PDA

View Full Version : Is AOS too innovative?



Pages : [1] 2 3

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 13:23
I have let the dust on AOS and returned to these boards and sadly the negativity is still flowing. I am really struggling to understand both the depth of feelings and the content of the objections.

I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

Apparently everyone wants the same ranked system, the same points system, the same world and the same mythology.

The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger. I do take the criticism of the new settings on board in so far as it is poorly written. But there's no way a 30 year old mythology (that by the way was very derivative, didn't move forward at all in terms of the story and had become stale) can be replaced in 6 months. But there is no doubt that the writing and story development could be much better.

But I see AOS as having many more positives. It empowers players, is much more accessible, the models by and large have been stunning (with the exception of the space marines) and the scenarios add a much greater dimension to the game.

I hope it starts to turn a corner and I really look forward to new models for the previously established races.

If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age. If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 13:32
Short answer: No. It's not innovative at all.

AoS is nothing but a suckier version of a WHFB game where a lot of components have been removed.

sadly the negativity is still flowing...//...
If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age.Well, at least you aren't adding to the negativity or hostility :rolleyes:

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 13:32
I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

That's like saying a car sold without tires, windows, airbags, or a radio is "ahead of its time." AOS isn't ahead of its time. It's simply a mediocre product, full-stop, and it would be laughed at and dismissed entirely if it had been made by any other gaming company but Games Workshop.


Apparently everyone wants the same ranked system, the same points system, the same world and the same mythology.

Making something different from that doesn't make it "innovative" or "ahead of its time." It just makes it different.


The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger. I do take the criticism of the new settings on board in so far as it is poorly written.

Every game should have a framework. Otherwise it devolves into smashing toys together like we did when we were kids and declaring yourself the winner. AOS is only a handful of steps above smashing your GI Joe and Cobra action figures together.


But there's no way a 30 year old mythology (that by the way was very derivative, didn't move forward at all in terms of the story and had become stale) can be replaced in 6 months. But there is no doubt that the writing and story development could be much better.


Tell that to the creators of every other miniature game on the market, all of which produce fully realized worlds for their games right out of the gate. They certainly give you at least the basic information necessary to understand what's going on with their core factions, what they're about, and what they look like.


But I see AOS as having many more positives. It empowers players, is much more accessible, the models by and large have been stunning (with the exception of the space marines) and the scenarios add a much greater dimension to the game.


- How does it empower players?
- How is it more accessible? The prices are approaching the stratosphere, which cuts down on how many people can get into it, and the lack of a sensible system makes it near impossible for new players to ever get in a fair game.
- Opinion on models is wholly subjective. And even if one agrees the models are stunning, the creation of the Age of Sigmar setting or rules set is wholly unnecessary to create stunning models. Plenty of stunning models were produced for Warhammer Fantasy.
- Any game can have scenarios. Age of Sigmar is hardly "innovative" in that regard.


If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age. If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

Yeah, this post is starting to smell like a troll...

Flipmode
10-01-2016, 13:38
For me, it is one step short on innovation.

Open access to rules, great flexibility on release schedule, automatically updating app for new releases. A great step forward.

But.... The core rules. 4 pages basically set in stone. They could so easily have created a Living Rule Book from the very start. Now they are stuck with that and the same editions process that 40k and WFB have been stuck with.

Also... I am still not certain that they needed to officially drop WFB. They could have gained some goodwill by having it as the first Specialist Games release, and selling optional square bases (or movement trays for round base models to rank up).

Darth Alec
10-01-2016, 13:38
It's different, and there are people who like it and don't mind talking its virtues. There's just little point in doing so in the old forums, as many of them are largely populated by people who were burned by the AoS release.

Honestly, if you want to talk about AoS, make a thread about the specifics that you want to talk about. People tend to stay out of those. If you want to argue for why AoS is better/good/not the devil incarnate, you are better off shouting into the wind.

Drakkar du Chaos
10-01-2016, 13:43
If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age.
If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

I understand that Kirby isn't happy with your sales results but you will achieve nothing here with that attitude.

