical game, but it was a poor combat simulator, AoS reverses this in my view, it's less like chess and more like a battle.

Wait, what? Have we actually gotten to the point here that AoS is being talked of as a combat simulator? Aside from the skirmish system, which is nothing new, how?

I think what you are saying is that you like the skirmish system better than rank n file and it requires less abstract rules concerning movement and LoS? Essentially you are saying that if you take a screenshot of a game it looks more like units fighting in a swirling melee? Again, isn't that what any similarly sized skirmish system is? It's what a larger game of LoTR looked like when i played it.

So, I get that you are digging the skirmish system over rank n file, but its a long way off from a combat simulator. In fact, some of the unintuitive and strange rules is what really put me off to this game. In many ways it's more abstract than even KoW is, and the crazy number of special rules just make it complicated rather than deep.

Dosiere
29-10-2015, 19:02
Age of Sigmar games look a lot like screenshots from Total War - which for me is a lot more appealing. Now I love rank and file games as well, but one of the biggest reasons I hated 7th edition fantasy and kings of war is watching people stop moving units and start laterally sliding them to try to game who charges who first. This is why I was a fan of 8th edition's random charge so much - it pretty much totally got rid of the absurdity of the dance.

Pile in to me is nowhere near as immersion breaking as the lateral 1/8" dance stuff. In fact to me piling in is more flow of battle, which is more realistic than sticking to rigid lines (shield wall not withstanding). Units did not scream towards each other and then stop and start dancing around each other laterally like they were in a bro-down or some 80s gang turf war michael jackson video, but that is what happened a lot in 7th edition and what I see in kings of war now.

I agree about the random charge range. In fact, it's my one main issue with KoW. I forgot how much I disliked that part of 6th and 7th. KoW is a bit different in that you can premeasure, so there is less of the dancing but still.

Sephillion
29-10-2015, 19:05
Don't forget firing out of melee combat. Because when your cannon is being swarmed by 20 Bloodletters, it makes perfect sense that the crew can reload the cannon and fire it at the dragon on the other side of the battlefield.

Or a spearman having an equal chance of wounding a goblin warrior as he does to wound a dragon or even a Steam Tank. A spearman can wound a goblin on 4+? Then clearly he can also wound a dragon, bloodthirster, and Steam Tank on a 4+, too, because a goblin's skin is just as thick as the armored plates on a Steam Tank, right?

So by all means, someone feel free to explain why those rules aren't dumb and are intuitive.

Of course. How could I forget these gems? :D

It’s probably a sign that AoS is a good combat simulator, no? :P

Buddy Bear
29-10-2015, 19:18
Yeah, nothing says "intuitive and smart rules" or "good combat simulator" quite like a soldier being able to kill an enemy soldier with his bayonet, and also being able to stab a tank to death with that same bayonet, or reloading a HelBlaster Volley gun, aiming it, and firing it while a dozen or more Black Orcs are swinging great axes at you. And of course, nothing is quite as intuitive as getting a bonus if you have a bigger mustache than Kurt Helborg. Because whenever I play a miniature game, the intuitive assumption is that having a mustache gives me ingame bonuses with any miniatures which have large mustaches.

akai
29-10-2015, 20:00
Don't forget firing out of melee combat. Because when your cannon is being swarmed by 20 Bloodletters, it makes perfect sense that the crew can reload the cannon and fire it at the dragon on the other side of the battlefield.

If the 20 bloodletters are too dumb to block the cannon line of sight, it makes perfect sense to me that the crew can still fire at the dragon. It also makes perfect sense to me that if the 20 bloodletters actually failed to kill 3 measly crew members, then those super-awesome crew members that survived deserves one last chance to fire at the dragon before dying to the bloodletters.


Or a spearman having an equal chance of wounding a goblin warrior as he does to wound a dragon or even a Steam Tank. A spearman can wound a goblin on 4+? Then clearly he can also wound a dragon, bloodthirster, and Steam Tank on a 4+, too, because a goblin's skin is just as thick as the armored plates on a Steam Tank, right?

Steam Tank has a Save of 3+. The standard Goblin Warrior has a save of 6+. The goblin skin is not as thick as the armored plates of a Steam Tank :P

To try to make the rough comparison to people stuck with the previous Fantasy edition game system -

Accuracy of an Attack -> Attacker's Weapon Skill / Balistic Skill parameters of old editions = To Hit parameter AoS
Strength of an Attack -> Attacker's Strength parameter of old editions = To Wound parameter in AoS
Defense against an Attack -> Defender's Weapon Skill / Toughness / Armor Save parameter of old editions = the Save parameter in AoS.
Breaking down Defender's Defense -> Attacker's weapon strength parameter of old editions = Rend parameter in AoS.


So by all means, someone feel free to explain why those rules aren't dumb and are intuitive.

So those aspects of what you mentioned to be not intuitive...makes sense to me and are not dumb. It seems your head is too stuck in Fantasy of old editions that anything written or played differently is dumb and not intuitive.

Duardin
29-10-2015, 20:44
Its amazing how the two of you are there, every day on every single page of every thread defending AoS and repealing the truth no matter what. Really amazing.
At some point you have to let it go, AoS is garbage, you dont want to admit it but you know it.

It's amazing how angry Warseer gets when people have an opinion that doesn't match the narrow-minded agenda.

Warseer is a toxic environment, where usership has dropped off continually as result of the vicious abuse continually doled out to any who doesn't fit a very specific demographic.

I used to love it here. It used to be a place to find out the news and get excited with like-minds. Now it's just pack-mentality bullying.

Spiney Norman and HelloKitty just like a game. That's it! A game! They're just defending their opinion. You have an opinion. You don't like the game. That's fine. Discuss the pros and cons. Don't attack them for not backing down.
Nerd rage!

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

Duardin
29-10-2015, 20:50
AoS is the fastfood in the wargaming genre, no discussion about that.

What? No discussion! Isn't this a forum? Why can't we discuss things like sensible adults...


Thats my opinion, the opinion of a lot of people, its not gonna change, deal with it.

Oh...Ok...It's your opinion. Right then. Erm, let's just leave it then...so you don't have to be angry any more.

Sephillion
29-10-2015, 21:00
Warseer is a toxic environment, where usership has dropped off continually as result of the vicious abuse continually doled out to any who doesn't fit a very specific demographic.


You have to thank GW for that and them dividing the player base. I’d be much happier if they didn’t write crap games and make dumb decisions while keeping rising up the prices.

Drakkar du Chaos
29-10-2015, 21:00
It's amazing how angry Warseer gets when people have an opinion that doesn't match the narrow-minded agenda.

Warseer is a toxic environment, where usership has dropped off continually as result of the vicious abuse continually doled out to any who doesn't fit a very specific demographic.

I used to love it here. It used to be a place to find out the news and get excited with like-minds. Now it's just pack-mentality bullying.

Spiney Norman and HelloKitty just like a game. That's it! A game! They're just defending their opinion. You have an opinion. You don't like the game. That's fine. Discuss the pros and cons. Don't attack them for not backing down.
Nerd rage!

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

Is this some kind of joke ? I didn't attacked anyone about loving or not AoS, i just pointed the fact their spam on every thread about "how we dont understand AoS" and "the negativity on warseer blablabla" gets old after few months.

MagicAngle
29-10-2015, 21:15
I used to love it here. It used to be a place to find out the news and get excited with like-minds. Now it's just pack-mentality bullying.

I largely agree with you but based on your Join Date are you referring to how different things were at the start of October? I think it's been a pitfight for quite a few months now.

Choombatta
29-10-2015, 21:28
You have to thank GW for that and them dividing the player base. Iíd be much happier if they didnít write crap games and make dumb decisions while keeping rising up the prices.

Posters cannot blame a company for their own actions.
You can blame GW for cancelling something you loved.
You cannot blame GW for your actions on a message board.

Sephillion
29-10-2015, 21:33
Posters cannot blame a company for their own actions.
You can blame GW for cancelling something you loved.
You cannot blame GW for your actions on a message board.

Well they quite clearly divided the player base, by making radical changes in rules, tone and spirit of the game. I’m not blaming them for any one’s individual action, but for the general atmosphere their decisions created.

Arrahed
29-10-2015, 22:16
Third point - if you are going to try to ridicule me at least do a better job of it. The average move speed of an elf is 6. The average speed of the "slow moving" steam tank at full health would be 7. So the slow moving steam tank is actually faster than the elf, most of the time :P. But if the steam tank is already wounded., then yeah the tank's average move speed would be slower than the lithe elf. But wait, in 8th edition that steam tank can be moving at the same speed. It does not matter that it only have one wound left. Refer back to my first point please.

I feel obligated to remind you that To-Hit rolls in WHFB were based on the opponent's weapon skill not their movement value.
Also, in AOS the Movement characteristic is in no way involved in To-Hit rolls.

akai
29-10-2015, 22:45
I feel obligated to remind you that To-Hit rolls in WHFB were based on the opponent's weapon skill not their movement value.
Also, in AOS the Movement characteristic is in no way involved in To-Hit rolls.

I feel obligated to remind you that I addressed his question with the 2nd point. Third point is for him calling the steam tank "slow-moving" compared to the elf. Any thing else that does not make sense?

Skargit Crookfang
29-10-2015, 23:28
I loathe the game, but am happy some people find joy in it.

Duardin
29-10-2015, 23:30
I largely agree with you but based on your Join Date are you referring to how different things were at the start of October? I think it's been a pitfight for quite a few months now.
Ah no. I've been on here for a few years as allmyownbattles. I ducked out a while back. Came back as I'm enjoying AoS and wish I hadn't. It's really sad that instead of enjoying this great hobby together, Warseer is just a poisonous place to be.

This site has a reputation as being full of arguments. The reality is that it's much, much worse. Almost every thread descends into backbiting and name calling. Most of it is really nasty stuff. I'm out again I think. Disappointing that the moderators seem to nothing to stop the aggression.

This could be a really cool place, full of ideas. People moan about how White Dwarf used to be full of content and scenario ideas and rules and stuff. A community the size of Warseer could easily generate better than that for itself. Instead I read comments along the lines of, 'Your opinion is not valid' on a daily basis. Sad times indeed from what you'd expect to be a creative bunch of people.

ewar
30-10-2015, 00:05
Ah no. I've been on here for a few years as allmyownbattles. I ducked out a while back. Came back as I'm enjoying AoS and wish I hadn't. It's really sad that instead of enjoying this great hobby together, Warseer is just a poisonous place to be.

This site has a reputation as being full of arguments. The reality is that it's much, much worse. Almost every thread descends into backbiting and name calling. Most of it is really nasty stuff. I'm out again I think. Disappointing that the moderators seem to nothing to stop the aggression.

This could be a really cool place, full of ideas. People moan about how White Dwarf used to be full of content and scenario ideas and rules and stuff. A community the size of Warseer could easily generate better than that for itself. Instead I read comments along the lines of, 'Your opinion is not valid' on a daily basis. Sad times indeed from what you'd expect to be a creative bunch of people.

Have you ever actually read another forum? Warseer is still pretty civil (though not as civil as it was). Dakka is no better and the warhammer forum is just quiet. I find it strange that 'pro-AOS' people always call the forum toxic and lacking interesting AOS content.

Well, ok, if you like it so much, why don't you start a thread talking about what it is that's so great and ask for no negative opinions (people will respect your wishes). You can get your creative juices flowing and lead by example, be my guest.

Katastrophe
30-10-2015, 00:28
Have you ever actually read another forum? War seer is still pretty civil (though not as civil as it was). Dakka is no better and the warhammer forum is just quiet. I find it strange that 'pro-AOS' people always call the forum toxic and lacking interesting AOS content.

Well, ok, if you like it so much, why don't you start a thread talking about what it is that's so great and ask for no negative opinions (people will respect your wishes). You can get your creative juices flowing and lead by example, be my guest.

We all know that complaining about complainers is a fan favorite past time.

Voss
30-10-2015, 00:32
Warseer is just a poisonous place to be.
...
Almost every thread descends into backbiting and name calling.
...
Instead I read comments along the lines of, 'Your opinion is not valid' on a daily basis.

Yeah, I think I see it. Welcome to being part of the problem.

Zywus
30-10-2015, 00:36
If the Pro-Aos camp spent half as much time discussing AoS as complaining about how toxic and horrible the 'hater' camp is; maybe the AoS fan-thread would have more than a few post a day (if any).

Khaines Wrath
30-10-2015, 00:44
Have you ever actually read another forum? Warseer is still pretty civil (though not as civil as it was). Dakka is no better and the warhammer forum is just quiet. I find it strange that 'pro-AOS' people always call the forum toxic and lacking interesting AOS content.

Well, ok, if you like it so much, why don't you start a thread talking about what it is that's so great and ask for no negative opinions (people will respect your wishes). You can get your creative juices flowing and lead by example, be my guest.

Agreed. I've been to other forums related to GW and Warseer is the most civil by far. People calling it "toxic" are either sheltered, overtly sensitive or being disingenuous because people don't agree with them.

Funnily AoS has become somewhat like "politics and religion" where everyone has a strong opinion and its a subject that will be naturally divisive in a community that was formerly united by an interest in Warhammer Fantasy.

Some might think all this arguing is unhelpful but it really isn't if your willing to read the content and come to your own conclusions. I'm still largely on the side of anti AoS but I have changed my mind on several aspects I previously thought of as negatives....so who knows.

Skargit Crookfang
30-10-2015, 00:54
Agreed. I've been to other forums related to GW and Warseer is the most civil by far. People calling it "toxic" are either sheltered, overtly sensitive or being disingenuous because people don't agree with them.

Funnily AoS has become somewhat like "politics and religion" where everyone has a strong opinion and its a subject that will be naturally divisive in a community that was formerly united by an interest in Warhammer Fantasy.

Some might think all this arguing is unhelpful but it really isn't if your willing to read the content and come to your own conclusions. I'm still largely on the side of anti AoS but I have changed my mind on several aspects I previously thought of as negatives....so who knows.



Most of the warhammer forum people migrated over to Ninth Age. Some stuck it out and went with AoS... many of them have since left altogether.

akai
30-10-2015, 03:20
I joined Warseer mainly due to the Project Log forum sections. Very nice group of people there showing what they are doing in the painting/modelling side of the hobby. On the top of my head, there are maybe ~4-6 people constantly posting several times daily the same thing over and over again. Rinse and repeat. For the most part, I try to glance quickly over those user posts.

Buddy Bear
30-10-2015, 04:02
If the 20 bloodletters are too dumb to block the cannon line of sight, it makes perfect sense to me that the crew can still fire at the dragon. It also makes perfect sense to me that if the 20 bloodletters actually failed to kill 3 measly crew members, then those super-awesome crew members that survived deserves one last chance to fire at the dragon before dying to the bloodletters.

...are you serious? Do you think that after the melee round ends, the Bloodletters do what? Go on a coffee break? The cannon crew are still there, fighting the Bloodletters, doing all they can to stave off dying at the talons of a daemonic horde. The idea that they have the time to go through the complicated procedure of reloading a cannon, aiming it, and firing it is completely absurd.


Steam Tank has a Save of 3+. The standard Goblin Warrior has a save of 6+. The goblin skin is not as thick as the armored plates of a Steam Tank :P

No, but the guy with the wooden spear has an equal chance of wounding it. That's like saying a WWII soldier with a bayonet affixed to his rifle has a chance of stabbing a tank to death. It's idiotic, unrealistic, and wholly unintuitive.


To try to make the rough comparison to people stuck with the previous Fantasy edition game system -

Accuracy of an Attack -> Attacker's Weapon Skill / Balistic Skill parameters of old editions = To Hit parameter AoS
Strength of an Attack -> Attacker's Strength parameter of old editions = To Wound parameter in AoS
Defense against an Attack -> Defender's Weapon Skill / Toughness / Armor Save parameter of old editions = the Save parameter in AoS.
Breaking down Defender's Defense -> Attacker's weapon strength parameter of old editions = Rend parameter in AoS.

So those aspects of what you mentioned to be not intuitive...makes sense to me and are not dumb. It seems your head is too stuck in Fantasy of old editions that anything written or played differently is dumb and not intuitive.

No, my head is situated in the correct place, above the shoulders. Does it make sense to you? Apparently so. But given the absurdity of the defense you made of the above situations, you're as far away from an authority on what constitutes intelligent and intuitive game design as one could possibly get. Having a different Save stat doesn't change the fact that it should be utterly impossible for some units to be harmed by others. And blocking Line of Sight should not be the only way a horde of daemonic entities should be able to prevent a cannon crew from reloading and firing their cannon when they're already locked in mortal hand-to-hand combat with them.

akai
30-10-2015, 05:48
...are you serious? Do you think that after the melee round ends, the Bloodletters do what? Go on a coffee break? The cannon crew are still there, fighting the Bloodletters, doing all they can to stave off dying at the talons of a daemonic horde. The idea that they have the time to go through the complicated procedure of reloading a cannon, aiming it, and firing it is completely absurd.
So to you, after the shooting phase, its ok for the the cannon crew to go on a coffee break...but its not ok for the Bloodletters to go on a coffee break after the melee round ends!? That seems like a double standard to me. You seem to be fixated that the cannon crew is only allowed to reload, aim, and fire during the "next shooting phase." I would think it is more realistic that immediately after firing their cannon, they are rushing to reload that cannon. As they are reloading the cannon. the bloodletters charge at them. The crew will have to defend against that and if they actually survived your example of a swarm of bloodletters, all they have to do is light the cannon for it to fire. As I wrote in a later post in this thread, both AoS and previous editions of Warhammer requires a certain amount of abstraction from players. And when I read your posts, clearly your head can only conceptualize/accept the abstractions of previous Warhammer Fantasy edition games as ok, but not the abstractions in Age of Sigmar.


No, but the guy with the wooden spear has an equal chance of wounding it. That's like saying a WWII soldier with a bayonet affixed to his rifle has a chance of stabbing a tank to death. It's idiotic, unrealistic, and wholly unintuitive.
Two points: this is a game of fantasy creatures and war machines...its unrealistic to begin with :P. Second, the soldier is really dumb if they are just focusing on stabbing with the wooden spear in the heavy plated armor parts of the steam tank. I would think maybe they would try to poke that spear at the commander swinging his sword or rod at the top. Or using the spear to damage the wheels or whatever vulnerable spot they can find. It seems that you can only conceptualize that the person with the wooden spear will only stab at the heavily armor part of the steam tank. I would think the person with the wooden spear would have a bit more intelligence.


No, my head is situated in the correct place, above the shoulders. Does it make sense to you? Apparently so. But given the absurdity of the defense you made of the above situations, you're as far away from an authority on what constitutes intelligent and intuitive game design as one could possibly get. Having a different Save stat doesn't change the fact that it should be utterly impossible for some units to be harmed by others. And blocking Line of Sight should not be the only way a horde of daemonic entities should be able to prevent a cannon crew from reloading and firing their cannon when they're already locked in mortal hand-to-hand combat with them.