Soundwave
10-01-2016, 13:45
Ahead of it's time? No just plain lazy and cheap. If you where to tell me a whole game design team produced 4 pages of rules I would never believe it. Costs where cut in production and then the costs where raised for the consumer.
I find it both wierd and disturbing a company that was capable of produceing a great product with quite large team effort now throws this s#*/ at the wall thinking it will stick.
No offense to the people that are enjoying it but don't you feel a little ripped off? Especially in comparison to the great Art, stories, rules and model designs we use to receive?
AOS makes it clearer than ever how the costs have been cut by obviously shrinking the design teams.
Same art work signarines vs khorne for 80 pages straight. Same mono/pose dull models for 10 weeks release straight. Definitely not the teams that use to design the previous products.

csb
10-01-2016, 13:48
I do take the criticism of the new settings on board in so far as it is poorly written. But there's no way a 30 year old mythology (that by the way was very derivative, didn't move forward at all in terms of the story and had become stale.

A setting provides the reader/player with artificial BACKground. With thousands of years of lore whereupon he can build. How can a setting that spans millenia with still so many parts of it unwritten and so many parts of the world unexplored ever get stale unless you are a brainless WoW-customer? A setting is not meant to "move forward", it is meant to be explored in all the dephts of its ancient times.

I have never seen anything as soulless as the "narrative" (one cannot call this a setting anyways) of AoS.

Your point of view is...

...certainly shared by GW.

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 13:55
I have never seen anything as soulless as the "narrative" (one cannot call this a setting anyways) of AoS.

Yeah, I've never seen anything quite as soulless as a setting where the primary protagonists respawn after death and come back time after time to fight for people which are never described and which we know next to nothing about. A game of Risk has more soul than that.

Bishops finger
10-01-2016, 14:30
innovative? Don't smoke that stuff its bad for you.

Samsonov
10-01-2016, 14:32
It is not really ahead of its time, rather, it is trying to make up time. WFB is fairly old, and behind the times. AoS tried to move more in a warmachine/causal gamer approach (combining both, even though they are at opposite ends). But the execution is so weak. So I see what the original poster is trying to say but AoS is a bad implementation of where current wargaming largely is.

Note that when I say WFB is behind the times, I do not mean that in a negative way, I really dislike Warmachine and Malifaux, plus I doubt I'd like X Wing from what I've seen of it (though not played it).

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 14:41
For me, it is one step short on innovation.

Open access to rules, great flexibility on release schedule, automatically updating app for new releases. A great step forward.

But.... The core rules. 4 pages basically set in stone. They could so easily have created a Living Rule Book from the very start. Now they are stuck with that and the same editions process that 40k and WFB have been stuck with.

Also... I am still not certain that they needed to officially drop WFB. They could have gained some goodwill by having it as the first Specialist Games release, and selling optional square bases (or movement trays for round base models to rank up).


It is not really ahead of its time, rather, it is trying to make up time. WFB is fairly old, and behind the times. AoS tried to move more in a warmachine/causal gamer approach (combining both, even though they are at opposite ends). But the execution is so weak. So I see what the original poster is trying to say but AoS is a bad implementation of where current wargaming largely is.

Note that when I say WFB is behind the times, I do not mean that in a negative way, I really dislike Warmachine and Malifaux, plus I doubt I'd like X Wing from what I've seen of it (though not played it).

I think both of these posts make reasonable points. I'm not going to even entertain the idea that I am a troll or work for GW. Why don't you look at my posting history and see if I have any history of trolling much less posting very much in these forums.

If anyone is trolling it's people that shout down anyone who has anything positive to say about AOS as if it is a taboo.

Darth Alec suggests there is basically no point in posting anything constructive about AOS because these forums are full of people who hate it. What is the point of a forum if you can't discuss anything or listen to anyone else's point of view?

I am entitled to my view of games like KOW which has ruthlessly ripped off everything including the slogan of warhammer fantasy battle. I don't shout down people who like KOW.

My point remains, that maybe, just maybe, the elements of AOS that people don't like, the lack of rigid structure, the basic rules and lack of points, might be things we look back on in 5 years time and say they were ahead of their time because most games are like that now.

It's just a thought, that's all. I'm not going apologise enjoying a game that you don'y enjoy just because I am in a minority of vocal posters in this forum.

As for whether it is warhammer or not, for me it is. But it is not a ranked battle game, it is a skirmish game, but it is definitely still warhammer.

Commodus Leitdorf
10-01-2016, 14:41
Innovative? No. Open ended and different? yes.

I have pretty much similar opinions about the game as many of the veterans on this site. AoS is not Warhammer, it's a completely different beast in that it is very much not a wargame. It's an open-ended RPG game without the RPing. I personally do not have a problem with what it is, I just don't think there is a market for it among the gamers who played WFB for as many years as they did.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 14:47
My point remains, that maybe, just maybe, the elements of AOS that people don't like, the lack of rigid structure, the basic rules and lack of points, might be things we look back on in 5 years time and say they were ahead of their time because most games are like that now.
Nope. There's nothing new or innovative in AoS really.

If anything it's a look back to the really old days when people casted their own miniatures out of lead and more or less constructed their own rules, since there weren't finished rule sets commercially available for every time period or setting you might want.

And stop crying about people "shouting you down". If you start a thread insulting other game systems, don't whine about people responding in kind.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 14:54
Nope. There's nothing new or innovative in AoS really.

If anything it's a look back to the really old days when people casted their own miniatures out of lead and more or less constructed their own rules, since there weren't finished rule sets commercially available for every time period or setting you might want.

And stop crying about people "shouting you down". If you start a thread insulting other game systems, don't whine about people responding in kind.

I dedicated a whole sentence to two games systems in my original post. The rest was about seeing the positives in AOS.

As you well know, liking AOS somehow enrages people in here. That is what I am getting criticised and disagreed with. I don't recall anyone claiming anything I said about KOW or 9th age is untrue.

Malagor
10-01-2016, 14:57
I don't recall anyone claiming anything I said about KOW or 9th age is untrue.
I can't speak for KoW but what you said about 9th Age is untrue.
9th Age has as much soul as 8e did which is helluva lot more then AoS does.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 15:02
I dedicated a whole sentence to two games systems in my original post. The rest was about seeing the positives in AOS.

As you well know, liking AOS somehow enrages people in here. That is what I am getting criticised and disagreed with. I don't recall anyone claiming anything I said about KOW or 9th age is untrue.If you read the thread there are several people claiming (and I'm certanly one of them) that AoS is by far the most soulless of the three game-systems/settings you mentioned. So yes, people do claim that what you say is untrue. It's a meaningless discussion anyway since I assume you will just say that you personally feel that AoS is such a soulful system and you personally think KoW and 9th age is just soo boring and ripoffs etc.

You dragged your own thread Off Topic in the very first post. You'll just have to deal with it I'm afraid.

Skargit Crookfang
10-01-2016, 15:03
I dedicated a whole sentence to two games systems in my original post. The rest was about seeing the positives in AOS.

As you well know, liking AOS somehow enrages people in here. That is what I am getting criticised and disagreed with. I don't recall anyone claiming anything I said about KOW or 9th age is untrue.

Souless? Yeah, having hundreds of contributors and taking the pulse of the community to create a game people want certainly lacks "soul" /sarc...

You start your post, essentially, by calling for a discussion and not wanting to rehash all the negativity and same old debates... and then end it by insulting KoW players, and the 9th Age community driven game... you may have a decent point, but may want to steer away from the inflammatory rhetoric- it comes off a bit trolly.

CountUlrich
10-01-2016, 15:09
Souless? Yeah, having hundreds of contributors and taking the pulse of the community to create a game people want certainly lacks "soul" /sarc...

You start your post, essentially, by calling for a discussion and not wanting to rehash all the negativity and same old debates... and then end it by insulting KoW players, and the 9th Age community driven game... you may have a decent point, but may want to steer away from the inflammatory rhetoric- it comes off a bit trolly.
No, he doesn't have a decent point because there is nothing innovative or inteligent about AoS.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 15:10
As you well know 9th age is specifically named and intended to be a rip off, it isn't my opinion. KOW is pitching itself specifically to be as close to the old edition of WHFB as possible. This is a fact.

I can certainly understand people who don't like the mythology of AOS, as I have already said. But the main part of my post is about the qualities of AOS not related to the mythology.

2DSick
10-01-2016, 15:13
I have let the dust on AOS and returned to these boards and sadly the negativity is still flowing. I am really struggling to understand both the depth of feelings and the content of the objections.

I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

Apparently everyone wants the same ranked system, the same points system, the same world and the same mythology.

The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger. I do take the criticism of the new settings on board in so far as it is poorly written. But there's no way a 30 year old mythology (that by the way was very derivative, didn't move forward at all in terms of the story and had become stale) can be replaced in 6 months. But there is no doubt that the writing and story development could be much better.

But I see AOS as having many more positives. It empowers players, is much more accessible, the models by and large have been stunning (with the exception of the space marines) and the scenarios add a much greater dimension to the game.

I hope it starts to turn a corner and I really look forward to new models for the previously established races.

If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age. If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

Hahahahahahahaha what troll bait is this? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Antiquated? Soulless? FML.

9th age has the community at its beating heart....