It makes sense to me that your head situated above your shoulders can only conceptualize from games of abstractions in a very limited way. I agree that a horde of daemons should be able to prevent a cannon crew from firing their cannon besides blocking line of sight. I would assume killing all the crew members should do the trick. If there are actually 20 or so bloodletters, there is very low chance that the 3-man crew would survive that combat and also the battleshock phase. If you think my defense is absurd...it might be because your examples are pretty absurd too :P

Buddy Bear
30-10-2015, 06:10
So to you, after the shooting phase, its ok for the the cannon crew to go on a coffee break...but its not ok for the Bloodletters to go on a coffee break after the melee round ends!? That seems like a double standard to me.

No, they're not on a "coffee break". They're busy reloading the cannon and getting it ready to fire again.


You seem to be fixated that the cannon crew is only allowed to reload, aim, and fire during the "next shooting phase." I would think it is more realistic that immediately after firing their cannon, they are rushing to reload that cannon. As they are reloading the cannon. the bloodletters charge at them. The crew will have to defend against that and if they actually survived your example of a swarm of bloodletters, all they have to do is light the cannon for it to fire. As I wrote in a later post in this thread, both AoS and previous editions of Warhammer requires a certain amount of abstraction from players. And when I read your posts, clearly your head can only conceptualize/accept the abstractions of previous Warhammer Fantasy edition games as ok, but not the abstractions in Age of Sigmar.

Ah, "light the cannon for it to fire." So it's just that easy. Nevermind being swarmed by Bloodletters, nevermind aiming the thing, just flip a lighter and that's it. :rolleyes: And what about if they survive the combat and they get to another shooting phase? At what point did they load that cannon again?



Two points: this is a game of fantasy creatures and war machines...its unrealistic to begin with :P.

But wait, I thought the point was that it was realistic and intuitive. Now you're telling me it's unrealistic and unintuitive?!?


Second, the soldier is really dumb if they are just focusing on stabbing with the wooden spear in the heavy plated armor parts of the steam tank. I would think maybe they would try to poke that spear at the commander swinging his sword or rod at the top. Or using the spear to damage the wheels or whatever vulnerable spot they can find. It seems that you can only conceptualize that the person with the wooden spear will only stab at the heavily armor part of the steam tank. I would think the person with the wooden spear would have a bit more intelligence.

Ah, so the spearman should have more intelligence, but you expect the tank commander to be a complete idiot and pop out of his tank when it's swarming with spearmen? And it's a tank. It has no vulnerable spots! At least none that a wooden stick with a metal point can harm.


It makes sense to me that your head situated above your shoulders can only conceptualize from games of abstractions in a very limited way. I agree that a horde of daemons should be able to prevent a cannon crew from firing their cannon besides blocking line of sight. I would assume killing all the crew members should do the trick. If there are actually 20 or so bloodletters, there is very low chance that the 3-man crew would survive that combat and also the battleshock phase. If you think my defense is absurd...it might be because your examples are pretty absurd too :P

And yet if they do... according to the rules, it's perfectly fine that the unit can then fire its ranged weapon during the shooting phase without being hindered at all by the fact that they're locked in melee combat. Nitpicking the particular scenario doesn't change the fact that the rules allow this to happen 100% of the time, whether it's cannon crew fighting Bloodletters, Handgunners fighting Night Goblins, Pistoleers fighting Dragon Ogres, etc. The rules always allow a unit with a ranged attack to fire their missile weapons during the shooting phase, and even allows them to fire their weapons at a unit they're not engaged with. That's wholly unrealistic and unintuitive, no matter what absurd defense you attempt to mount for that rule. This defense reminds me of that guy who said that 1 model = 1 model was a valid balancing mechanism, even if one model is a goblin and the other is a dragon, because the goblin might be from a tribe of dragon hunters.

akai
30-10-2015, 06:24
No, they're not on a "coffee break". They're busy reloading the cannon and getting it ready to fire again.

Ah, "light the cannon for it to fire." So it's just that easy. Nevermind being swarmed by Bloodletters, nevermind aiming the thing, just flip a lighter and that's it. :rolleyes: And what about if they survive the combat and they get to another shooting phase? At what point did they load that cannon again?

But wait, I thought the point was that it was realistic and intuitive. Now you're telling me it's unrealistic and unintuitive?!?

Ah, so the spearman should have more intelligence, but you expect the tank commander to be a complete idiot and pop out of his tank when it's swarming with spearmen? And it's a tank. It has no vulnerable spots! At least none that a wooden stick with a metal point can harm.

And yet if they do... according to the rules, it's perfectly fine that the unit can then fire its ranged weapon during the shooting phase without being hindered at all by the fact that they're locked in melee combat. Nitpicking the particular scenario doesn't change the fact that the rules allow this to happen 100% of the time, whether it's cannon crew fighting Bloodletters, Handgunners fighting Night Goblins, Pistoleers fighting Dragon Ogres, etc. The rules always allow a unit with a ranged attack to fire their missile weapons during the shooting phase, and even allows them to fire their weapons at a unit they're not engaged with. That's wholly unrealistic and unintuitive, no matter what absurd defense you attempt to mount for that rule. This defense reminds me of that guy who said that 1 model = 1 model was a valid balancing mechanism, even if one model is a goblin and the other is a dragon, because the goblin might be from a tribe of dragon hunters.

Buddy Bear please carefully read what you wrote and tell me that you do not have a double standard. If you don't see it, then your head is clearly not thinking straight or you are replying out of anger. Read carefully because you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I actually wrote un-intuitive?

In both Age of Sigmar and 8th Edition. the Commander in the Steam Tank is attacking with his sword/rod or hand weapon. I guess he is a complete idiot in both editions of the game. :D Or is the commander not an idiot in 8th edition, just because that is 8th Edition?

I will rewrite this a third time so it is drilled into your head:
Both AoS and previous editions of Warhammer requires a certain amount of abstraction from players. And when I read your posts, clearly your head can only conceptualize/accept the abstractions of previous Warhammer Fantasy edition games as ok, but not the abstractions in Age of Sigmar.

Duardin
30-10-2015, 09:01
AoS has become somewhat like "politics and religion"

It's really not. It's just the zealots on Warseer who see it that way. It's just a game.

I just made a lengthy post about how sad it is that this site is just one big argument, and suggested effort be but into creating readable content. Of the responses, ones basically told me to go elsewhere, one threatened me to create some better content, and, in a spectacularly ironic tour de force, one called me a 'hater' and blamed me for the problems. Sadly, not one agreed it has become a dangerous place to post.

I was suggesting we stop arguing. You know, like, if there's a thread where the op is pro something, and you like it too, then that's the thread for you. Yes, counter arguments provoke discussion, but if a forum is making you/others angry and aggressive it's not serving its purpose.

I think I'll stop posting. I'll probably be back in a few months to find out some news. It'd be a worrying situation psychologically if, by then, people who don't play AoS were still posting on a forum about AoS about how they don't play AoS.

Arrahed
30-10-2015, 09:02
Buddy Bear please carefully read what you wrote and tell me that you do not have a double standard. If you don't see it, then your head is clearly not thinking straight or you are replying out of anger. Read carefully because you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I actually wrote un-intuitive?
You never explicitly said unintuitive but one could argue that something that is unrealistic cannot be intuitive. There might not be a one to one correlation but I am sure you can understand the reasoning behind it.


In both Age of Sigmar and 8th Edition. the Commander in the Steam Tank is attacking with his sword/rod or hand weapon. I guess he is a complete idiot in both editions of the game. :D Or is the commander not an idiot in 8th edition, just because that is 8th Edition?

One bad rule does not excuse another. Also, since you repeatedly mentioned abstraction, how about the commander poking with his weapon through some specially designed opening without risking any harm himself?

Buddy Bear
30-10-2015, 09:29
Sadly, not one agreed it has become a dangerous place to post.

Maybe because... it's... not...? Or has someone been knifed over a forum disagreement and I just haven't heard of it? Tell me someone has at least been hacked and been signed up to a number of illegal websites. If not, then why is this forum "dangerous"? What's so dangerous about disagreeing about the value of a rules system and setting?


I was suggesting we stop arguing. You know, like, if there's a thread where the op is pro something, and you like it too, then that's the thread for you.

I think you'll find that 99% of Pro-AOS threads are populated entirely by Pro-AOS posters, as the people who don't care for AOS usually leave them alone. It's the threads which are critical of AOS, that's where you find arguments, because apparently Pro-AOS people feel the need to go from thread to thread which is critical about AOS and start arguments with people there. Look around and see for yourself. Just about any arguments on this forum arise from Pro-AOS folks actively searching for people to argue with.

Drakkar du Chaos
30-10-2015, 09:53
@ Duardin

Well if you think discussing about AoS on Warseer is too much "toxic" right now don't go to 4chan by all means. You are going to kill yourself.


Just about any arguments on this forum arise from Pro-AOS folks actively searching for people to argue with.

Exactly and mainly it was HelloKitty and Spiney.

Arrahed
30-10-2015, 10:09
I feel obligated to remind you that I addressed his question with the 2nd point. Third point is for him calling the steam tank "slow-moving" compared to the elf. Any thing else that does not make sense?

I am pretty sure Steamtank==Slow and elves==lithe was a reference to their weapon skill not their movement speed.
And even if not, infantry can usually move twice their movement attribute value.
Or maybe I am just not getting what you are trying to say?

jtrowell
30-10-2015, 10:12
I have that exact same problem with kings of war and 7th edition whfb, particularly with the 1/8" dance that tends to occur instead of two blocks of troops crashing into each other, so i can understand definitely disliking rules that are immersion breaking to someone because thats also something i weigh heavily for myself.


You can premeasure in KoW at any time, so there is no need to waste time trying to get the perfect distance, you simply go where you want, and while I feared at first that it might cause the kind of problem that you describe, in practice after having played the game I realized that it was not a real problem due to the way that the rest of the game encourage multi-units actions.

I am not simply leaving my spearmen outside your charge range, they are waiting for you while my knights position themselves to your flank, so that if you go for the knight the spearmen will charge you in your flank, and if you got for the spearmen it will be the knights, unless of course you yourself bring other units to support your offensive, and then you realize that you have a whole dynamic where it's not just one unit against one other and don't worry anymore.

But if it's your main problem, having for a while thought that they would be needed to improve the game (wrongly from my current point of view), I can tell you that random charges would be really easy to implement in KoW, simply use the same idea behing 8th edition :
- charge move = move + 2d6 (or if you find 2d6 too much, use something else like 1d6+2 or other)
- fliers, cavalry and large cavalry get swiftness (roll 3d6 get the two best ones, or a variant adapted if you use a different charge roll)
- units with a base higher speed (7+ or 8+) also get switfness (or not, you can agree with your opponent if you prefer to do it on a case per case basis)

Bloodknight
30-10-2015, 10:17
As well as why a great number of people left forums for facebook groups.

It would be interesting to see Warseer's traffic data. I've noticed that most major German forums have had noticeable drops in traffic over the last year or two. My guess is that wargaming forums are the internet's grammophone. Some old people populate them because that's the tech they understand (me included), while the kids are using Reddit's or Facebook's MP3-player. I'm not sure if we're even seeing GW's real customer base here anymore like we used to 10 years ago. Actually I'm not even sure if teenagers still register on forums at all. I've looked into some of our user data on GW-Fanworld.de (we've got 20.000 users) and I think I can count the recent new registrations by teens on one hand, and I'd probably have to cut off fingers to make it fit. So yeah, forums are apparently mostly populated by angry old guys.

Spiney Norman
30-10-2015, 10:20
I think you'll find that 99% of Pro-AOS threads are populated entirely by Pro-AOS posters, as the people who don't care for AOS usually leave them alone. It's the threads which are critical of AOS, that's where you find arguments, because apparently Pro-AOS people feel the need to go from thread to thread which is critical about AOS and start arguments with people there. Look around and see for yourself. Just about any arguments on this forum arise from Pro-AOS folks actively searching for people to argue with.

Apart from this one you mean, where someone came to Warseer to post about their positive experience of the game and promptly got devoured by a tidal wave of anti-AoS hatred despite asking everyone to play nice in his original post...

From my experience it seems like completely the opposite, the anti-AoS crowd cruise around watching for anyone with a positive opinion of the game to descend on and try and batter them into submission.


It would be interesting to see Warseer's traffic data. I've noticed that most major German forums have had noticeable drops in traffic over the last year or two. My guess is that wargaming forums are the internet's grammophone. Some old people populate them because that's the tech they understand (me included), while the kids are using Reddit's or Facebook's MP3-player. I'm not sure if we're even seeing GW's real customer base here anymore like we used to 10 years ago. Actually I'm not even sure if teenagers still register on forums at all. I've looked into some of our user data on GW-Fanworld.de (we've got 20.000 users) and I think I can count the recent new registrations by teens on one hand, and I'd probably have to cut off fingers to make it fit. So yeah, forums are apparently mostly populated by angry old guys.

I'm not sure it's an age thing, I think it's an anonymity thing, forums keep your identity secret while Facebook doesn't. When people want to discuss something without their identity being known or without their interests popping up on their great aunt's news feed, forums are still a good way to do that.

I'm pretty sure a lot of folks wouldn't be so outright rude to others in Warseer if we were a social networking sight with real names and faces attached to everything you post.

Buddy Bear
30-10-2015, 10:23
Apart from this one you mean, where someone came to Warseer to post about their positive experience of the game and promptly got devoured by a tidal wave of anti-AoS hatred despite asking everyone to play nice in his original post...

From my experience it seems like completely the opposite, the anti-AoS crowd cruise around watching for anyone with a positive opinion of the game to descend on and try and batter them into submission.

I said 99%, not 100%. And if your experience is the "complete opposite", then by all means, post links to those threads. You can't, though, because you'll be hard pressed to find them. As I said, the vast majority of Pro-AOS threads are left alone by people who aren't fans of AOS. A claim which you can't make in the reverse. Come to think of it, you've been the biggest negative voice on a lot of those Pro-AOS threads.

Spiney Norman
30-10-2015, 10:30
I said 99%, not 100%. And if your experience is the "complete opposite", then by all means, post links to those threads. You can't, though, because you'll be hard pressed to find them. As I said, the vast majority of Pro-AOS threads are left alone by people who aren't fans of AOS. A claim which you can't make in the reverse. Come to think of it, you've been the biggest negative voice on a lot of those Pro-AOS threads.

Of the many AoS threads that populate this forum only one is noted as being AoS friendly (plus this one which does politely ask for hatred to be kept out of it in the original post) and only two are noted as being for those who dislike only (and one of them is just a bit of light-hearted banter). It is to the credit of all involved that neither side is causing waves in the other side's dedicated thread, it's all the other threads discussing the game (that are neither explicitly pro or anti) where all the problems occur.

Deschain
30-10-2015, 10:31
I'm also enjoying Age of sigmar. I'm another warhammer gamer who has'nt played the game in 15 years and has returned to the hobby, surely this tells you something. The fact is warhammer wasn't selling it was growing stale and slowly dying. Gw responded to this by doing something very clever in my opinion, they got our attention and a few months or years from now all this negative forum talk will be long forgotten. Constantly evolving player driven rule systems is surely the best way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Arrahed
30-10-2015, 10:31
The thread title suggest discussion of experiences with AOS. I don't see a problem in discussing what different people experienced in a thread like that. There are also threads that make very clear that they only want discussions between people who have a positive view on AOS. I can see why people would object to AOS-criticism there but as far as I can tell people played nice in those threads.

My opinion: If you don't want to discuss something, write a blog and don't post in a discussion forum. Today's Internet has a medium for everything.

Buddy Bear
30-10-2015, 10:31
I did a quick run and came up with these links. Point to examples of "the anti-AOS crowd" and how they "cruise around watching for anyone with a positive opinion of the game" descend to "batter them into submission."

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412393-Age-of-Sigmar-friendly-active-thread-Fans-only-please (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412393-Age-of-Sigmar-friendly-active-thread-Fans-only-please)!
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412699-Age-of-Sigmar-Campaigns-post-yours/page2 (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?412699-Age-of-Sigmar-Campaigns-post-yours/page2)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?414329-quot-Army-book-quot-scenarios-Yay-or-nay (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?414329-quot-Army-book-quot-scenarios-Yay-or-nay)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?414160-Synergies-between-factions (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?414160-Synergies-between-factions)
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?413940-Battletome-Bloodbound-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?413940-Battletome-Bloodbound-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly)

Let me save you some time. You won't find them. On the other hand, I could probably pull up 20-30 threads where you do exactly what it is you accuse others of doing.

Khaines Wrath
30-10-2015, 11:34
It's really not. It's just the zealots on Warseer who see it that way. It's just a game.

I just made a lengthy post about how sad it is that this site is just one big argument, and suggested effort be but into creating readable content. Of the responses, ones basically told me to go elsewhere, one threatened me to create some better content, and, in a spectacularly ironic tour de force, one called me a 'hater' and blamed me for the problems. Sadly, not one agreed it has become a dangerous place to post.

I was suggesting we stop arguing. You know, like, if there's a thread where the op is pro something, and you like it too, then that's the thread for you. Yes, counter arguments provoke discussion, but if a forum is making you/others angry and aggressive it's not serving its purpose.

I think I'll stop posting. I'll probably be back in a few months to find out some news. It'd be a worrying situation psychologically if, by then, people who don't play AoS were still posting on a forum about AoS about how they don't play AoS.

I'd agree if this was in fact originally an AoS Forum, which it wasn't...

The only thing more irritating than people who complain about a topic are the ones who do nothing but complain about the complainers.


Apart from this one you mean, where someone came to Warseer to post about their positive experience of the game and promptly got devoured by a tidal wave of anti-AoS hatred despite asking everyone to play nice in his original post...

From my experience it seems like completely the opposite, the anti-AoS crowd cruise around watching for anyone with a positive opinion of the game to descend on and try and batter them into submission.



I'm not sure it's an age thing, I think it's an anonymity thing, forums keep your identity secret while Facebook doesn't. When people want to discuss something without their identity being known or without their interests popping up on their great aunt's news feed, forums are still a good way to do that.

I'm pretty sure a lot of folks wouldn't be so outright rude to others in Warseer if we were a social networking sight with real names and faces attached to everything you post.

Oh please, get off your high horse before you fall and hit your already swollen head.

The AoS fans only threads are still 100% intact and unmolested.
I actually respect Jind Singh because instead of spamming every single little thread with snarky self righteous and self congratulatory dribble he/she has just got on and enjoyed their new game and hobby.

ewar
30-10-2015, 12:10
I'd agree if this was in fact originally an AoS Forum, which it wasn't...

The only thing more irritating than people who complain about a topic are the ones who do nothing but complain about the complainers.



Oh please, get off your high horse before you fall and hit your already swollen head.

The AoS fans only threads are still 100% intact and unmolested.
I actually respect Jind Singh because instead of spamming every single little thread with snarky self righteous and self congratulatory dribble he/she has just got on and enjoyed their new game and hobby.