The most modern and refreshing game systems are about as far from GW as you can get!

By all means enjoy what you enjoy but as far as bashing people for not liking it, jog on shippers!

Gonefishing
10-01-2016, 15:13
Hmmm is AOS to innovative? .... Lets examine that from a business perspective, because at the end of the day that's all GW cares about/is.


Innovation involves deliberate application of information, imagination and initiative in deriving greater or different values from resources, and includes all processes by which new ideas are generated and converted into useful products. In business, innovation often results when ideas are applied by the company in order to further satisfy the needs and expectations of the customers.


So the first part of that - "Deliberate application of information"....What information? GW has said numerous times they don't do market research - they have no idea what the customer wants (and indeed internally from the investor reports we have seen they believe 80% of their customers are collectors, not gamers). So it seems like AOS is actually an innovation based on the (I think we can all agree) incorrect assumption that their customers don't really want to play games, so there's no need to put much effort in.

The second part of that: "Innovation often results when ideas are applied by the company in order to further satisfy the needs and expectations of the customers", so how does AOS satisfy the needs of the customers? (You know, those customer that GW does not engage with and has no idea what their needs and expectations are?). AOS applied ideas that suited the company (Ie. their customers just want to collect miniatures and the game is an unimportant secondary part of that) and as a result completely failed to deliver on meeting the expectations of those customers.




"In aiming for innovation, surround yourself with those that think differently than you. Doing so will allow you more perspectives than what you would be capable of. The old adage of "Great minds may think alike" but great inventions come from multiple great minds."

- Siam Luu


Did GW get outside help, listen to others, gather market research and intelligence, give the customers what they want? No...they did not, they made the same faulty assumptions about their market using the same ideas that have slowly been alienating their player base for a while now, in the closed eco system that is GW HQ. So from a business perspective AOS has utterly failed to tick the necessary boxes to be described as an innovation.

Then lets look at the "game" itself?

The Mechanics? D6 driven, the same as a 1001 other games out there - not innovative.

The Races? The same fantasy archetypes that have been the bread and butter of the fantasy genre since the days of Tolkien (Elves, Dwarves, Orcs etc), but given new "trademark" names, plus added fantasy space marines...Innovation quotient? 0.

The Background - well less said about that the better, but it sure as hell can not be described as "innovative", maybe "incomplete", but not innovative.

What have they actually done with AOS, simplified and stripped down the WHFB game until its a lose composite framework of what it used to be and added round bases, removed any form of army structure (in a bid to drive sales), and raised the prices yet again.

Now, as I have said many many times, there is nothing wrong with people liking AOS, if it floats your boat than that's great. But less not try and pretend by any stretch of the imagination that its an amazing innovation that is simply too advanced for its time, there is nothing innovative about it - either in game or business terms. Its following the same path as all the other games, using the same mechanics and races - it's just a simplification of what was there previously. At best it could be termed an experiment in games design, ie. Can we just release a game framework, and leave the players to fill in the blanks - or do people actually want a fully realised game? - I think the answer shown by their sales figures is that people generally speaking, want a fully realised game.

So, my answer would have to be "No" - AOS is not too innovative, in fact it's not innovative at all - it's just a really, really bad business decision / experiment that a modicum of market research could have knocked on the head before it ever came to fruition.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 15:18
As you well know 9th age is specifically named and intended to be a rip off, it isn't my opinion. KOW is pitching itself specifically to be as close to the old edition of WHFB as possible. This is a fact.Regardless of whether you call them ripoffs or not, they both have a whole lot more soul in them than the webbrowser-showelware-game style tripe that is AoS.

Neither KoW or 9th age is what I'd call especially innovative. But they are well functioning game systems with a clear idea of how they should work. I guess that willingly making a broken down system that almost no one likes to play as written kinda is a form of innovation since usually a game developer would not let such a mess leave their drawing table.

Pojko
10-01-2016, 15:21
Honestly there's nothing you said in your argument that AoS has over WHFB.

-It empowers the players? More like it it forces the players to do the work because GW is lazy. There's nothing written anywhere saying that WHFB can't have scenarios, or not use points limits, or be narrative. Personally, I felt quite empowered with WHFB with my ability to create backgrounds for my characters and army in a rich setting full of possibilities and shades of grey. In AoS everything is black and white.

-It's not any more accessible as long as GW continues to rob people blind with their prices. Sure, you could use an army in AoS consisting of 12 Chaos Warriors and a Sorcerer. But how fun will that really be? AoS, just like with WHFB, you'll get what you pay for. The more you buy, the better time you'll have.