There is just no need for this level of personal attack - Spiney and Kitty have as much right to post in the 'neutral' threads about their experiences as all the anti's do about theirs. There is a crowd on here now that seems to persecute those two especially, and apparently the only reason is that they post views contrary to the majority. Hell, the way some people go through their post history trying to find 'inconsistencies' is frankly disturbing.

Think of it this way, without those two there really would be very little to even talk about on here!

As to the topic at hand: if a poster starts a thread stating their experiences of a game and asks for others input as well, then you're going to have to deal with disagreements. I think people should stick to abusing GW and their rubbish product, rather than each other.

@Duardin: in your post you implied that I 'threatened' you!? Not sure how on earth you came to that conclusion. You can't go on a public forum, complain there isn't any content you find useful and not be told to make some yourself if what is here isn't to your liking. That's just challenging you to lead by example, nothing more.

Khaines Wrath
30-10-2015, 12:20
Oh please ewar. Kitty and Spiney have every right to comment, as do I. I have never advocated ceasing discussion. My issue has always been people who enter a discussion and then spend the majority of their time whining about how people react to their comments.

If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Buddy Bear
30-10-2015, 12:25
Nobody's persecuting Spiney and HelloKitty. They're purposefully going from thread to thread picking arguments with people. Look at their post history. You'll find that whenever an argument springs up which involves the two of them, it's because they instigated an argument with one or more people, and not because they were making innocent comments and then people just lunged at them for no reason.

ewar
30-10-2015, 12:55
If you cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Oh come on, you're better than that. Generally you have a lot of interesting things to say, but acting macho on a warhammer forum is a bit silly.


Nobody's persecuting Spiney and HelloKitty. They're purposefully going from thread to thread picking arguments with people. Look at their post history. You'll find that whenever an argument springs up which involves the two of them, it's because they instigated an argument with one or more people, and not because they were making innocent comments and then people just lunged at them for no reason.

Actually, as someone who reads an awful lot of this forum and tries to stay (moderately) neutral, I think its the exact opposite. I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what Spiney and Kitty say, but they are (almost) always very civil and tend to stick to their own experiences with the game. However, there is a group of posters who seem to leap on their every word like a pack of baying hounds, and for no good reason as far as I can tell.

Take this thread as an example, it is a 'neutral' thread in the general forum, but you guys are just on and on at them, instead of addressing the topic. I have total sympathy for how they might act a bit defensive.

And this is from someone who actually agrees wholeheartedly with your views of AoS etc. My advice would be to just tone it down, maybe take a couple of days break from the forum or ever put them both on your ignore list if what they say riles you up so much.

Buddy Bear
30-10-2015, 13:00
Actually, as someone who reads an awful lot of this forum and tries to stay (moderately) neutral, I think its the exact opposite. I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what Spiney and Kitty say, but they are (almost) always very civil and tend to stick to their own experiences with the game. However, there is a group of posters who seem to leap on their every word like a pack of baying hounds, and for no good reason as far as I can tell.

Find examples of that. Because I've seen constant posts by Spiney, for instance, where he's called people liars, or he's misrepresented what they've said, and just about all the posts he's made which I've seen aren't about him just sticking to his experiences, but singling out other posters, what they say, and then trying to argue with them. In a recent thread I was posting in, for instance, I was doing exactly what you described. I was posting my feelings on how I wished that GW had used the free digital content to keep an eye on the meta and solve issues as they creep up, and Spiney did to me exactly what you claim others do to him.

So feel free to find those posts, because for every one you find, I can find 10 - 20 in which Spiney or HK leap on the words of others and try to argue them down.

Khaines Wrath
30-10-2015, 13:03
Oh come on, you're better than that. Generally you have a lot of interesting things to say, but acting macho on a warhammer forum is a bit silly.

Your right and I feel silly. I'm a combination of frustrated and tired which is when I should usually avoid posting.

smaxx
30-10-2015, 13:08
Why isn't there actually a different section or something for AoS ? It has nothing to do with Warhammer Fantasy Battle. 9th Age has a clear link, but AoS really little.

Khaines Wrath
30-10-2015, 13:14
There was a discussion about that but me and Kitty kind of blew it up. That was another day where I should not have been posting.

The_Real_Chris
30-10-2015, 13:39
A friend who also plays SE and I decided to play a few rounds of AoS, and it was the best wargaming experience in my entire life.

You really, really, need to try some other games by other companies...

Spiney Norman
30-10-2015, 14:11
Find examples of that. Because I've seen constant posts by Spiney, for instance, where he's called people liars, or he's misrepresented what they've said, and just about all the posts he's made which I've seen aren't about him just sticking to his experiences, but singling out other posters, what they say, and then trying to argue with them. In a recent thread I was posting in, for instance, I was doing exactly what you described. I was posting my feelings on how I wished that GW had used the free digital content to keep an eye on the meta and solve issues as they creep up, and Spiney did to me exactly what you claim others do to him.

So feel free to find those posts, because for every one you find, I can find 10 - 20 in which Spiney or HK leap on the words of others and try to argue them down.

Buddy, I can't recall the posts you're referring to, almost all of my posts on AoS have been defending my own opinion of the game, if you genuinely think I've directly called you a liar or trolled in any way you should absolutely report the post.

Sephillion
30-10-2015, 14:48
First point - both AoS and previous editions of Warhammer requires a certain amount of abstraction from players. Some abstraction is easier to conceptualize in one's head in one edition over another edition (For example previous editions of Warhammer have stat parameters better to represent hitting accuracy compare to AoS). Previous editions did better at some abstractions, AoS did better at other abstractions.

Sure, but the way AoS does it makes no sense.


Second point - I already wrote what I think is a rough comparison of previous Warhammer editions stats compared to AoS. See "Defense against an Attack."

The Save makes no sense if applied to both the ability to absorb hits and avoid them.

No matter what, a model that wounds on a fixed number forces more “saves” against some things, even if it shouldn’t be able to dent it, it just makes no sense.


Third point - if you are going to try to ridicule me at least do a better job of it. The average move speed of an elf is 6. The average speed of the "slow moving" steam tank at full health would be 7. So the slow moving steam tank is actually faster than the elf, most of the time :P. But if the steam tank is already wounded., then yeah the tank's average move speed would be slower than the lithe elf. But wait, in 8th edition that steam tank can be moving at the same speed. It does not matter that it only have one wound left. Refer back to my first point please.

Where did I ridicule you???
The tank may move across terrain quickly, but it cannot move quickly to avoid blows… a tank IRL “moves” faster than me, but against arrows or bullets, I have a better chance of avoiding than it, and I’m not an elf. That should have been pretty clear that I was not referencing the in-game movement skill.


Don't know what a straw man is until you posted. A quick read of the definition...I don't think what I wrote is a straw man. I guess if what I wrote is considered to be a straw man, then a straw man for another straw man argument :P Please elaborate in detail my fallacy or I will just assume your posts are as irrational as mine (or, in my opinion, most likely worse).


You put words in Buddy Bear’s mouth when you say he thinks “anything written or played differently is dumb and not intuitive” when he never said anything even remotely close to it. That’s the straw man.

Also, if you think it’s not dumb that a player who has a beard gains in-game bonuses or that a player talks to his models for advantage is not dumb…

ewar
30-10-2015, 14:51
Your right and I feel silly. I'm a combination of frustrated and tired which is when I should usually avoid posting.

No worries, I've been in a few spats on here myself, normally when reading forums pissed on the last train home... stupid warning points :D

akai
30-10-2015, 15:16
You never explicitly said unintuitive but one could argue that something that is unrealistic cannot be intuitive. There might not be a one to one correlation but I am sure you can understand the reasoning behind it.
Everything can be argued. Please elaborate how something unrealistc cannot be intuitive. I will elaborate how something is unrealistic can be intuitive to me.

Here are the definitions that I think of when I hear someone say unrealistic and intuitive
1. unrealistic - is not showing people and things as they are in real life
2. intuitive - easy to understand or operate without explicit instruction

A. Is Age of Sigmar not showing people and things as they are in real life? In my opinion, Age of Sigmar is not showing people and things as they are in real life. I would also give the same answer to other versions of Warhammer Fantasy. All versions of the game have wizards using magic. That is unrealistic to me, but since all versions of the game allows magic I use my imagination to think how it can work within the game rules. In Age of Sigmar, it allows people to shoot their missile weapons in the shooting phase even if they are within 3" of the enemy. So I imagine how it can work within the game rules as I explained with the cannon example.

B. Is Age of Sigmar easy to understand or operate without explicit instruction? In my opinion, for the most part the Age of Sigmar game is easy to understand or operate without explicit instruction. You give commands, you shoot, you move, you fight up close in combat, etc.



One bad rule does not excuse another. Also, since you repeatedly mentioned abstraction, how about the commander poking with his weapon through some specially designed opening without risking any harm himself?
Sure, in a version of Warhammer where the Steam Tank is nigh invincible, let us imagine the commander poking with his weapon through some specially designed opening without risking any harm to himself. Now in the Age of Sigmar game where the Stream Tank is not close to being invincible, how about the commander not having a specially designed opening without risking any harm to himself? He has to expose himself at the top of the steam tank to poke his weapon :D.


I am pretty sure Steamtank==Slow and elves==lithe was a reference to their weapon skill not their movement speed.
And even if not, infantry can usually move twice their movement attribute value.
Or maybe I am just not getting what you are trying to say?
I understood he was talking about hitting the steam tank and elf which would involve weapon skill parameter in previous editions of Warhammer. I had directed both you and him to look at in my second point as my answer to his question (whether he likes the answer or not). For the sake of less confusion, my second point that directed him to look at what I wrote earlier (I bolded the part I tried to answer his question):

"To try to make the rough comparison to people stuck with the previous Fantasy edition game system -

Accuracy of an Attack -> Attacker's Weapon Skill / Balistic Skill parameters of old editions = To Hit parameter AoS
Strength of an Attack -> Attacker's Strength parameter of old editions = To Wound parameter in AoS
Defense against an Attack -> Defender's Weapon Skill / Toughness / Armor Save parameter of old editions = the Save parameter in AoS.
Breaking down Defender's Defense -> Attacker's weapon strength parameter of old editions = Rend parameter in AoS."

Now, to my point three - the slow-moving steam tank and lithe elf. I read his reply to me and see it having very little purpose except to belittle me. Do you agree or disagree with me? He wrote that the steam-tank is slow moving. I gave an example that in the game the steam tank is actually faster than the elf...so the elf is pretty darn slow. In game, infantry can double their movement attribute, sure. The steam tank can also do the run option to increase movement speed also. A definition of lithe is "moving in an easy and graceful way." What does that have to do with weapon skill!? I can walk in an easy and graceful way, but being lithe is not going to help my weapon skill. I absolutely understood that he was trying to refer to the steam tank as being bulky and elf is being agile in their ability to dodge or parry against an attack. My point three was that he was posting to ridicule and chose some poor word choices for his purpose.

akai
30-10-2015, 15:41
Sure, but the way AoS does it makes no sense.

It makes sense to me, thus I guess I can enjoy some aspects of Age of Sigmar. It does not make sense to you. so I guess you do not enjoy some aspects of Age of Sigmar. We can agree to disagree some people can make sense out of the game and others can't? :)



You put words in Buddy Bear’s mouth when you say he thinks “anything written or played differently is dumb and not intuitive” when he never said anything even remotely close to it. That’s the straw man.

My apologies then. Let me try to restate it.

"So those aspects of what Buddy Bear mentioned to be not intuitive...makes sense to me and are not dumb. It is in my opinion that Buddy Bear think those Age of Sigmar rules are dumb and not intuitive because of his experience with previous editions of Warhammer."



Also, if you think it’s not dumb that a player who has a beard gains in-game bonuses or that a player talks to his models for advantage is not dumb…
That is dumb. Some dumb things in a game does not make the entire game dumb. There are dumb things in previous Warhammer Fantasy games also. It does not make those game as a whole to be dumb and not intutive.

Arrahed
30-10-2015, 16:00
Here are the definitions that I think of when I hear someone say unrealistic and intuitive
1. unrealistic - is not showing people and things as they are in real life
2. intuitive - easy to understand or operate without explicit instruction

A. Is Age of Sigmar not showing people and things as they are in real life? In my opinion, Age of Sigmar is not showing people and things as they are in real life. I would also give the same answer to other versions of Warhammer Fantasy. All versions of the game have wizards using magic. That is unrealistic to me, but since all versions of the game allows magic I use my imagination to think how it can work within the game rules. In Age of Sigmar, it allows people to shoot their missile weapons in the shooting phase even if they are within 3" of the enemy. So I imagine how it can work within the game rules as I explained with the cannon example.

B. Is Age of Sigmar easy to understand or operate without explicit instruction? In my opinion, for the most part the Age of Sigmar game is easy to understand or operate without explicit instruction. You give commands, you shoot, you move, you fight up close in combat, etc. What is

But aren't you following the explicit instruction to move, shoot, fight... and ignore the fact that a model might be too busy to actually do that in imaginary world that we consider the game's reality? I'm not sure whether that is an appropriate example for how intuitive AOS is.

One could argue that a world in which magic exists should nevertheless have some kind of internal consistency.




Sure, in a version of Warhammer where the Steam Tank is nigh invincible, let us imagine the commander poking with his weapon through some specially designed opening without risking any harm to himself. Now in the Age of Sigmar game where the Stream Tank is not close to being invincible, how about the commander not having a specially designed opening without risking any harm to himself? He has to expose himself at the top of the steam tank to poke his weapon :D.
I know you probably were not serious but would you call that intuitive?

akai
30-10-2015, 16:07
But aren't you following the explicit instruction to move, shoot, fight... and ignore the fact that a model might be to busy to actually do that in imaginary world that we consider the game's reality? I'm not sure whether that is an appropriate example for how intuitive AOS is.

One could argue that a world in which magic exists should nevertheless have some kind of internal consistency.



I know you probably were not serious but would you call that intuitive?

Did you read my definition of what intuitive means to me? Again please provide and elaborate your definition of intuitive. It seems you are using the word intuitive from the miniature soldier's point of view. Is it intuitive for the commander miniature to expose himself to fight? Is it intuitive for the cannon crew to fire the cannon when he is being attacked?

Arrahed
30-10-2015, 16:28
Did you read my definition of what intuitive means to me? Again please provide and elaborate your definition of intuitive. It seems you are using the word intuitive from the miniature soldier's point of view. Is it intuitive for the commander miniature to expose himself to fight? Is it intuitive for the cannon crew to fire the cannon when he is being attacked?

I was applying your definition of intuitive. Slightly rephrased: Doing something because its logical and not because being explicitly told to do so.

Shipmonkey
30-10-2015, 17:44
You really, really, need to try some other games by other companies...

This is the type of posting I don't understand. What does Anteater's enjoyment of AoS have to do with other games? Why is it not possible to believe that him and his friend are having a good time playing AoS? Posts like this come off almost as personal attacks. You seem to by calling Anteater's opinion irrelevant due to your perceived view that he must lack the proper experience to have an opinion.

And since, Anteater asked us to share our experinces with playing AoS. What is your experience with it The_Real_Chris? Did you enjoy playing? If you didn't, what aspects didn't appeal to you?

melonmelon
30-10-2015, 18:24
... for someone ain't comfort with warseer, you should try Age of Sigmar thread on /tg/ 4chan, resourceful and helpful. There are sxxxposter lurking around, but we can deal with them, really nice place to talk about AoS.

I'm really surprised that, facebook(show poster identity) and 4chan(anonymous image board) become only 2(?) place for discussion without a lot of anti-AoS crowd.

Hope no report for derailing. /lurk

Katastrophe
30-10-2015, 19:03
This is the type of posting I don't understand. What does Anteater's enjoyment of AoS have to do with other games? Why is it not possible to believe that him and his friend are having a good time playing AoS? Posts like this come off almost as personal attacks. You seem to by calling Anteater's opinion irrelevant due to your perceived view that he must lack the proper experience to have an opinion.

And since, Anteater asked us to share our experinces with playing AoS. What is your experience with it The_Real_Chris? Did you enjoy playing? If you didn't, what aspects didn't appeal to you?

Talking about taking something to another place where it needed not go.

I am sure that TRC was really commenting on Ant's statement that his AoS game was the "greatest wargaming experience he ever had", along with his only ever having played GW games. What TRC was saying was that were Ant to play other games (many of which are far better "wargames") there would be better context for such an assessment.

It's like someone who's only ever eaten McDonalds saying that those new Angus burgers are the best he ever had. While technically it would be true (as it is likely better than their other burgers) as to that person, it carries little weight due to the limited burger experiences.

Let's not get all into accusations of personal attacks

Holier Than Thou
30-10-2015, 19:14
Buddy, I can't recall the posts you're referring to, almost all of my posts on AoS have been defending my own opinion of the game, if you genuinely think I've directly called you a liar or trolled in any way you should absolutely report the post.

I would imagine he's referring to the below post where you basically say that most people who have provided anecdotal evidence that portrays AOS in a negative way are either exaggerated or plain made up. In other words, calling the posters liars. It's on the first page of this very thread.


You realise that just because Warseer is full of haters does not necessarily mean AoS will be discontinued right? Most of the anecdotes regarding AoS are exaggerated or just plain made up to support the authors point of view or simply represent their own personal gaming group which comprises a group of people with the same view as themselves. The fact is nobody really has a clue how many AoS products have been sold by GW so the expectation that the game will be cancelled tomorrow is kind of dumb.

akai
30-10-2015, 19:20
I was applying your definition of intuitive. Slightly rephrased: Doing something because its logical and not because being explicitly told to do so.

My answer to your questions in post #156 is yes. And yes, I am serious. I can imagine what a soldier is doing in any of these situations without rules of a game without explicitly told that by the rules. As for asking if my imagination of the commander doing one or the above as being intuitive...I don't need to be told explicitly to imagine either situations. Though I think you asking specifically my conceptualizing abstractions in the game as being intuitive...is the wrong question to be asking.

I can logically imagine the cannon crew to be too preoccupied with the bloodletters that they can't fire their cannon. But I also can see the cannon crew able to momentarily push off the bloodletters to fire an already loaded cannon. For the purpose of playing a game of imaginary combat, though, there are rules to say what is allowed and not allowed. In previous editions of Warhammer, when models are in "close combat", they cannot shoot. I'm ok with that and can intuitively see the former example happening. In Age of Sigmar. models in "melee range" are able to shoot. I'm ok with that also, and can see the latter example happening logically.

Edit: If a game does not make sense to you, you likely would not enjoy the game. If a game makes sense to you, then maybe you would enjoy the game. Age of Sigmar for the most part makes sense to me, and there are definitely many things in it that I enjoy. To each their own.

Sephillion
30-10-2015, 19:22
... for someone ain't comfort with warseer, you should try Age of Sigmar thread on /tg/ 4chan, resourceful and helpful. There are sxxxposter lurking around, but we can deal with them, really nice place to talk about AoS.

I'm really surprised that, facebook(show poster identity) and 4chan(anonymous image board) become only 2(?) place for discussion without a lot of anti-AoS crowd.