-Models have been large and stunning for a long time. And they could have continued being so in WHFB. This point is basically the equivalent of the "gold spray paint argument".

-As for scenarios, again, nothing says you couldn't use those in WHFB. They have them in the book. And campaign books. And you could make up your own. In AoS you're forced to buy more and more $58 books if you want more scenarios. Is that really empowering the players when you give them a basic, bare-bones game for free and then tell them if you want the full experience you have to shell out more and more cash each month? That's basically every free to play MMORPG out there.

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 15:21
I dedicated a whole sentence to two games systems in my original post. The rest was about seeing the positives in AOS.

As you well know, liking AOS somehow enrages people in here. That is what I am getting criticised and disagreed with. I don't recall anyone claiming anything I said about KOW or 9th age is untrue.

Disagreeing with you isn't the same as shouting you down. If you're going to start a thread on a discussion forum, then expect people to disagree with you. Especially when you start it with comments like "If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age." Nevermind that what you said is most certainly untrue. AOS is the most soulless game I have ever encountered, and nothing but an obvious cash grab by removing any restrictions for points values or army composition, and it shows not only in the mediocre rules set they've come up with, but the poorly defined setting.

So mind explaining to us what you mean by "soulless", and how 9th Age and Kings of War are soulless in comparison to Age of Sigmar? Because 9th Age is a rules update for Warhammer Fantasy, which is a fleshed out, vibrant world with real people and real consequences for their actions, and the rules set creates games and armies representative of that world. Kings of War has its own setting which is likewise fleshed out and vibrant, filled with real people, real places, real consequences, and real stakes, and again has a game system and rules which represent the conflicts of that setting.

Meanwhile, Age of Sigmar has a setting which is hilariously shallow in its detail, has yet to show us the regular people and where they live, and is supported by a rules set which contradicts what little is decribed in the setting, as you can have Sigmarines and Chaos happily work together on the battlefield as you have artillery crew locked in melee combat being able to reload and fire their weapons at another enemy unit and spears have an equal chance of wounding a goblin as they do a dragon.

Drakkar du Chaos
10-01-2016, 15:22
I am entitled to my view of games like KOW which has ruthlessly ripped off everything including the slogan of warhammer fantasy battle. I don't shout down people who like KOW.

Yes you are, this thread is nothing more than troll baiting. Another battle between AoS apologists and AoS haters ? I'll pass.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 15:25
this thread is nothing more than troll baiting. Another battle between GW apologists and GW haters ? I'll pass.
It's more of a battle between dragonelf and some windmills plus everyone on Warseer stupid enough to drawn into the trap:p

theunwantedbeing
10-01-2016, 15:34
Yes.

They tried exactly one innovation, no points.
It has backfired spectacularly.

So AoS can legitimately be said to be too innovative.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 15:42
With a few exceptions, I think last group of replies were very well thought out and made some excellent points. Whilst the rules have problems there is definitely innovation there. The battleshock mechanic, the depth to the game through the keywords on the warscrolls allowing overlapping synergy between units and there are definite areas of improvement. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty but some of the problems of 8th edition have been corrected or improved.

I will admit that perhaps I might have used softer language in the one sentence regarding KOW and 9th, but I will say the reason I find them soulless is because I have to be connected to the army I use. To me they are just renamed warhammer armies, they are clearly an imitation. I have no doubt that their rulesets are tighter, but that isnt really the point of AOS. What I mean by soulless is that Archaon means something to me, not that I am a chaos player, but he does. Units of dwarf slayers mean something to me, they feel authentic. However good the rules are, 9th age and KOW feels empty to me. That is just my view. Just my opinion.

The main purpose of my posts was to talk about some of the merits of AOS.

MohRokTah
10-01-2016, 15:43
I see absolutely no innovation in AOS whatsoever. In fact, the rules smack of a term paper written in a panicked daze fifteen minutes before the class was due to start.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
10-01-2016, 15:45
I must admit its kinda odd watching another setting I have been a massive fan of, get very similar arguments I recall being thrown between those who liked the New World of Darkness and those who hated it and saw it as a bad rehash, or preference to the original setting World of Darkness ten of so years ago.

If this goes anything like that one, the old guard will never move on from the original, and the 'newer' players who love the new setting will never make enough numbers to maintain the interest the former had. Will be interesting to see how close it follows, maybe in ten years we'll get Warhammer fantasy back, like the return of the original World of Darkness.