Hope no report for derailing. /lurk

Iím guessing itís because most people who donít like AoS (like me) wonít bother to register to groups/forums/etc. they didnít already belong to. My limited chan experience wasnít very positive, Iím surprised anyone can have a sane discussion over there, but I havenít set foot there in a while, so what do I know?

I hate AoS but not enough to register to a new group or anything to discuss its failings. And I can keep up with 40K here, even though I think itís almost equally hopelessÖ

Spiney Norman
30-10-2015, 20:01
I would imagine he's referring to the below post where you basically say that most people who have provided anecdotal evidence that portrays AOS in a negative way are either exaggerated or plain made up. In other words, calling the posters liars. It's on the first page of this very thread.

I wasn't calling out anyone particular in that post, it certainly wasn't aimed personally at buddy, and I stand by it. Anyone who claims to have sales data on how well AoS is doing is completely making it up, anyone who claims to know how much AoS is being played in their city is at best, exaggerating because they (presumably) haven't entered every house in the city to see what goes in every garage, basement and kitchen table. Anecdotes on game systems being played represent singular groups which are openly hostile to AoS and thus don't give a balanced picture.

Are these anecdotes interesting points of discussion - maybe if you are into bashing AoS, are they in any way reliable indicators of how the game is doing - no, and should they be used to repeatedly bash fans of the game round the head - definitely not.

The_Real_Chris
30-10-2015, 20:08
This is the type of posting I don't understand. What does Anteater's enjoyment of AoS have to do with other games? Why is it not possible to believe that him and his friend are having a good time playing AoS? Posts like this come off almost as personal attacks. You seem to by calling Anteater's opinion irrelevant due to your perceived view that he must lack the proper experience to have an opinion.

And since, Anteater asked us to share our experinces with playing AoS. What is your experience with it The_Real_Chris? Did you enjoy playing? If you didn't, what aspects didn't appeal to you?

Sorry was an off-hand comment. Was just a reaction to the assertion it was the best wargame he had ever played. While there are many factors at play to make that statement I would suggest if he tries a few more games he will have better experiences. My own top wargaming experience was the old week long 6mm WW2 residential games I would attend once a year in the south west of England.

As for my experience - posted it elsewhere, but yes I should have engaged and re-posted it. Tried it in a GW, found things - with relatively balanced forces - ended up locked in a big scrum. Nothing I saw in the rules would encourage different play without a lot of changes.

Lately I have heard of an interesting way of using the rules for dungeon crawl games where the terrain forces movement to be important. Still i am unconvinced the rules give anything better than what dungeon crawler specifc rules can.

Plus many of the generic negative comments floating around about the game, background etc. I am not a positive person about it, but wouldn't knock someone playing it. I might try and get them to play Blood Bowl or Epic though :)

rmeister0
30-10-2015, 20:15
Anyone who claims to have sales data on how well AoS is doing is completely making it up...


In their own store I don't think they're making it up. In total though, yes.

I really don't see why people can't just wait for the next investor's statement. If AoS did well they'll crow about it from the rooftop. If it did not, they'll conspicuously say nothing about it. Until we see the numbers it's speculation.

Spiney Norman
30-10-2015, 20:23
In their own store I don't think they're making it up. In total though, yes.

I really don't see why people can't just wait for the next investor's statement. If AoS did well they'll crow about it from the rooftop. If it did not, they'll conspicuously say nothing about it. Until we see the numbers it's speculation.

Waiting in general is not something people seem to be particularly inclined to do with regards to AoS. I'm told it is incredibly lazy of GW not to have released completely new updated ranges for all the AoS factions yet, I'm also told that their needs to be more material to flesh out the setting despite GW having already released two hard cover fluff/campaign books, two novels, one audio book and three battle tomes (with a fourth up for preorder tomorrow).

Niall78
30-10-2015, 20:43
Waiting in general is not something people seem to be particularly inclined to do with regards to AoS. I'm told it is incredibly lazy of GW not to have released completely new updated ranges for all the AoS factions yet, I'm also told that their needs to be more material to flesh out the setting despite GW having already released two hard cover fluff/campaign books, two novels, one audio book and three battle tomes (with a fourth up for preorder tomorrow).

And yet whole parts of the player base still don't know if their faction even exists in any recognisable form. Most systems get the core factions described in their introductory product. We've got the starter set, two hard cover fluff/campaign books, two novels, one audio book and three battle tomes and still don't know about these factions.

Drakkar du Chaos
30-10-2015, 20:46
Waiting in general is not something people seem to be particularly inclined to do with regards to AoS. I'm told it is incredibly lazy of GW not to have released completely new updated ranges for all the AoS factions yet, I'm also told that their needs to be more material to flesh out the setting despite GW having already released two hard cover fluff/campaign books, two novels, one audio book and three battle tomes (with a fourth up for preorder tomorrow).

AoS, the successor of WHFB, only two factions fully out after 4 months, yeah that's totally normal.
Oh and of course after 300€ worth of books we still dont know **** about these others factions in that great game, perfectly normal too.

Holier Than Thou
30-10-2015, 21:05
I wasn't calling out anyone particular in that post, it certainly wasn't aimed personally at buddy, and I stand by it. Anyone who claims to have sales data on how well AoS is doing is completely making it up, anyone who claims to know how much AoS is being played in their city is at best, exaggerating because they (presumably) haven't entered every house in the city to see what goes in every garage, basement and kitchen table. Anecdotes on game systems being played represent singular groups which are openly hostile to AoS and thus don't give a balanced picture.

Are these anecdotes interesting points of discussion - maybe if you are into bashing AoS, are they in any way reliable indicators of how the game is doing - no, and should they be used to repeatedly bash fans of the game round the head - definitely not.

As far as I could see, nobody was claiming to know what was happening in every home in their city. People were describing what they had seen at their local clubs and shops and suggesting that the fact there used to be lots of GW games being played in these places whereas now there appears to be none would mean there's a good chance it is not doing well.

And I don't think it matters that you didn't personally direct it at anyone in particular, you still called several posters, myself included, liars.

Niall78
30-10-2015, 21:17
AoS, the successor of WHFB, only two factions fully out after 4 months, yeah that's totally normal.
Oh and of course after 300€ worth of books we still dont know **** about these others factions in that great game, perfectly normal too.

There's the Battletech universe guide free for new players detailing the basics of every faction and the setting time line.

http://d15yciz5bluc83.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BattleTechUniverseGuide.pdf

Most companies do free stuff like this to introduce their setting and factions. GW can't introduce their new setting and factions over a starter set, two hard cover fluff/campaign books, two novels, one audio book and three battle tomes costing hundreds of Euro/Dollars/pounds.

Bloodknight
30-10-2015, 21:28
AoS, the successor of WHFB, only two factions fully out after 4 months, yeah that's totally normal.

Correct. 4 months, two factions out, 3rd faction gets its battletome soon. That's a faction every 40 days. That used to take 6 months, 2 army books a year.


Most companies do free stuff like this to introduce their setting and factions.

That's a digest of 30 years of fiction. Aos had 4 months so far plus some development time. BT was very naked in 1984, too.

Niall78
30-10-2015, 21:38
Correct. 4 months, two factions out, 3rd faction gets its battletome soon. That's a faction every 40 days. That used to take 6 months, 2 army books a year.



That's a digest of 30 years of fiction. Aos had 4 months so far plus some development time. BT was very naked in 1984, too.

AoS has had years of development time, been out for four months, had a starter set, two hard cover fluff/campaign books, two novels, one audio book and three battle tomes costing hundreds of Euro/Dollars/pounds and still most of the old player base doesn't know if their faction exists in any recognisable form. Most companies manage to detail the very basics of their setting - no matter how old - in a free booklet or their core rulebook.

Drakkar du Chaos
30-10-2015, 21:38
Correct. 4 months, two factions out, 3rd faction gets its battletome soon. That's a faction every 40 days. That used to take 6 months, 2 army books a year.

You are talking about updating stuff, this is not the same thing at all.

Sephillion
30-10-2015, 21:40
There's the Battletech universe guide free for new players detailing the basics of every faction and the setting time line.

http://d15yciz5bluc83.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BattleTechUniverseGuide.pdf

Most companies do free stuff like this to introduce their setting and factions. GW can't introduce their new setting and factions over a starter set, two hard cover fluff/campaign books, two novels, one audio book and three battle tomes costing hundreds of Euro/Dollars/pounds.

Exactly. But if the info in the thread in GW General about their design process is true, minis come before everything, so it’s entirely possible that even the writers don’t know what the new/updated/existing factions will look like, how they will be modified, and so on. If they do, then it’s likely a legal department thing, “but if they knew Skavens would be joined by two-headed molemen, Chapterhouse/Mantic/Santa Claus could release models before us!”

I don’t expect full ranges for all factions to be out, I would have expected us to have a better idea what other races looked like and were up to by now.

Niall78
30-10-2015, 21:41
You are talking about updating stuff, this is not the same thing at all.

He's talking about a completely new game that hasn't been able to detail the very basics of its setting four months after release and after years of development time.

Sephillion
30-10-2015, 21:42
still most of the old player base doesn't know if their faction exists in any recognisable form. Most companies manage to detail the very basics of their setting - no matter how old - in a free booklet or their core rulebook.

Most manage to do better... for free, on their website!

Niall78
30-10-2015, 21:55
Most manage to do better... for free, on their website!

That option isn't open to GW. Apparently customers make any IT communication effort by GW 'toxic'.

Bloodknight
30-10-2015, 23:03
You are talking about updating stuff, this is not the same thing at all.

Exactly. A new range of miniatures takes some time to develop, produce and ship, more than just a new army book and 2 boxes. 4 months is nothing.

Niall78
30-10-2015, 23:07
Exactly. A new range of miniatures takes some time to develop, produce and ship, more than just a new army book and 2 boxes. 4 months is nothing.

Does a setting guide detailing the factions take some time to develop, produce and ship? Was the years of development time not enough time to fresh out the very foundation stones of this new setting - who it was populated by?

Holier Than Thou
30-10-2015, 23:19
Does a setting guide detailing the factions take some time to develop, produce and ship? Was the years of development time not enough time to fresh out the very foundation stones of this new setting - who it was populated by?

Maybe they spent those years working on the rules? Haha

Arrahed
30-10-2015, 23:21
My answer to your questions in post #156 is yes. And yes, I am serious. I can imagine what a soldier is doing in any of these situations without rules of a game without explicitly told that by the rules. As for asking if my imagination of the commander doing one or the above as being intuitive...I don't need to be told explicitly to imagine either situations. Though I think you asking specifically my conceptualizing abstractions in the game as being intuitive...is the wrong question to be asking.

I can logically imagine the cannon crew to be too preoccupied with the bloodletters that they can't fire their cannon. But I also can see the cannon crew able to momentarily push off the bloodletters to fire an already loaded cannon. For the purpose of playing a game of imaginary combat, though, there are rules to say what is allowed and not allowed. In previous editions of Warhammer, when models are in "close combat", they cannot shoot. I'm ok with that and can intuitively see the former example happening. In Age of Sigmar. models in "melee range" are able to shoot. I'm ok with that also, and can see the latter example happening logically.


Okay, I believe we simply have different opinions regarding what is intuitive in Warhammer/AOS. I can understand your reasoning but have a quite different view on the matter. So I guess we got as much as possible out of this discussion. Lets leave it at that.



Edit: If a game does not make sense to you, you likely would not enjoy the game. If a game makes sense to you, then maybe you would enjoy the game. Age of Sigmar for the most part makes sense to me, and there are definitely many things in it that I enjoy. To each their own.

I agree. That is partly the reason why I asked for examples of tactical finesse in AOS (besides pile-in tricks) a few pages ago. That was an honest question that I am still hoping to get an answer to. I really know people playing AOS and I am really looking for ways to increase the enjoyment I get from the games. I do enjoy the social aspect but don't really enjoy the game so far.
The pile-in stuff just doesn't make any sense to me which is why I refuse to engage in that 'game'.

Drakkar du Chaos
31-10-2015, 00:11
Exactly. A new range of miniatures takes some time to develop, produce and ship, more than just a new army book and 2 boxes. 4 months is nothing.

This is not what i was meaning : you can take your time updating existing factions, add more units and more fluff. You cannot take your time when you release a new game. The customer need to know what he's going to get into. GW should have released most of the factions already, but not fully ! 5 products for each factions, something to start a small army was enough : releasing the bare minimum to satisfy most of your customer (like with choice among different ideology like Good, Neutral, Evil) is mandatory with a successful launch for a new game like AoS. Here what we got is not the bare minimum, its just two similar factions. Also IMO Khorne's range is poor, Sigmar's range is bland... hard to make worse than that.

About the delay let's look at it : End of Times started mid-2014. It doesn't came out of GW's hat like that, it was planned since what ? 2013 ? 2012 ? End of Times was the GW's response about 8th poor results so maybe even 2011 can be a possible start for AoS brainstorming. And here we are, ONE YEAR AND AN HALF after End of Times started, FOUR MONTHS after AoS launch, and you are telling me development of new factions take time, everything is normal, 4 months is nothing, are you serious ?! We have no miniatures, no artwork, no FLUFF, just stupid names for these great incoming factions, and it's "normal".

Games Workshop sat on their ass since 6th, merely tweaking 7th and 8th with the sole purpose "selling more by all means", that's 15 years and the only thing happening in the development team was the departure of the brains behind the game. With WHFB and W40K we already knew GW don't know anymore how to handle their games, no surprise GW is also in distress when it need to develop a new game.

SimaoSegunda
31-10-2015, 01:22
I agree. That is partly the reason why I asked for examples of tactical finesse in AOS (besides pile-in tricks) a few pages ago. That was an honest question that I am still hoping to get an answer to. I really know people playing AOS and I am really looking for ways to increase the enjoyment I get from the games. I do enjoy the social aspect but don't really enjoy the game so far.
The pile-in stuff just doesn't make any sense to me which is why I refuse to engage in that 'game'.

Pile in isn't compulsory. If you wanted to, you could deploy models in formations (possibly with movement trays, even custom ones) to get the best out of your units. So, for instance, if you were running dwarfs, you might want a square with no back line, so with 3 sides. You could then deploy, say, your bsb and rune smith in the middle, kept out of the fighting by a ring of steel, while the rune smith boosts the rend of the dwarf unit, and the bsb makes them immune to battle shock. Then, the person fighting against them has tactical decisions to make. Do you charge the front and try and bludgeon your way through? Hit him with smaller units front and side to try and force a gap?

Then, where does the dwarf player take his casualties (an abstraction that makes sense to me in these terms)? If he takes them from where the fighting happens, it gives him fewer attacks back and gives the units a chance to break through. If he takes them from the other side of the unit (an abstraction of the Warriors being stationed on that other side rushing over to where the fighting is happening), that risks creating a gap for some flanking cavalry to get through and pick on the characters.

Spiney Norman
31-10-2015, 01:47
This is not what i was meaning : you can take your time updating existing factions, add more units and more fluff. You cannot take your time when you release a new game. The customer need to know what he's going to get into. GW should have released most of the factions already, but not fully ! 5 products for each factions, something to start a small army was enough : releasing the bare minimum to satisfy most of your customer (like with choice among different ideology like Good, Neutral, Evil) is mandatory with a successful launch for a new game like AoS. Here what we got is not the bare minimum, its just two similar factions. Also IMO Khorne's range is poor, Sigmar's range is bland... hard to make worse than that.

I'm sorry you don't like the two factions they have release, personally I think the Khorne models are excellent, and while I'm not fussed about the stormcast myself I know several people who do like them. You do realise that five kits for every faction would amount to something like 100 new plastic kits? That seems somewhat unrealistic over a four month period.

Besides we got our 'ravening hordes' style PDFs on launch day, it's not like someone who wants to play elves in AoS has nothing to go on, they can use all their wfb elf models using the pdf Warscrolls until the AoS release schedule gets around to the new AoS elves.

How many armies did wfb start with when it first launched? And how many models did each of those armies have? (Just out of interest, I wasn't even born when the first edition came out).


About the delay let's look at it : End of Times started mid-2014. It doesn't came out of GW's hat like that, it was planned since what ? 2013 ? 2012 ? End of Times was the GW's response about 8th poor results so maybe even 2011 can be a possible start for AoS brainstorming. And here we are, ONE YEAR AND AN HALF after End of Times started, FOUR MONTHS after AoS launch, and you are telling me development of new factions take time, everything is normal, 4 months is nothing, are you serious ?! We have no miniatures, no artwork, no FLUFF, just stupid names for these great incoming factions, and it's "normal".

Games Workshop sat on their ass since 6th, merely tweaking 7th and 8th with the sole purpose "selling more by all means", that's 15 years and the only thing happening in the development team was the departure of the brains behind the game. With WHFB and W40K we already knew GW don't know anymore how to handle their games, no surprise GW is also in distress when it need to develop a new game.

from the models we've had released, AoS seems to have been in development for the last two years, but just because GW has to work to production deadlines two years in advance does not mean the last two years have been solely dedicated to producing models for AoS and that the entire last two years worth of models can be shipped to stores NOW. GW will currently be developing products that will be for release in 2017, it's also noteworthy that 40k is a thing too, so while they were working on AoS they were also working on the tau ghost keel and tidewall scenery as well as the new Horus heresy boxed game.

GW was already taking a big gamble on AoS after the failure of wfb, they really can't afford to let 40k shrivel up and die while they plough all available resources into AoS.

Bloodknight
31-10-2015, 02:05
That seems somewhat unrealistic over a four month period.

That's material for two years. Last year we had slightly over one box per week, it said in White Dwarf.

Spiney Norman
31-10-2015, 08:59
That's material for two years. Last year we had slightly over one box per week, it said in White Dwarf.

Since the release of AoS we've had the starter boxed set, 12 plastic kits for the stormcast eternals, 6 new kits for Khorne bloodbound (plus 8 repacks) and 8 AoS scenery kits, then there have been a few other repacks for other factions like Sylvaneth, Rotbringers and Seraphon. That's 27 completely new plastic kits spread over a four month period with some of that time given over to the Tau release for 40k. That seems about normal to me.

Drakkar du Chaos
31-10-2015, 09:55
Oh please stop talking about that 4 months period of time like they started the development of AoS on July and spammed new kits since... Khorne's range is "poor" in the way it's a unit of chaos warriors (i bought one btw) and a unit of marauders, where is the new AoS concept there different from "WHFB the failure" ? Nowhere, the price just skyrocketed.


12 plastic kits for the stormcast eternals, 6 new kits for Khorne bloodbound (plus 8 repacks) and 8 AoS scenery kits, then there have been a few other repacks for other factions like Sylvaneth, Rotbringers and Seraphon. That's 27 completely new plastic kits

I dont have the time to check the numbers but you are saying GW made 14 new kits and 13 repacks. I dont understand why we should praise GW for switching the base in the box and put a new brand on it, repacks are nothing new and surely its not something we waited about AoS. IMO i dont care about scenery, i want to collect armies not woods so this is irrelevant too. So we got these 14 new kits (how many characters i wondering...) in these famous 4 months time : this one new kit each week. I expected more from Games Workshop than that.

So here we are 4 months later, poor rules, a sub-faction overused with a small range of miniatures (Khorne), a new faction overused in 40K which does not fit in fantasy (Sigmarines), lizardmens are going to come in the form of repacks, we know little about the world and the fluff. Smaller brand make a much better job than that excuse me.

Spiney Norman
31-10-2015, 10:21
I think GW is smart enough to know that wfb didn't fail because chaos warriors were an unintesting concept, on the contrary I think the Khorne bloodbound are the best fantasy chaos miniatures they have ever made.

And that's not what I said at all, I said there have been 27 completely new AoS plastic kits to date;

Age of Sigmar starter set (1)

Stormcast eternals (12):
Celestant prime,
Lord celestant,
Lord castellant + griff hound,
liberators,
Judicators,
Paladins,
prosecutors,
knight Azeros/knight venator
Knight heraldor
Knight vexilor,
Knight excelsior upgrade pack
Celestial warbringer upgrade pack

Khorne bloodbound (6):
Blood reavers
Blood warriors
Slaughter priest
Exalted deathbringer
Skull grinder
Skarbrand

Terrain (8):
Dreadhold overlord bastion
Dreadhold Malefic gate
Dreadhold wall section
Dreadhold skull keep
Baleful realm gate
Ophidian archway
Numinous Occulum
Dragonfate dais

Even if you choose not to count the scenery because, for whatever reason, you prefer to play on a bare table that's still 19 plastic kits of brand new miniatures, not 14, that still averages out at approximately one every week since AoS was launched.

In addition if we consider the eight kits released for Tau we can see that since the release of AoS is has accounted for more than 75% of the release schedule over the last four months. I really don't see how they could've thrown much more space at AoS without seriously harming 40k.

CountUlrich
31-10-2015, 10:33
I think GW is smart enough to know that wfb didn't fail because chaos warriors were an unintesting concept, on the contrary I think the Khorne bloodbound are the best fantasy chaos miniatures they have ever made.

As a plaayer whose WoC was my number 1 army, and had a long love of 40k I can't disagree mmore. Of the recent kits, the bloodthirster was amazing but the vast majorityof the rest of the kits I will never buy, totally lack any draw or attraction to me whatsoever.


Even if you choose not to count the scenery because, for whatever reason, you prefer to play on a bare table ...

Ignoring your smart-$%# comment, maybe some of us prefer a more realistic, appropriately scenic battlefield as opposed to random, crazy, odd looking arches scattered everywhere. I love scenery but those kits are yet more crappy designs from Gdub.


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

akai
31-10-2015, 16:37
Okay, I believe we simply have different opinions regarding what is intuitive in Warhammer/AOS. I can understand your reasoning but have a quite different view on the matter. So I guess we got as much as possible out of this discussion. Lets leave it at that.
It would have been interesting to read an example of what exactly is intuitive to you in Warhammer/AOS, but since you want to let the matter end...so be it!



I agree. That is partly the reason why I asked for examples of tactical finesse in AOS (besides pile-in tricks) a few pages ago. That was an honest question that I am still hoping to get an answer to. I really know people playing AOS and I am really looking for ways to increase the enjoyment I get from the games. I do enjoy the social aspect but don't really enjoy the game so far.
The pile-in stuff just doesn't make any sense to me which is why I refuse to engage in that 'game'.

Some examples of what I consider to be tactical finesse in AoS...whether it makes sense to you or not.

Retreat Example One - A unit you don't want to be in close combat, but the opponent has already engaged them in it. On your turn, you retreat that unit and have another nearby unit charge in to prevent opponent from reengaging the retreating unit.

Retreat Example Two - Cavalry is most optimal if they charge. If the charge does not destroy the unit, your cavalry in subsequent turns will be less than optimal. Having a big block of infantry engaged against opponent, you can retreat the cavalry to try another charge with bonus charge stats again. Or you can do a charge wave. First cavalry unit charge into a large of troops. Subsequent turn, retreat, a second cavalry unit charge into a large group of troops. Rinse and repeat. This is risky, but can be a game changer especially if you get two turns in a row.

The Few against the Many in a Forest Example - In previous editions of Fantasy, you would remove the trees from the forest terrain so that the opposing units can line up and fight. In Age of Sigmar, the people I play with leave the trees on the terrain as actual obstacles. Careful positioning your units in places with lots of obstacles can prevent a larger unit from swarming the smaller unit. I found some people at the local gaming store ignore the suggested terrain features deployment rules. I found that in AOS, having more terrain pieces is more fun than when there is less.

PS: My overall feeling about AoS and Warhammer Fantasy are that these "games" are mediocre at best. The painting/modelling/collecting fantasy-themed armies combined with the game is what make the hobby as a whole very enjoyable to me. I dislike how Games Workshop runs their business and that is a reason I cannot in good conscious recommend others to enter the GW hobby. Nevertheless, the Warhammer setting was a major influence on my perception of dwarfs, elves, and other fantastical creatures. I also like majority of the models Games Workshop make and how a large group of these fantasy miniatures can look very cohesive as an army.

Buddy Bear
31-10-2015, 17:10
Ignoring your smart-$%# comment, maybe some of us prefer a more realistic, appropriately scenic battlefield as opposed to random, crazy, odd looking arches scattered everywhere. I love scenery but those kits are yet more crappy designs from Gdub.

I wish GW still sold the manor house, watchtower, and chapel. Those terrain pieces are so much better than the recent ridiculous offerings of their's, which seem like they're trying to break the Guinness world record for most skulls on an individual scenic piece.

Asmodios
31-10-2015, 17:39
It would have been interesting to read an example of what exactly is intuitive to you in Warhammer/AOS, but since you want to let the matter end...so be it!




Some examples of what I consider to be tactical finesse in AoS...whether it makes sense to you or not.

Retreat Example One - A unit you don't want to be in close combat, but the opponent has already engaged them in it. On your turn, you retreat that unit and have another nearby unit charge in to prevent opponent from reengaging the retreating unit.

Retreat Example Two - Cavalry is most optimal if they charge. If the charge does not destroy the unit, your cavalry in subsequent turns will be less than optimal. Having a big block of infantry engaged against opponent, you can retreat the cavalry to try another charge with bonus charge stats again. Or you can do a charge wave. First cavalry unit charge into a large of troops. Subsequent turn, retreat, a second cavalry unit charge into a large group of troops. Rinse and repeat. This is risky, but can be a game changer especially if you get two turns in a row.

The Few against the Many in a Forest Example - In previous editions of Fantasy, you would remove the trees from the forest terrain so that the opposing units can line up and fight. In Age of Sigmar, the people I play with leave the trees on the terrain as actual obstacles. Careful positioning your units in places with lots of obstacles can prevent a larger unit from swarming the smaller unit. I found some people at the local gaming store ignore the suggested terrain features deployment rules. I found that in AOS, having more terrain pieces is more fun than when there is less.

PS: My overall feeling about AoS and Warhammer Fantasy are that these "games" are mediocre at best. The painting/modelling/collecting fantasy-themed armies combined with the game is what make the hobby as a whole very enjoyable to me. I dislike how Games Workshop runs their business and that is a reason I cannot in good conscious recommend others to enter the GW hobby. Nevertheless, the Warhammer setting was a major influence on my perception of dwarfs, elves, and other fantastical creatures. I also like majority of the models Games Workshop make and how a large group of these fantasy miniatures can look very cohesive as an army.
I'm not sure if two examples of retreating and being able to place characters around trees is going to make people think that AOS has lots of tactical depth. I mean fleeing charges and setting up ideal charges was already a big part of WHFB so I don't think fleeing adds anything new. If anything it makes it sound like a more forgiving and less tactical game. Now if you make the mistake of getting one of your softer units in cc you can just retreat. Now your calvalry can just move in and out of combat so setting up the perfect charge isnt a very big deal. It's just my opinion but nothing you listed sounds super tactical to me, especially when you can just drop whatever units you want on the table.

Arrahed
31-10-2015, 18:36
It would have been interesting to read an example of what exactly is intuitive to you in Warhammer/AOS, but since you want to let the matter end...so be it!




Some examples of what I consider to be tactical finesse in AoS...whether it makes sense to you or not.

Retreat Example One - A unit you don't want to be in close combat, but the opponent has already engaged them in it. On your turn, you retreat that unit and have another nearby unit charge in to prevent opponent from reengaging the retreating unit.

Retreat Example Two - Cavalry is most optimal if they charge. If the charge does not destroy the unit, your cavalry in subsequent turns will be less than optimal. Having a big block of infantry engaged against opponent, you can retreat the cavalry to try another charge with bonus charge stats again. Or you can do a charge wave. First cavalry unit charge into a large of troops. Subsequent turn, retreat, a second cavalry unit charge into a large group of troops. Rinse and repeat. This is risky, but can be a game changer especially if you get two turns in a row.

The Few against the Many in a Forest Example - In previous editions of Fantasy, you would remove the trees from the forest terrain so that the opposing units can line up and fight. In Age of Sigmar, the people I play with leave the trees on the terrain as actual obstacles. Careful positioning your units in places with lots of obstacles can prevent a larger unit from swarming the smaller unit. I found some people at the local gaming store ignore the suggested terrain features deployment rules. I found that in AOS, having more terrain pieces is more fun than when there is less.

PS: My overall feeling about AoS and Warhammer Fantasy are that these "games" are mediocre at best. The painting/modelling/collecting fantasy-themed armies combined with the game is what make the hobby as a whole very enjoyable to me. I dislike how Games Workshop runs their business and that is a reason I cannot in good conscious recommend others to enter the GW hobby. Nevertheless, the Warhammer setting was a major influence on my perception of dwarfs, elves, and other fantastical creatures. I also like majority of the models Games Workshop make and how a large group of these fantasy miniatures can look very cohesive as an army.

Thanks for the examples. I thought about the re-engaging in CC. My problem with that is that is doesn't work well with the alternating close combat unit activation. I will explain my concern:
Heavy cavalry usually does not gain much from re-engaging. They are quite durable so they would have to deal twice as much damage in their attacking turn as in a subsequent combat turn because the cannot attack for one round when retreating. Usually that is not the case so I never decided to retreat and re-engage with heavy cavalry.
The next point is: this only works with multiple small/medium units because you need units keep the enemy unit pinned down. But having more units in close combat than the enemy is a disadvantage because of the alternating activation.

However, this sounds viable for light cavalry that would suffer heavy losses when bound in close combat. Unfortunately, that is also made impossible by the alternating activation. Light cavalry that relies on their ability to strike first is totally gimped as soon as their are two or more units involved.

To be honest: in my opinion the alternating activation is the single worst rule in AOS. Maybe the random turn order as well, but who actually uses that?

Concerning the forest thing: that is basically a pile-in gimmick that I would rather avoid completely. It might be an intended tactic but it feels to incredibly gamey. I would like a simple modifier for being in cover much better.

Arrahed
31-10-2015, 18:57
It would have been interesting to read an example of what exactly is intuitive to you in Warhammer/AOS, but since you want to let the matter end...so be it!

That is tricky because it is very difficult to differentiate between intuition and simply being used to something.
I am used to the way things work in WHFB so there is definitively a bias when I say WHFB was more intuitive than AOS.

I can only say that I find firing out of close combat very unintuitive. The way I imagine the situation there is no way it could work. Being told by the rules that I can do it nevertheless is unintuitive.

A rule set that I find very intuitive is Infinity. It is very complicated and not always elegant but whatever you want your units to do, there is a rule for it. I can imagine my trooper to climb up a wall, drop to the round, slowly move towards the edge of the building, stand up and shoot? I can do that.
Somebody is shooting at me and I am not prepared to retaliate? I can dodge out of sight.
An enemy TAG is too tough to take down? I can use electronic warfare to deal with it.
Infinity --> Complicated but very intuitive.
AOS --> Simple but unintuitive.

akai
01-11-2015, 02:55
I'm not sure if two examples of retreating and being able to place characters around trees is going to make people think that AOS has lots of tactical depth. I mean fleeing charges and setting up ideal charges was already a big part of WHFB so I don't think fleeing adds anything new. If anything it makes it sound like a more forgiving and less tactical game. Now if you make the mistake of getting one of your softer units in cc you can just retreat. Now your calvalry can just move in and out of combat so setting up the perfect charge isnt a very big deal. It's just my opinion but nothing you listed sounds super tactical to me, especially when you can just drop whatever units you want on the table.

My post had no intention to make people think AOS has lots of tactical depth. It was to give examples of other tactics that are not "pile-ins" to Arrahed. Setting up a good charge is still important. If a unit have to retreat, that unit can't attack or shoot. I am not entirely sure what you mean by "super tactical"...something so super I will always use that tactic? Or that what I listed is too "simple" to be consider tactics?


Thanks for the examples. I thought about the re-engaging in CC. My problem with that is that is doesn't work well with the alternating close combat unit activation. I will explain my concern:
Heavy cavalry usually does not gain much from re-engaging. They are quite durable so they would have to deal twice as much damage in their attacking turn as in a subsequent combat turn because the cannot attack for one round when retreating. Usually that is not the case so I never decided to retreat and re-engage with heavy cavalry.
The next point is: this only works with multiple small/medium units because you need units keep the enemy unit pinned down. But having more units in close combat than the enemy is a disadvantage because of the alternating activation.

I did wrote in my examples that the retreat examples above requires multiple units to pin enemy unit down. Though I would suggest have a large bulking unit for the pinning (can soak up the damage). As for using these possible tactics in game, they are of course highly situational. You will have to weigh in yourself the risk and reward for each situations that you want to use it in. Nevertheless, they are options you have. The Empire Knights gets increase chance to wound and +1 damage for their lances in a charge. So I think it' would be beneficial in some circumstances for them to retreat and charge again.

As for alternate activation being a disadvantage to player with more units engage in close combat...I would have to disagree. The pile-in rule can make the alternate activation to be an advantage to the player with more units in close combat range.


However, this sounds viable for light cavalry that would suffer heavy losses when bound in close combat. Unfortunately, that is also made impossible by the alternating activation. Light cavalry that relies on their ability to strike first is totally gimped as soon as their are two or more units involved.

You mentioned about light cavalry with 2 or more units involved gimped because of alternating activation. If it's your turn, you decide on who gets to attack first...so why not choose light cavalry to attack first? Again though, it is situational and your decision.


To be honest: in my opinion the alternating activation is the single worst rule in AOS. Maybe the random turn order as well, but who actually uses that?
i think a lot of people playing AoS actually do play with the random turn order rule. I do. From just a game play perspective, I am fine with the alternate activation. If I have to change one thing in AoS it would be an inclusion of a "silhouette template" stat (as in like Infinity) for the models. That way, players are not being at a disadvantage or advantage for how they wanted to convert or position their model on bases.


Concerning the forest thing: that is basically a pile-in gimmick that I would rather avoid completely. It might be an intended tactic but it feels to incredibly gamey. I disagree I would like a simple modifier for being in cover much better.

About your comment that the forest thing as being too gamey...the few versus the many forcing to fight in a confined/restricted space is, in my opinion, a very common tactic in fights/battles in general.

I do enjoy Infinity. And thanks for giving me an example on what you consider to be intuitive.

Arrahed
01-11-2015, 09:29
You mentioned about light cavalry with 2 or more units involved gimped because of alternating activation. If it's your turn, you decide on who gets to attack first...so why not choose light cavalry to attack first? Again though, it is situational and your decision.

My concern is: light cavalry relies on its mobility to engage on its own terms while their combat capabilities are usually inferior to the enemy. Even though AOS knows no unit size restrictions light cavalry usually consists of small units.
Lets say I have two units of light cavalry. One on each flank. Both were able to get in a favorable position to charge the enemy.
If I charge with both units I would activate the first unit and attack. Being at full strength I can cause some damage an deal with a weakened counter attack. But why would the enemy player activate then the weakened unit. He would of course activate the unit on the other flank which would severely weaken my own unit at that flank and totally negate any bonus I had for outmaneuvering the enemy.





About your comment that the forest thing as being too gamey...the few versus the many forcing to fight in a confined/restricted space is, in my opinion, a very common tactic in fights/battles in general.
I agree that is a common tactic that should have its rule representation. I just don't think that this 'model-accuracy' system is too complicated and too easily abusable. I would like a simple modifier better.

tmod
01-11-2015, 10:58
I wasn't calling out anyone particular in that post, it certainly wasn't aimed personally at buddy, and I stand by it. Anyone who claims to have sales data on how well AoS is doing is completely making it up, anyone who claims to know how much AoS is being played in their city is at best, exaggerating because they (presumably) haven't entered every house in the city to see what goes in every garage, basement and kitchen table. Anecdotes on game systems being played represent singular groups which are openly hostile to AoS and thus don't give a balanced picture.

Are these anecdotes interesting points of discussion - maybe if you are into bashing AoS, are they in any way reliable indicators of how the game is doing - no, and should they be used to repeatedly bash fans of the game round the head - definitely not.

This is not true, and I find it hard to believe that you don't know that yourself. We don't have exact numbers with absolute certainty, granted, but we know quite a lot with a reasonable high degree of precision and a very high degree of certainty.

Example:
We don't know with absolute certainty whether 40k outsold fantasy last year. We do know that multiple sales reps have claimed they did by a margin of about 5:1. We do know that it did in the US among independent stockists due to the ICPV2 report. We do know that most major stores providing anecdotal evidence suggest about 5:1. We do know tournament participation was much higher. It is certainly possible that 90% of all fantasy players stay in their garages and buys only directly from GW. But is it reasonable, just because we don't know the whole picture, to assume we know nothing?

If I made the claim that 40k outsold Fantasy at about 5:1, is that made up? Really?

We have solid indications from independent sources or GW themselves for most of the numbers. We do in fact know AoS is certainly less of a success than GW expected. We don't know how much less, but the limited editions not selling is a strong indication that GW expected rather a lot more sales than have materialised. Will this have consequences for the game? Possibly, even probably, but now we're entering guesswork. GW have a history of being quick to can underperforming products, but there's no way of knowing how they'll deal with this particular situation.



Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Niall78
01-11-2015, 11:06
GW have a history of being quick to can underperforming products, but there's no way of knowing how they'll deal with this particular situation.


They'll can it the same way they've canned every other product that wasn't making the required amount of money. The history of GW is littered with good products that weren't successful enough i.e. not as much of a cash cow as 40K.

tmod
01-11-2015, 11:28
They'll can it the same way they've canned every other product that wasn't making the required amount of money. The history of GW is littered with good products that weren't successful enough i.e. not as much of a cash cow as 40K.

That's my belief as well, but I'm replying to Spiney's claim about us making stuff up. We do know for certain sales are lower than expected. We do know with a very high degree of probability that new sales are significantly lower than Fantasy was. We don't actually KNOW how GW is going to react.

I expect them to keep at it for another year, then dump the game after fiscal year 2016 ends in the spring of 2017, but that is just an semi educated guess...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

2DSick
01-11-2015, 13:35
Thanks Mr Ant'

That's all I needed to hear.

Sorry for the late reply. We all have lives after all ;-)

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 15:15
That's my belief as well, but I'm replying to Spiney's claim about us making stuff up. We do know for certain sales are lower than expected. We do know with a very high degree of probability that new sales are significantly lower than Fantasy was. We don't actually KNOW how GW is going to react.

I expect them to keep at it for another year, then dump the game after fiscal year 2016 ends in the spring of 2017, but that is just an semi educated guess...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

There definitely are things we know. To recap:

- All 4 AOS limited editions failed to sell out, and seemingly never even got close enough to get the "only X copies remain" notice. The only other limited editions that I'm aware of which failed to sell out are for The Hobbit and Dreadfleet, both of which were financial failures for GW. Meanwhile, even Lizardmen and Wood Elf limited editions sold out within days, while Kings of War is selling out much larger print runs inside of a week.

- Independent retailers are slashing AOS prices to unseen of levels, some as high as 50% off, which means that they're actually losing money off of each sale. That's never happened with Island of Blood or any other Warhammer or 40k starter.

- Anecdotal stories from dozens if not a couple hundred posters here and elsewhere point to AOS falling flat where they live, with very few reporting otherwise. And we're talking about posters the world over, and not just one specific geographic region. The sheer number of similar reports moves them from anecdotal stories to points of data worth considering.

- When asked how it was doing by an investment reporter, GW didn't say that it was meeting or exceeding expectations, which they most certainly would have if that were the case, as this was a report which would be read by potential investors. And if they didn't say that, then the only logical alternative is that it's failing to meet expectations. This is further supported by the fact that they talked about three-month-old White Dwarf sales and number of free downloads in lieu of sales figures, and then said it was a long-term investment (Why would you say that unless it was failing to pay off short term?).

As for how long it'll last, my guess is that they've already shut off the spigot and at this point are just going to release everything that's already prepared, and let it die a quiet death afterwards like The Hobbit.

akai
01-11-2015, 15:51
My concern is: light cavalry relies on its mobility to engage on its own terms while their combat capabilities are usually inferior to the enemy. Even though AOS knows no unit size restrictions light cavalry usually consists of small units.
Lets say I have two units of light cavalry. One on each flank. Both were able to get in a favorable position to charge the enemy.
If I charge with both units I would activate the first unit and attack. Being at full strength I can cause some damage an deal with a weakened counter attack. But why would the enemy player activate then the weakened unit. He would of course activate the unit on the other flank which would severely weaken my own unit at that flank and totally negate any bonus I had for outmaneuvering the enemy.

In previous editions of Warhammer, all units normally gain the benefit to attack first in close combat if they successfully make their charge. In Age of Sigmar, charging does not do that. So don't play Age of Sigmar thinking charging should be beneficial to all your units. Which as you already pointed out, is not. So don't charge with two light cavalry units if its unfavorable. There are light cavalry in AoS that gets no benefits from charging. For example High Elf Reavers. No reason for me to normally get them into close combat. There are light cavalry, for example Goblin Wolf Riders, that do get bonus from charging and, with wolf riders I would normally make it to be a rather large unit. Again, its all highly situational. In my opinion, not all tactics should be bread and butter that you can repeat and rinse in all your games.


I agree that is a common tactic that should have its rule representation. I just don't think that this 'model-accuracy' system is too complicated and too easily abuseable. I would like a simple modifier better.

If my enemy wants to engage in close combat at a confined space to gain an advantage and also have an option of either shooting at them or getting into close combat against them, I would choose the former most of the time. Also, do you prefer tactics in a game to be very complicated and can easily use to abuse? Or did you wrote that sentence incorrectly?

I think you would agree there are actual tactics in Age of Sigmar? Whether you like how these tactic works or don't, is a matter of preference. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Arrahed
01-11-2015, 19:28
In previous editions of Warhammer, all units normally gain the benefit to attack first in close combat if they successfully make their charge. In Age of Sigmar, charging does not do that. So don't play Age of Sigmar thinking charging should be beneficial to all your units. Which as you already pointed out, is not. So don't charge with two light cavalry units if its unfavorable. There are light cavalry in AoS that gets no benefits from charging. For example High Elf Reavers. No reason for me to normally get them into close combat. There are light cavalry, for example Goblin Wolf Riders, that do get bonus from charging and, with wolf riders I would normally make it to be a rather large unit. Again, its all highly situational. In my opinion, not all tactics should be bread and butter that you can repeat and rinse in all your games.

I don't want the attacker to gain auto hit-first. I forgot to specify that I was talking about high initiative light cavalry or 'always strike first' units. Always strike first and high initiative were basically the defense of the elves. Taking that away without a severe buff of the armor value is a big disadvantage.
Do you think it is a good idea that a combat on one side of the battlefield has a very significant impact on the order of attack at the opposite side? In my opinion, they shouldn't affect each other.




If my enemy wants to engage in close combat at a confined space to gain an advantage and also have an option of either shooting at them or getting into close combat against them, I would choose the former most of the time. Also, do you prefer tactics in a game to be very complicated and can easily use to abuse? Or did you wrote that sentence incorrectly?


You are right. That doesn't make any sense. You should read : ''' I just think that this 'model-accuracy' system is too complicated and too easily abuseable. I would like a simple modifier better.'''



I think you would agree there are actual tactics in Age of Sigmar? Whether you like how these tactic works or don't, is a matter of preference. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I do agree that there are ways to spice things up. However I do not believe that retreating to re-engage is actually providing an advantage. The other examples you provided do give you an edge but that is unfortunately not my cup of tea.

rmeister0
01-11-2015, 19:41
That's my belief as well, but I'm replying to Spiney's claim about us making stuff up. We do know for certain sales are lower than expected.

That dictates that we knew what the expectations were. What were those expectations, and whose were they? As far as I'm aware Games Workshop has never released sales projections.


We do know with a very high degree of probability that new sales are significantly lower than Fantasy was.

What is the evidence for this and compared to what? End Times, or pre-End Times?

We have deductions. We have guesses. But we do not have facts, and we won't have them until the next reporting, or AoS suddenly disappears from WD and never returns.

Holier Than Thou
01-11-2015, 20:08
That dictates that we knew what the expectations were. What were those expectations, and whose were they? As far as I'm aware Games Workshop has never released sales projections.


We DO know what their expectations were. They released 4 limited edition books, they expected them to sell out. None of them did, none of them even got close enough to bring up the 'only so many copies left' message on the webstore.

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 20:14
We have deductions. We have guesses. But we do not have facts, and we won't have them until the next reporting, or AoS suddenly disappears from WD and never returns.

Exactly, we all should wait until the next two financial reports. Lovers and haters all have their own theory.. Imo, I think that AoS failed miserable, but that is just my feeling and is based on nothing objective. The blabla about the limited editions not selling well means nothing in the overall picture. For all we know the Sigmarines were more succesful than GWs Wood Elves and Dwarves releases together.

In short, we have no idea.

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 20:16
That dictates that we knew what the expectations were. What were those expectations, and whose were they? As far as I'm aware Games Workshop has never released sales projections.

Ostensibly their expectations were to make more money than Warhammer Fantasy. After all, what's the point in investing more money only to make less? They made the investment in End Times, the Sigmarines, and other things in an attempt to not only make more money than Fantasy was making, but likely a lot more. It certainly wouldn't be to make less money. Who spends more money to make less profit, when they could spend less money and earn greater profit?

As for hard and fast numbers, they certainly excepted to sell out 5,000 limited edition AOS books. Why wouldn't they? After all, almost every other limited edition book they've ever sold has not only sold out, but sold out within days or even minutes.


What is the evidence for this and compared to what? End Times, or pre-End Times?

The total inability to sell out any of the four limited editions books, for one, whereas many of the End Times books, which weren't limited editions, rapidly sold out. Or independent retailers cutting prices as low as 50% off in order to move stock. If you're discounting GW stock that much then you're at the point where you're losing money. As far as I know, nobody ever discounted Island of Blood that much. If the AOS starter set is being sold that cheaply, it's because it's selling far worse than Island of Blood and retailers are trying to just get rid of them so they could get some of their money back.


We have deductions. We have guesses. But we do not have facts, and we won't have them until the next reporting, or AoS suddenly disappears from WD and never returns.

We do have facts. All four AOS limited editions failing to sell out is a fact. AOS starter sets being sold for unheard of discounts, the kind which results in retailers losing money on those boxes, that's also a fact. Combine them with what we can deduce from reports from gamers all around the world as well as the GW interview with an investment reporter where they categorically refused to make any comment about AOS products selling well, and the picture gets pretty clear.

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 20:24
Sorry, Buddy Bear. That is all blabla, but I expect we will these kind of posts until the first financial report arrives. As I said in post 200, we have no idea what the bigger picture is. I.e if the Sigmarine mini release brought more money in than the Wood Elves and Dwarves release together, that would mean that in comparison with the old Warhammer that the Sigmarine AoS release is a succes.

Not selling out a limited edition book means nothing than. It only means that the AoS limited books will disappear. But be my guest, keep posting about why you think AoS is selling worse than Warhammer.

We almost believe you have a clue. ;)

The only truth is that we just don't know it. There are indications and assumptions, but that's it.

Edit: Lol, are you really serious when you say that we have facts.. Oh my, you really take yourself very serious.:eek:

Skargit Crookfang
01-11-2015, 20:32
Sorry, Buddy Bear. That is all blabla, but I expect we will these kind of posts until the first financial report arrives. As I said in post 200, we have no idea what the bigger picture is. I.e if the Sigmarine mini release brought more money in than the Wood Elves and Dwarves release together, that would mean that in comparison with the old Warhammer that the Sigmarine AoS release is a succes.

Not selling out a limited edition book means nothing than. It only means that the AoS limited books will disappear. But be my guest, keep posting about why you think AoS is selling worse than Warhammer.

We almost believe you have a clue. ;)

The only truth is that we just don't know it. There are indications and assumptions, but that's it.

Edit: Lol, are you really serious when you say that we have facts.. Oh my, you really take yourself very serious.:eek:



Logical conclusions, within margin for error, can still be deduced from evidence. Otherwise, why would sports betting even bother having odds?

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 20:35
Logical conclusions, within margin for error, can still be deduced from evidence. Otherwise, why would sports betting even bother having odds?

Which isn't a fact. It only means that the profit for betting on AoS being a succes will be much higher than betting on it's failure. ;)

The thing is that a group of posters is sprouting like it is a fact. It is a fact, when we see the next financial report which shows the numbers are the same as the previous january report or worse. (Which would be a huge disaster for GW, as we had AoS and the Heresy box)

Hishbishy
01-11-2015, 20:36
Sorry, Buddy Bear. That is all blabla,


Yes, I'm certain GW didn't tell the INVESTMENT REPORTER that AoS was meeting or exceeding expectations because they want to keep the fact that AoS is a runaway hit secret. :rolleyes:

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 20:38
Yes, I'm certain GW didn't tell the INVESTMENT REPORTER that AoS was meeting or exceeding expectations because they want to keep the fact that AoS is a runaway hit secret. :rolleyes:

Did GW tell that investment reporter that AoS was a flop? Did they tell the investment reporter that AoS was selling worse than Warhammer?

Skargit Crookfang
01-11-2015, 20:41
Which isn't a fact. It only means that the profit for betting on AoS being a succes will be much higher than betting on it's failure. ;)

The thing is that a group of posters is sprouting like it is a fact. It is a fact, when we see the next financial report which shows the numbers are the same as the previous january report or worse. (Which would be a huge disaster for GW, as we had AoS and the Heresy box)


Why does that matter?

Is your suggestion everyone who feels so inclined to share their personal stories, rumours heard and overall financial information (slices thereof) to simply ignore it, and wait with bated breath for GWs financial report to come up, making no attempt to put what facts (ie: stores going fire sale on GW, gaming groups across the world turning away from GW, and a rash of anger) we DO know through the 'ol amateur analysis machine?

I don't see why we should ignore what we have heard, as a community, a call GW's financial statements (which are a bit of a laugh- ie: that whole tax reduction/profit reorganization thing) as the only thing that should be discussed in such a subject.

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 20:42
Sorry, Buddy Bear. That is all blabla

Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "Nanana, I'm not listening" doesn't change anything.


Not selling out a limited edition book means nothing than. It only means that the AoS limited books will disappear. But be my guest, keep posting about why you think AoS is selling worse than Warhammer.

So you believe that it's an amazing coincidence that the only times that they failed to sell out of limited editions, it was for games which were financial disasters for them, and that AOS is the one exception where the failure to sell limited editions isn't associated with a financial disaster? Or that there's no correlation whatsoever between how fast a limited edition sells versus how well the associated army sells?


We almost believe you have a clue. ;)

Ad hominem attack. Nice.


The only truth is that we just don't know it. There are indications and assumptions, but that's it.

Edit: Lol, are you really serious when you say that we have facts.. Oh my, you really take yourself very serious.:eek:

Are you trying to claim that GW's failure to sell out of any of their limited editions isn't a fact?

Are you trying to claim that independent retailers selling AOS sets at discounts as high as 50% off isn't a fact?

scruffyryan
01-11-2015, 20:43
Did GW tell that investment reporter that AoS was a flop? Did they tell the investment reporter that AoS was selling worse than Warhammer?

This question demonstrates a lack of understanding of how companies deal with investment. No company will ever tell an investment reporter that a product was a flop, PR will always shine the good and handwave the bad. Business 101

Skargit Crookfang
01-11-2015, 20:43
Did GW tell that investment reporter that AoS was a flop? Did they tell the investment reporter that AoS was selling worse than Warhammer?


GW is publicly traded. Such organizations go out of their way to brag about their successes (see: every PLC ever), and words such as "long term project" often make investors run for the doors because of the "read between the lines factor". However, if they were to outright lie in such a way that would construe false investor confidence and misleading financial information, there could be serious legal ramifications .

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 20:58
Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "Nanana, I'm not listening" doesn't change anything.



So you believe that it's an amazing coincidence that the only times that they failed to sell out of limited editions, it was for games which were financial disasters for them, and that AOS is the one exception where the failure to sell limited editions isn't associated with a financial disaster? Or that there's no correlation whatsoever between how fast a limited edition sells versus how well the associated army sells?



Ad hominem attack. Nice.



Are you trying to claim that GW's failure to sell out of any of their limited editions isn't a fact?

Are you trying to claim that independent retailers selling AOS sets at discounts as high as 50% off isn't a fact?

The only thing is a fact is that nobody is buying the AoS limited edition books, but that doesn't automatically means that AoS in general (i.e the mini's) is selling less than Warhammer, of selling less than previous Warhammer releases. It is possible that the Sigmarines or the Khorne dudes were more succesful than the WE and Dwarves release together. We don't know.
You are saying that it is a fact that AoS in general is doing worse than Warhammer and that it is a flop, this could certainly be the case, but it is also possible that it isn't. Still you declare it as a fact. The only fact imo is that we just don't know it. We need to wait for the next two financial reports.

All the rest are just opinions/assumptions of a couple posters (me included) with to much time on their hands.

I think the failure of the AoS limited edition books means that that the books aren't selling. It could be because nobody cares about the fluff, it could be that people don't want to spend so much money on it, because they allready have the rules and etc... I am certainly not tempted to buy a limited AoS book, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in the Khorne miniatures or the scenery.

Sorry, my local shop is still selling all AoS miniatures at the same prices GW does, but when I am going to pre-order my Heresy box, I will certainly ask why he isn't selling it at 50% off, as appearantly all other independents are doing.:rolleyes:

My quick ebay search (http://www.benl.ebay.be/sch/i.html?_odkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+ste&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+set&_sacat=0) doesn't show me that I can get AoS cheaper on ebay, certainly not with a huge discount and if it is a discount the postage cost make even more expensive than just ordering it from GW.

Edit:
Lol there are even UK sellers that ask more than the price GW asks, but I assume that is thanks to the exchange rate. But from looking at the ebay prices for the starter set I can assume that the price for AoS is still the same as in july 2015.

akai
01-11-2015, 21:00
I don't want the attacker to gain auto hit-first. I forgot to specify that I was talking about high initiative light cavalry or 'always strike first' units. Always strike first and high initiative were basically the defense of the elves. Taking that away without a severe buff of the armor value is a big disadvantage.

In Age of Sigmar, initiative is not part of the game. So you assume everyone is roughly similar in "attack speed." I don't really consider taking away "always strike first and high initiative" to be a disadvantage for elves. I mean, it is a disadvantage if you are playing Age of Sigmar with the points system of 8th edition (and points being another controversial area of Age of Sigmar).


Do you think it is a good idea that a combat on one side of the battlefield has a very significant impact on the order of attack at the opposite side? In my opinion, they shouldn't affect each other.

From a gaming point of view, I think its not a bad idea. My reasoning is because it give both players more active decisions to make when it is not their turn. Kind of like (very roughly) Infinity's active and reactive player orders.

tmod
01-11-2015, 21:04
There definitely are things we know. To recap:

- All 4 AOS limited editions failed to sell out, and seemingly never even got close enough to get the "only X copies remain" notice. The only other limited editions that I'm aware of which failed to sell out are for The Hobbit and Dreadfleet, both of which were financial failures for GW. Meanwhile, even Lizardmen and Wood Elf limited editions sold out within days, while Kings of War is selling out much larger print runs inside of a week.

- Independent retailers are slashing AOS prices to unseen of levels, some as high as 50% off, which means that they're actually losing money off of each sale. That's never happened with Island of Blood or any other Warhammer or 40k starter.

- Anecdotal stories from dozens if not a couple hundred posters here and elsewhere point to AOS falling flat where they live, with very few reporting otherwise. And we're talking about posters the world over, and not just one specific geographic region. The sheer number of similar reports moves them from anecdotal stories to points of data worth considering.

- When asked how it was doing by an investment reporter, GW didn't say that it was meeting or exceeding expectations, which they most certainly would have if that were the case, as this was a report which would be read by potential investors. And if they didn't say that, then the only logical alternative is that it's failing to meet expectations. This is further supported by the fact that they talked about three-month-old White Dwarf sales and number of free downloads in lieu of sales figures, and then said it was a long-term investment (Why would you say that unless it was failing to pay off short term?).

As for how long it'll last, my guess is that they've already shut off the spigot and at this point are just going to release everything that's already prepared, and let it die a quiet death afterwards like The Hobbit.

This pretty much. We do know some things, we can infer a lot of things. When it comes what GW will do we are left with guessing. My guess is as good (anf incidentally identical) to yours.


We DO know what their expectations were. They released 4 limited edition books, they expected them to sell out. None of them did, none of them even got close enough to bring up the 'only so many copies left' message on the webstore.

Also this. We do know that GW expected to sell about 1000 copies, because that's hiw many ltd ed copies they made. We also know they didn't sell as well...


Exactly, we all should wait until the next two financial reports. Lovers and haters all have their own theory.. Imo, I think that AoS failed miserable, but that is just my feeling and is based on nothing objective. The blabla about the limited editions not selling well means nothing in the overall picture. For all we know the Sigmarines were more succesful than GWs Wood Elves and Dwarves releases together.

In short, we have no idea.

We won't ever know with absolute certainty. Even in the annual reports AoS sales will be hidden, and we'll never know 100% certain anything they're not forced by law to publish. I also agree that Sigmarines might have been more successful than dwarfs and elves, we have no way of telling either way. But that's not the same as us having no data. All of Buddy Bear's points further up are things we do know. We know it's less successful as a whole than they expectes, but we have no data on the margins.

Maybe they sold 800 of the ltd eds, and if that's representative for the rest of AoS sales it would be poor but not disastrous. If so, GW might decide to see this one through, and maybe the game will be saved by awesomr models for the Aelfs or Duardin or whatever. They might also have sold next to nothing, and AoS will be dropped before summer. We have no way of reliably identifying either of these scenarios, but that's not the same as having no data. We know with very good certainty that AoS has NOT been a runaway success, have NOT outsold Fantasy as a whole, has NOT improved GW's already poor standing with FLGS...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Cheeslord
01-11-2015, 21:08
My quick ebay search (http://www.benl.ebay.be/sch/i.html?_odkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+ste&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+set&_sacat=0) doesn't show me that I can get AoS cheaper on ebay, certainly not with a huge discount and if it is a discount the postage cost make even more expensive than just ordering it from GW.
.

I got that too. I assumed in my case it was because I am in the UK, and I think EBay doesn't always show overseas sellers (possibly limits on what they allow as postage charges prevent overseas trade a bit? Don't know for sure). The only reports of 50% discounts have been from the US and mainland europe. By most accounts AoS is doing better in the UK...

Mark.

scruffyryan
01-11-2015, 21:09
Doesn't that VAT make things from UK sellers more expensive too?

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 21:19
The only thing is a fact is that nobody is buying the AoS limited edition books

It's a fact, nonetheless, and you said I had no facts.


but that doesn't automatically means that AoS in general (i.e the mini's) is selling less than Warhammer, of selling less than previous Warhammer releases. It is possible that the Sigmarines or the Khorne dudes were more succesful than the WE and Dwarves release together. We don't know.

We don't know for certain, but here are facts:

- Every single limited edition GW puts out, with two exceptions, have sold out quickly.
- The only limited editions which didn't sell out were for games which were financial disasters for GW, The Hobbit and Dreadfleet.

So in that case, the sales of limited editions very much correlated to the health of the game system. Is it a fact that the well-being of the AOS limited editions are wholly representative? No, but history supports that notion in a big way. The only other times GW has bombed with their sales of limited editions, it was because those limited editions were for games which bombed, so it strains credulity to think that AOS is somehow the exception to this, despite failing to move not just one but four different limited edition books, two of which are for the armies which you claim could be insanely popular. Well, if they're so popular, then why can't their massive player base find 1,000 people to buy out their limited edition? The Wood Elf player base was able to get 1,000 players to buy their limited edition army book within days (FACT). The Lizardmen player base was able to get their player base to buy 1,000 limited edition army books within days (FACT). So why can't the Sigmarine or Bloodbound player base generate 1,000 players to sell out their limited edition books (FACT)?


You are saying that it is a fact that AoS in general is doing worse than Warhammer and that it is a flop, this could certainly be the case, but it is also possible that it isn't. Still you declare it as a fact.

No, I'm declaring the inability of GW to sell out those limited editions as fact. I'm declaring retailers selling AOS sets at 50% off, which loses them money, as fact. I draw conclusions from there.


The only fact imo is that we just don't know it. We need to wait for the next two financial reports.

I've listed my facts. If you think they're not facts, then prove that GW has, in fact, sold out one or more of their limited editions. Prove that no independent retailer anywhere has never sold an AOS starter set for 50% off.


I think the failure of the AoS limited edition books means that that the books aren't selling. It could be because nobody cares about the fluff, it could be that people don't want to spend so much money on it, because they allready have the rules and etc... I am certainly not tempted to buy a limited AoS book, but that doesn't mean I am not interested in the Khorne miniatures or the scenery.

Nobody ever needed to spend the extra cost for the limited editions to get the rules. And think what you will, but again, every other situation in which GW failed to sell out limited editions, it was for a game which was a financial disaster for them. Supposition? Yes. But one based off of facts.


Sorry, my local shop is still selling all AoS miniatures at the same prices GW does, but when I am going to pre-order my Heresy box, I will certainly ask why he isn't selling it at 50% off, as appearantly all other independents are doing.:rolleyes:

I didn't say all independent retailers, but some. Incidentally, the :rolleyes: emoticon isn't a substitute for a logical argument.


My quick ebay search (http://www.benl.ebay.be/sch/i.html?_odkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+ste&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+set&_sacat=0) doesn't show me that I can get AoS cheaper on ebay, certainly not with a huge discount and if it is a discount the postage cost make even more expensive than just ordering it from GW.

So in your mind, $72.25 + Free Shipping > $125?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Starter-Box-Set-CUP-/252146643870?hash=item3ab51c739e:g:peAAAOSwHnFVpV4 w

That's the result of my quick eBay search. First thing I got. Note that the retailer knocked the price down from $85, which is already 32% off. It's been reduced to $72.25, which is 42% off. Moreover, this retailer isn't charging shipping, so while shipping is free for the purchaser, it's not free for him, so that'd run him another $6 or so at least, meaning that he's actually selling that box for $66.25, which is roughly 50% off. Retailers pay 55% of the full price, so he'll end up losing money on that sale. And here's not the only one. Look here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B010TUEMOA/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new

So how is it indicative of a game's health when independent retailers are selling it for so low that they're actually losing money on it?

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 21:23
@Tmod, oh for me personal AoS is certainly not a succes, but that doesn't mean I think AoS is selling worse or better than Warhammer. Imo we don't know it. The limited books aren't for me important data, for the simple reason that it is the first times we have all the rules for free directly from GW. Combine this with a very premature and simple background and the emotions of killing Warhammer... it just doesn't seem to me a good thing to base the succes or flop of AoS on.


I got that too. I assumed in my case it was because I am in the UK, and I think EBay doesn't always show overseas sellers (possibly limits on what they allow as postage charges prevent overseas trade a bit? Don't know for sure). The only reports of 50% discounts have been from the US and mainland europe. By most accounts AoS is doing better in the UK...

Mark.

On ebay, logged in, buying a starter set from the UK results in zero discounts, buying from USA results in max 5% discount, but because it's bought not from Europa, it means that there is a big change that customers service will add a tax to it. There is a USA seller that sells it for 53,41 euro, but he asks 72,38 euro postage costs:rolleyes:. So far the only intersting ebay would be from a Polish seller, which would cost me 77 euro instead of the 100 euro I would pay if I bought it directly from GW. Nothing impressive.

Edit:

On the contrary Buddy Bear, when looking at Ebay, AoS must be a huge succes because 90% of the AoS sets offered would cost me more than buying directy from Games Workshop and I do live in Western Europe.

Add the fact;) that my independent shop still asks exactly the same price as in july... I can only conclude it is a USA thing, but certainly not a UK or mainland Europe thing.

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 21:29
On ebay, logged in, buying a starter set from the UK results in zero discounts, buying from USA results in max 5% discount, but because it's bought not from Europa, it means that there is a big change that customers service will add a tax to it. There is a USA seller that sells it for 53,41 euro, but he asks 72,38 euro postage costs:rolleyes:. So far the only intersting ebay would be from a Polish seller, which would cost me 77 euro instead of the 100 euro I would pay if I bought it directly from GW. Nothing impressive.

Nothing impressive?

$72.25, Free Shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Starter-Box-Set-CUP-/252146643870?hash=item3ab51c739e:g:peAAAOSwHnFVpV4 w

$74.00, Free Shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Box-Set-New-Sealed-Stormcast-Eternals-/151864791355?hash=item235bd8d13b:g:pykAAOSwDNdV2JM 2

$81.00, Free Shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Games-Workshop-Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Starter-Box-Set-New-Factory-Sealed-/131560893868?hash=item1ea1a3edac:g:J5AAAOSwHnFVrVE 3

And top four here...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B010TUEMOA/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new

$69.40, Free Shipping
$62.95, + $6.49 Shipping
$69.99, Free Shipping
$69.99, Free Shipping

And for the record, retailers pay $68.75 for those boxes.​

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 21:38
Add the fact;) that my independent shop still asks exactly the same price as in july... I can only conclude it is a USA thing, but certainly not a UK or mainland Europe thing.

How fortunate for your retailer, then, that he's not one of the independent retailers who has to sell AOS starter sets at a loss in order to recover some of his money. I'm sure there are a few of those out there. However, given that there are retailers who are cutting the prices of AOS sets so low that they're losing money on it, again, that doesn't speak to AOS being particularly successful. This is the internet age, after all. If AOS is simply dead in their area then they could sell it online to someone who lives in a vibrant AOS area. That they're cutting prices that drastically, however, suggests that there aren't many AOS vibrant areas for them to sell to.

BasetheRuin
01-11-2015, 21:46
On the contrary Buddy Bear, when looking at Ebay, AoS must be a huge succes because 90% of the AoS sets offered would cost me more than buying directy from Games Workshop and I do live in Western Europe.


That is my experience too. I don't think I would ever buy the starter set full price, But I have been watching eBay for a good deal, prompted by all the people here saying retailers are dumping stock. Alas, it does not seem to happen. As Vazelaar said, with shipping included most sets would cost roughly the same as from GW directly. (Btw I'm ordening from the Netherlands)

So it's kind of hard to judge how Age of Sigmar is doing based on eBay prices. The only thing that is clear, is that a lot of people here really *want* AoS to fail.

Holier Than Thou
01-11-2015, 21:52
My quick ebay search (http://www.benl.ebay.be/sch/i.html?_odkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+ste&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=Age+of+sigmar+starter+set&_sacat=0) doesn't show me that I can get AoS cheaper on ebay, certainly not with a huge discount and if it is a discount the postage cost make even more expensive than just ordering it from GW.

Edit:
Lol there are even UK sellers that ask more than the price GW asks, but I assume that is thanks to the exchange rate. But from looking at the ebay prices for the starter set I can assume that the price for AoS is still the same as in july 2015.

Strange, my ebay search
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p4712.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xage+of+sigma r+starter.TRS0&_nkw=age+of+sigmar+starter&_sacat=0
brings up several sellers who are offering Buy It Now for £60 with free postage. That's 20% off, maybe not 50% but your claim that nobody is selling on ebay UK at a discount is not quite accurate.

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 21:54
Nothing impressive?

$72.25, Free Shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Starter-Box-Set-CUP-/252146643870?hash=item3ab51c739e:g:peAAAOSwHnFVpV4 w

$74.00, Free Shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Box-Set-New-Sealed-Stormcast-Eternals-/151864791355?hash=item235bd8d13b:g:pykAAOSwDNdV2JM 2

$81.00, Free Shipping
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Games-Workshop-Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Starter-Box-Set-New-Factory-Sealed-/131560893868?hash=item1ea1a3edac:g:J5AAAOSwHnFVrVE 3

And top four here...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B010TUEMOA/ref=dp_olp_new_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=new

$69.40, Free Shipping
$62.95, + $6.49 Shipping
$69.99, Free Shipping
$69.99, Free Shipping

And for the record, retailers pay $68.75 for those boxes.​

Lol, Maybe free shipping for you.

Here is a screenshot of my ebay. Ordered from cheapest to more expensive (cost + postage)
221977



I added your first example (best deal) in my browser. (Screenshot).

With postage and the best possibe import fee it is a total of $105,05 total with the current exchange rate = 78,74 euro. Certainly nothing mindblowing.
221978

The second one, doesnt ship to Belgium.

The Third has for a strange reason a higher import fee than the first one..

So while it is true that AoS is cheaper in the USA, it certainly isn't in the UK or Europe (when you compare it with GW release of AoS and GW releases of two or more years ago), which as far I know are still the biggest markets for GW. I don't think fantasy ever was a big thing in the USA, certainly not compared with 40K.

So, independent selling at 50% off, maybe a couple of stores in the USA, but alas not here. So no super deals for me.;)


EDIT:

At Holier than Thou, using your link the first one comes with postage at a total cost of 96 euro, so only 4 euro cheaper when buying directly from GW. Again no super deals, it's a myth.

EDIT2

Lol, Holier than Thou, 20% discounts are only interesting with free postage, which alas doesn't really happen on ebay. BTW, even before AoS and even other companies, I've seen discounts, hell I even bought my Makita work tools from an ebay seller with a good discount, I didn't know Makita was selling badly.;)

Edit 3
I always try to avoide buying from the USA or Asia, as customers service has a very strange formule to add extra costs... .

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 22:03
That is my experience too. I don't think I would ever buy the starter set full price, But I have been watching eBay for a good deal, prompted by all the people here saying retailers are dumping stock. Alas, it does not seem to happen. As Vazelaar said, with shipping included most sets would cost roughly the same as from GW directly. (Btw I'm ordening from the Netherlands)

So it's kind of hard to judge how Age of Sigmar is doing based on eBay prices. The only thing that is clear, is that a lot of people here really *want* AoS to fail.

Exactly. :D

Zywus
01-11-2015, 22:08
It seems some people will not consider it likely that AoS is a flop until GW is officially up for executive auction.

Yes, yes we can't know with 100.00% certainty as we haven't literally poured through GW's financial books and counted every last sale and every expense.

However, ask yourself; if the situation were reversed would you still be adamant that we can't possibly have any idea of how AoS is faring?

If every ltd book had sold out within a few days at most. If 75% of people in the polls on Warseer and otherwise claimed they were impressed with AoS as a rule system. If people en masse claimed they had increased their purchases. If discounts of AoS boxes were few and far between; and I then claimed AoS was a flop and that my facebook group of grognards were staying with 8th edition and would only buy mantic models in the future.

Would you then say: well... the stuff seems to sell well as I see it but we cannot possibly know anything until GW's financial report comes out. Maybe AoS is a total flop?


When the Heresy box is released in a few weeks and sells like shortcakes, project logs pop up everywhere, people everywhere say they have gotten a box or more, no boxes is sold for more discount that what the retailer usually does and perhaps (if the stuff sell out) the heresy marines start popping up on ebay for prices far above the GW retail price; will you then say, well... they sure seem to sell well these plastic 30k marines, but we can't possibly know until we see the GW financial report. Perhaps GW's heresy venture is a big flop?

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 22:08
Again no super deals, it's a myth.So that "myth" has seven examples linked above, which you yourself quoted?

tmod
01-11-2015, 22:16
@Tmod, oh for me personal AoS is certainly not a succes, but that doesn't mean I think AoS is selling worse or better than Warhammer. Imo we don't know it. The limited books aren't for me important data, for the simple reason that it is the first times we have all the rules for free directly from GW. Combine this with a very premature and simple background and the emotions of killing Warhammer... it just doesn't seem to me a good thing to base the succes or flop of AoS on.


This depends on the criteria for being a success or flop. If your criteria are that the game at some point will sell decently then I agree, we don't know how things are going yet.

The criteria I'm using is how sales have been so far. There's been a lot of evidence indicating that AoS hasn't been selling as well as GW hoped so far, and the ltd ed books are a prime example of this. Stores and distributors reporting no sales another. Heavy discounts a further example.

Sure, they might turn this around at a later point. But at the moment it's not looking good. I agree that this is probably more a case of how things have been handled than anything else, but the end result is still the same: AoS is likely not selling as well as GW was hoping, and most likely less than fantasy... I agree fully that we have no evidence for how things will turn out in the future though...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 22:19
So that "myth" has seven examples linked above, which you yourself quoted?

Jup, it is. I can't get a superdeal for AoS. (see screenshots)

There are a couple of USA sellers that are selling AoS cheap, that's it. While it isn't happening in the rest of the world... I can't get AoS much cheaper in a local store and neither I can get it much cheaper online. Thus while you are touting that AoS is failing, because somewhere in the USA there are people selling it very cheap.. doesn't result in a worldwide inflation of the AoS price.

Sorry. ;)



Are you trying to claim that independent retailers selling AOS sets at discounts as high as 50% off isn't a fact?

Yes, I am, there are a couple of online sellers in the USA and that is it. For the rest of the world AoS price on ebay are the same as it was for other GW products years ago.

So, nope it isn't a fact.

Buddy Bear, you would be an excellent Flaggelant. :D

AoS limited books aren't selling well ===== not the same as AoS being a flop. It is what you make of it. I have no idea, as I have zero information of how AoS miniatures are selling globally. Maybe it is indeed selling better than Warhammer. We don't know. Anyway I will wait until the next financial report to make any conclusion.

Edit:
I mean this in a friendly way, but the USA isn't the centre of the world. It's not because some USA online sellers are offering huge discounts that it is the same for the rest of the world.

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 22:27
Jup, it is. I can't get a superdeal for AoS. (see screenshots)

Wow, I am dumbfounded. So because you can't get it, you claim it doesn't exist, when you have indisputable proof that it does exist.


There are a couple of USA sellers that are selling AoS cheap, that's it. While it isn't happening in the rest of the world... I can't get AoS much cheaper in a local store and neither I can get it much cheaper online. Thus while you are touting that AoS is failing, because somewhere in the USA there are people selling it very cheap.. doesn't result in a worldwide inflation of the AoS price.

Several over the breadth of the country, and that's just a quick search. You can find more and more selling them in excess of 20% off, which has been the norm. So if you want to claim it's not failing in Europe, sure. But if retailers in the US are slashing prices that much, then it's most definitely failing over here. And it's most certainly not a myth when you have links right above you demonstrating that it's not a myth. Claiming that's a myth is like claiming breaking the sound barrier is a myth just because you personally have never done it.


Yes, I am, there are a couple of online sellers in the USA and that is it.

For the rest of the world AoS price on ebay are the same as it was for other GW products years ago.

So, nope it isn't a fact.

Okay, I asked you if you're trying to claim that independent retailers selling it at as high as 50% off isn't a fact, you respond with that that's exactly what you're claiming... despite being presented with indisputable proof that that is indeed the case. And you're lecturing others on what is or isn't fact?

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 22:40
Again Buddy Bear, 20% discount was available for years for GW products, this has nothing do with AoS. I think it was around 2008-2009 that I could get super deals from the UK, Maelstrom online shop + free shipping + a weak pound + a strong euro = happy days.

Ah, Buddy Bear, you do know that those USA sellers are the minority compared with other sellers worldwide. It would be interesting to see the GW income from Europe, UK and USA, I recall that the USA was always the weaker brother. So I don't know what you are trying so desperatly to proof?

I don't want to proof that AoS is a succes, because it certainly isn't for me, but I also have no desire to proof it is a flop. BECAUSE the truth is that we don't know it. At best we have observations, assumptions.. certainly no facts as you keep posting in many posts over Warseer.

Why are you so obsessed with it? Anyway in three months the financial report arrives and than maybe you can go wild. ;)

My opinion is that we just don't know how AoS is doing and probably we will only know when GW releases sales numbers or kills AoS in a couple of months/years. All the rest is just doom-mongering... .

About the USA $125 = 93 euro, while AoS starterset is priced 100 euro here in Europe.

Holier Than Thou
01-11-2015, 22:53
Ah, right. I understand now. Because Vazalaar can't get the starter set with a discount where he is, that means it's not being sold at a discount anywhere else in the world.

Buddy Bear
01-11-2015, 22:55
Again Buddy Bear, 20% discount was available for years for GW products

I'm talking about greater than 20% discount, as high as 50%. High enough that retailers are losing money off selling those sets. Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that this is occurring when you have links right there proving this is the case?


Ah, Buddy Bear, you do know that those USA sellers are the minority compared with other sellers worldwide. It would be interesting to see the GW income from Europe, UK and USA, I recall that the USA was always the weaker brother. So I don't know what you are trying so desperatly to proof?

It's proof that there are retailers trying to offload AOS to the point that they're willing to lose money in order to get rid of those sets. If the demand were greater then they could simply sell those sets at 20-25% off online and still turn a profit, but they're selling them so cheaply that they're losing money off those sets. Why are you so unwilling to consider the reasons why that is?


I don't want to proof that AoS is a succes, because it certainly isn't for me, but I also have no desire to proof it is a flop. BECAUSE the truth is that we don't know it. At best we have observations, assumptions.. certainly no facts as you keep posting in many posts over Warseer.

- Fact: All four AOS limited editions failed to sell out
- Fact: Some retailers have taken to selling it at 50% off

That you keep disputing those facts, well, I'd suggest that most people would realize that those are pretty germane points to the discussion.


Why are you so obsessed with it? Anyway in three months the financial report arrives and than maybe you can go wild. ;)

Given that you're rebutting half-a-dozen different posters on this thread and trying to dispute that when a retailer is selling something at 50% it doesn't really count as being sold at 50% off, I'd say that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


My opinion is that we just don't know how AoS is doing and probably we will only know when GW releases sales numbers or kills AoS in a couple of months/years. All the rest is just doom-mongering...

And that's fine, but there clearly are facts to support those theories. Your unwillingness to support them doesn't make them any less factual. And just because you, personally, can't benefit from those massive discounts, that doesn't mean they don't exist.


About the USA $125 = 93 euro, while AoS starterset is priced 100 euro here in Europe.

And I could get that $125 set for $69 here, shipping included. But I suppose that has no bearing on anything?

Vazalaar
01-11-2015, 23:06
Ah, right. I understand now. Because Vazalaar can't get the starter set with a discount where he is, that means it's not being sold at a discount anywhere else in the world.

Lol, I assume nobody in Europe can get those super discounts Buddy Bear is talking about.

From looking at ebay, it would mean that if I lived in the UK, I could get a 17% discount (if free shipping) from an UK seller. Now be honest. Is this so different than GW non AoS products? As far I recall, it was always the case.

For the Europe mainland, my best choice would be a Polish seller, that sells one copy with postage for 77 euro. Which is a discount of 23% compared when I would buy it in Belgium. But than again, if I would visit Poland and bought the starter set in a GW shop there, I would only cost me 88 euro, instead of the 100 euro in the euro countries.

@Buddy Bear: Last time. YES, IN THE USA there are a couple online sellers selling it cheap (20-40%), but compared with the rest of the world, we aren't seeing this trend! My god, the USA isn't the center of the world.

Edit: Anyway my conclusion is that I wasted way to much time discussing this. For some reason the whole GW thing sits really deep with you. I think it is best that we just put us both on the ignore list. If you would ever post in the painting part of Warseer, I will unhidden your posts, because I know your other posts are the same. You seem to enjoy going from thread to thread bashing AoS and GW, or going after Spiney or Hellokitty. Anyway have fun.:)

Shifte
01-11-2015, 23:41
Lol, I assume nobody in Europe can get those super discounts Buddy Bear is talking about.

From looking at ebay, it would mean that if I lived in the UK, I could get a 17% discount (if free shipping) from an UK seller. Now be honest. Is this so different than GW non AoS products? As far I recall, it was always the case.

For the Europe mainland, my best choice would be a Polish seller, that sells one copy with postage for 77 euro. Which is a discount of 23% compared when I would buy it in Belgium. But than again, if I would visit Poland and bought the starter set in a GW shop there, I would only cost me 88 euro, instead of the 100 euro in the euro countries.

@Buddy Bear: Last time. YES, IN THE USA there are a couple online sellers selling it cheap (20-40%), but compared with the rest of the world, we aren't seeing this trend! My god, the USA isn't the center of the world.

Edit: Anyway my conclusion is that I wasted way to much time discussing this. For some reason the whole GW thing sits really deep with you. I think it is best that we just put us both on the ignore list. If you would ever post in the painting part of Warseer, I will unhidden your posts, because I know your other posts are the same. You seem to enjoy going from thread to thread bashing AoS and GW, or going after Spiney or Hellokitty. Anyway have fun.:)

Hey man. I can get AOS (RRP £75) for £55 on Amazon (£5 delivery which I have not included). As delivery is both at a flat rate and an extra cost the discount is actually 27% because the seller is going down to £55 for the product itself. WH40K Dark Vengeance (RRP £65) on the other hand is sold with an 18% discount at £53 (again delivery not included). The difference between the two products us £2, despite a RRP difference of £10.

Age of Sigmar has about 10% extra discount over Dark Vengeance on both Amazon and Ebay, which suggests that there is SOMETHING wrong. Right?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B010TUEMOA/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/B00M4KEQFY/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

My own view is that Age of Sigmar has been a disaster financially, for the community and for public relations. It's stopped me and reportedly numerous others from even buying 40k, FFS. My GW money has went to Mantic Games. :p

ewar
02-11-2015, 01:12
@Buddy Bear: Last time. YES, IN THE USA there are a couple online sellers selling it cheap (20-40%), but compared with the rest of the world, we aren't seeing this trend! My god, the USA isn't the center of the world.



I don't disagree with your sentiment that it is too early to tell (though market indicators do all seem pretty negative). However, I think you should admit that it looks like it's failing hard in the USA - which is a slightly more important market to GW than Belgium (no offence intended).

Especially if the USA has always been weak on WFB, then it is absolutely critical the AoS delivers better sales in the US market. I don't think it looks like it is (though I think we need to hold judgment for at least 1-2 years first, as before then other short term factors, like a 30k box game release, will cover any poor performance).

Dosiere
02-11-2015, 01:18
Ah, right. I understand now. Because Vazalaar can't get the starter set with a discount where he is, that means it's not being sold at a discount anywhere else in the world.

It is actually kind of difficult to follow his logical reasoning on things but that does appear to be what he is so upset about.

Arrahed
02-11-2015, 09:54
In Age of Sigmar, initiative is not part of the game. So you assume everyone is roughly similar in "attack speed." I don't really consider taking away "always strike first and high initiative" to be a disadvantage for elves. I mean, it is a disadvantage if you are playing Age of Sigmar with the points system of 8th edition (and points being another controversial area of Age of Sigmar).

Of course, the lack of points makes any such discussion unnecessary. But wouldn't it be nice to have some kind of incentive to outflank the enemy or select a somewhat diverse force.
I will try another angle to convince you:
Imagine you have one large block of chaos warriors. I on the other hand have two units of Glade Riders. Making use of my superior mobility (and a bit of luck because mobility is kind of useless with random turn order) I have the chance to attack your chaos warriors unit on both flanks in the same turn.

In probably all tabletop games this would be a desirable situation for the wood elves player.
But not in AOS. Would I attack with both units in the same turn, your warriors would massacre my second unit before it had any chance to attack. This makes outflanking actually inferior to simply pumping all your points into one big block of elite warriors and rolling dice until you win. I don't know about you but that is not a game I would want to play.



From a gaming point of view, I think its not a bad idea. My reasoning is because it give both players more active decisions to make when it is not their turn. Kind of like (very roughly) Infinity's active and reactive player orders.
But in Infinity the inactive player is allowed to react to the action of the currently acting model. An accurate comparison would be if in Infinity the inactive players gets AROs against models that are on the other side of the field. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

EDIT:
I agree that it would be nice to give the inactive player possibilities to react and have some influence on the active player's turn. I would propose something like this:
Whenever the active player makes an attack move, the inactive player may decide to intercept the attacking unit with one of his units that is closer than 3" to the attacking unit at any point during the charge. It that case the inactive player rolls a D3. If the result is larger than the closest distance in inch, the attacking player must attack that unit instead.

Elensar777
02-11-2015, 11:42
I can't understand why some people can't understand what Vazalaar is saying...

He's not arguing that there are no discounts in the US, he's saying that a failure there doesn't mean a worldwide failure. The ebay argumentation only works for the US, not for the rest of the world.

Now, that being said, I know from my lgs that it is a failure in my town (there is only one reseller where I live).

Herzlos
02-11-2015, 12:17
That's very true; a failure in town X doesn't mean a failure in town Y. US online stores at clearance prices imply lack of demand across the US but it could be stronger in the UK and it's just not worth importing for the discount.

That said, most reports are that it's failing from all over the place.

Shifte
02-11-2015, 13:11
I can't understand why some people can't understand what Vazalaar is saying...

He's not arguing that there are no discounts in the US, he's saying that a failure there doesn't mean a worldwide failure. The ebay argumentation only works for the US, not for the rest of the world.

Now, that being said, I know from my lgs that it is a failure in my town (there is only one reseller where I live).

My post immediately below his contradicts what he is saying. AOS is more discounted in the UK by 10% more than 40k's starter set is (at around 27% discount). And it's a relatively new box set in comparison to Dark Vengeance. That's pretty damning.

ucsimplyme
02-11-2015, 13:24
Mordheim has a very limited scope of warbands and the unofficial rules are of considerable varying quality. Even the official rules had balance issues.

You can't play Stormcast in Mordheim. You can't play Khorne Bloodbound in Mordheim.



Except, you can. Mordheim has been updated for AoS.

​http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?413803-Mordheim-Age-of-Sigmar-(alpha-v-0-5)-launches!

Shifte
02-11-2015, 13:26
Who would even want to play Stormcast Eternals in Mordheim? Lol. Stay away from my Damned City!

Khorne Bloodbound (Warcrafty as they are) can just be a Chaos Warband.

rmeister0
02-11-2015, 13:29
I've listed my facts. If you think they're not facts, then prove that GW has, in fact, sold out one or more of their limited editions. Prove that no independent retailer anywhere has never sold an AOS starter set for 50% off.


These facts, in and of themselves, are a smaller part of the larger whole.

You keep banging on the limited edition books. Fair enough, but that's one part of the product line and not the product line as a whole.

Secondly, "Prove that no independent retailer anywhere has never sold an AOS starter set for 50% off" is both moving the goalposts, and also completely irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not AoS is making money for GW. Can you prove that EVERY independent retailer is selling for 50% off? Half? A quarter? What is the percentage? Did the retailer over-buy? Are they trying to reduce inventory for tax purposes? Are they getting out of GW entirely?

What's going up on ebay is a microcosm, but is not necessarily the whole. The point we are trying to make is that this is more complex than your argument is suggesting, and since the vast majority of GW products is sold direct by the manufacturer without going through third party distributors the only source of actual numbers is GW itself, or professionally conducted market survey that none of us have the resources to do.

The next reporting period is not far off. The numbers will be in and very clear. I expect we'll see more of the same - gross revenue down indicating decreased unit sales.

Finally, and I don't understand why this is hard for anyone to grasp, we CANNOT say that AoS is selling more, the same as, or less than Warhammer without knowing what Warhammer was selling. These are numbers that GW does not break out, but if we go by the anecdotal evidence that the anti-AoS brigade seems willing to use, than Warhammer sales were in very serious decline in the few years running up to the End Times release. How much of a bubble ET created we don't know. But it is not hard to see a scenario where AoS sales have exceeded WHFB simply because WHFB was in the toilet for so long.

rmeister0
02-11-2015, 13:31
Who would even want to play Stormcast Eternals in Mordheim? Lol. Stay away from my Damned City!

Khorne Bloodbound (Warcrafty as they are) can just be a Chaos Warband.

Me. They'd actually have armor.

rmeister0
02-11-2015, 13:35
It seems some people will not consider it likely that AoS is a flop until GW is officially up for executive auction.

Nope. Until GW's next report to investors. There is a big difference between the year end report that's less than three months away and GW going into receivership.


However, ask yourself; if the situation were reversed would you still be adamant that we can't possibly have any idea of how AoS is faring?

Having "some idea" is not the same as "knowing". Because our "some idea" is based on incomplete and anectodal evidence coming from biased sources.

Let me turn the question around: why is it so important for people who dislike AoS to "prove" that it is a failure from a sales point of view? Why is it so offensive that some of us are willing to wait and see?

Shifte
02-11-2015, 13:36
Heavy armour is 50gp, never mind that "Sigmarite" plate armour. You'd maybe get 2 or 2 SCE at most. :P

Shifte
02-11-2015, 13:38
These facts, in and of themselves, are a smaller part of the larger whole.

You keep banging on the limited edition books. Fair enough, but that's one part of the product line and not the product line as a whole.

Secondly, "Prove that no independent retailer anywhere has never sold an AOS starter set for 50% off" is both moving the goalposts, and also completely irrelevant to the larger question of whether or not AoS is making money for GW. Can you prove that EVERY independent retailer is selling for 50% off? Half? A quarter? What is the percentage? Did the retailer over-buy? Are they trying to reduce inventory for tax purposes? Are they getting out of GW entirely?

What's going up on ebay is a microcosm, but is not necessarily the whole. The point we are trying to make is that this is more complex than your argument is suggesting, and since the vast majority of GW products is sold direct by the manufacturer without going through third party distributors the only source of actual numbers is GW itself, or professionally conducted market survey that none of us have the resources to do.

The next reporting period is not far off. The numbers will be in and very clear. I expect we'll see more of the same - gross revenue down indicating decreased unit sales.

Finally, and I don't understand why this is hard for anyone to grasp, we CANNOT say that AoS is selling more, the same as, or less than Warhammer without knowing what Warhammer was selling. These are numbers that GW does not break out, but if we go by the anecdotal evidence that the anti-AoS brigade seems willing to use, than Warhammer sales were in very serious decline in the few years running up to the End Times release. How much of a bubble ET created we don't know. But it is not hard to see a scenario where AoS sales have exceeded WHFB simply because WHFB was in the toilet for so long.

The first set of annual accounts will show a +ve, I think. AOS's debut sales will mask any decline. It won't be until the first set of full accounts with a FULL accounting year between the start of AOS and the current date that we will have a good idea.

If the first set of accounts show that it has sold less than Warhammer Fantasy/End Times in its FIRST YEAR then they are truly scooby doo'd.

75hastings69
02-11-2015, 13:44
I don't think anyone finds it offensive that people want to wait and see, I for one don't think there will be a true reflection on AoS sales vs Fantasy sales vs costs until maybe 12 months from now.

I think what people are starting to struggle to keep reading are comments saying the game is awesome etc. and then it turns out that they aren't even playing AoS but some heavily modified game of their own design and the fact that according to current sources and taken into account the poor sales of the books people refuse to believe that it currently is not doing well. Keep making the excuse that the books aren't selling because the rules are free isn't a good argument, when during the days of WFB people happily bought and sold out within hours/days. limited edition books for so called "fringe armies" that had no real popularity for 80gbp shows that people are happy to drop good money on a product they feel has VALUE, as to date not ONE limited edition Book/Battletome for AoS has sold out!!!

Of course this is just my opinion.

75hastings69
02-11-2015, 13:47
If the first set of accounts show that it has sold less than Warhammer Fantasy/End Times in its FIRST YEAR then they are truly scooby doo'd.

Especially with the large amount they have spent on development which was in the last report. If these development costs aren't covered by sales in the next 12 months then no amount of corporate drivel and double speak will cover the cracks, but at the same time I do not expect to see any sort of statement of failure, because that's just not the GW way. It will be down to a toxic community, noisy few, external factors, hurricanes, a smartphone app.... not the fact that GW did no market research and produced a product that literally most of their customers did not want.

ewar
02-11-2015, 14:00
The first set of annual accounts will show a +ve, I think. AOS's debut sales will mask any decline. It won't be until the first set of full accounts with a FULL accounting year between the start of AOS and the current date that we will have a good idea.

If the first set of accounts show that it has sold less than Warhammer Fantasy/End Times in its FIRST YEAR then they are truly scooby doo'd.

But you will never get this information because GW don't break out sales by product line. The full year results for 15/16 will also include the 30k boxed game, which given the pretty amazing contents, is going to be a MASSIVE seller, especially released 6 weeks before Christmas. Hell, I'm trying to restructure my hobby budget so I can get one whilst still buying for my regular armies.

If revenue is up over 12 months that could be because of Tau/30k or AoS - how will you judge it? If things are flat or down overall I'd say AoS has tanked. If things are up then I think AoS will have done ok and 30k will have smashed it.

Just my 2p worth...

Zywus
02-11-2015, 14:05
Nope. Until GW's next report to investors. There is a big difference between the year end report that's less than three months away and GW going into receivership.



Having "some idea" is not the same as "knowing". Because our "some idea" is based on incomplete and anectodal evidence coming from biased sources.

Let me turn the question around: why is it so important for people who dislike AoS to "prove" that it is a failure from a sales point of view? Why is it so offensive that some of us are willing to wait and see?
And no-one is saying that we "know" with absolute certainty. We also don't "know" if GW will release a plastic thunderhawk box next month for 10£ or if GW will cancel 40k and replace it with a re-release of trolls in the pantry or if Fisty Glue man will be elected next UK prime minister etc...

All people is saying is that all signs point towards AoS failing. If the coming financial reports paint a different picture, then that conclusion need to be revised but with the information availible to us atm, the most reasonable assumption is failure.

Some people can't accept that however and maintain that we can't draw any conclusion (however tentative) before those reports are released.

Spiney Norman
02-11-2015, 14:38
And no-one is saying that we "know" with absolute certainty. We also don't "know" if GW will release a plastic thunderhawk box next month for 10£ or if GW will cancel 40k and replace it with a re-release of trolls in the pantry or if Fisty Glue man will be elected next UK prime minister etc...

All people is saying is that all signs point towards AoS failing. If the coming financial reports paint a different picture, then that conclusion need to be revised but with the information availible to us atm, the most reasonable assumption is failure.

Some people can't accept that however and maintain that we can't draw any conclusion (however tentative) before those reports are released.

I don't think we've got enough information to begin the kind of exultant grave-dancing we've been see in warhammer General recently. We not have any sales data from GW and the kind of people that the game is aimed at are not existing members of Warseer. We also don't know what GWs expected projections were or how long they envisioned it would take AoS to cycle up before it should be performing at peak level.

All that we can really say at this point is that uptake of the new game among people who formerly played warhammer fantasy battle has been very poor, and since those people weren't spending enough on wfb to keep it going anyway I think it remains to be seen how much that actually matters.