75hastings69
10-01-2016, 15:49
I just want to comment on the two things, not go over the same stuff again....


The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger.

Framework? It's not too far removed from just giving you a blank piece of paper to write your own game. Besides as a company that does this for a living a framework simply isn't enough IMO.

The army Selection isn't flexible, it's non existent! You can use whatever you like which equals zero balance (when playing with out of the box "rules" and models that are not part of the starter box.


the models by and large have been stunning (with the exception of the space marines).....

So the models have been stunning, with the exception of the sigmarines. So far we have had 1/ Sigmarines, 2/Khorne, 3/Rereleased/renamed old Lizardmen Models and just now 4/Duardin Fyreslayers. So you are saying 1 of those 4 wasn't stunning, 1 of them is a simple rebox, so basically leaving 2 models releases ... Khorne and Duardin, so by uour own statement and the fact that Lizardmen are a simple re-release we can say 50% of the releases have been "stunning" (subjectively of course - because a lot of the original fans of Fyreslayers have since changed views). Half the models being good isn't anything to sing and shout about IMO.

Flipmode
10-01-2016, 15:58
-As for scenarios, again, nothing says you couldn't use those in WHFB. They have them in the book. And campaign books. And you could make up your own. In AoS you're forced to buy more and more $58 books if you want more scenarios. Is that really empowering the players when you give them a basic, bare-bones game for free and then tell them if you want the full experience you have to shell out more and more cash each month? That's basically every free to play MMORPG out there.

You don't have to buy a book for the scenarios. They can be bought individually. This is one of the main areas of innovation that GW should make more of, but for some reason decided that they could not make that wholly positive change without changing everything else too.

It may not be innovative in 21st century business, but it is new to GW on this scale.

I bought the starter set, and one battlepack in Black Friday deals. Have not needed to buy more and more, and where I have, it has only been a few pounds.

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 16:00
With a few exceptions, I think last group of replies were very well thought out and made some excellent points. Whilst the rules have problems there is definitely innovation there. The battleshock mechanic, the depth to the game through the keywords on the warscrolls allowing overlapping synergy between units and there are definite areas of improvement. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty but some of the problems of 8th edition have been corrected or improved.

- What's innovative about Battleshock? It's just another means of doing morale checks. It's not even new. You saw similar rules in Warhammer Fantasy for Undead and Chaos Daemons. You lose the combat? The amount you failed by inflicts additional wounds against the unit, reducing the model count. For a game that's so innovative, their morale rule looks pretty familiar to a rule that's been around for 20+ years.
- What's so innovative about keywords? Why is that so great?
- Do you truly believe that AOS is the first game to ever have synergy between units? Because plenty of games, including Warhammer Fantasy, have featured unit synergies.
- What problems of 8th have been corrected or improved? And what good is that if the resulting game is vastly inferior? You can debate me on that point, but given the vast number of comp packets which have sprung up for AOS from the very day it was released, and the rarity of finding someone playing AOS straight out of the box without any house rules, I feel comfortable stating that AOS is a vastly inferior game.


I will admit that perhaps I might have used softer language in the one sentence regarding KOW and 9th, but I will say the reason I find them soulless is because I have to be connected to the army I use. To me they are just renamed warhammer armies, they are clearly an imitation.

9th Age is, but that's because it's a continuation of Warhammer Fantasy. It's about the rules, while the name changes are there to avoid being sued. But it's still Warhammer Fantasy, and the Warhammer Fantasy setting offers far more for one to feel connected to than the hollow, mediocre shell which is the Age of Sigmar setting. And I certainly feel far more connected to Karl Franz, Balthasar Gelt, and my State Troops when I play them in a world which still exists rather than in the Age of Sigmar setting, where they, along with their world and their country, are long dead and will never return.


I have no doubt that their rulesets are tighter, but that isnt really the point of AOS. What I mean by soulless is that Archaon means something to me, not that I am a chaos player, but he does. Units of dwarf slayers mean something to me, they feel authentic. However good the rules are, 9th age and KOW feels empty to me. That is just my view. Just my opinion.

What good is being connected to a single character if the setting they're in is a hollow, empty shell? You're connected to Archaon? That's great. But Archaon isn't the setting. And the setting has one faction, the Sigmarines, which are utterly soulless in conception and presentation. They die, they respawn, they come back, they die again, they respawn, they come back again. That's not exactly something that builds deep emotional connections. And where are the regular humans? What do they look like? What's their government like? Where's their tech level at? How about Aelfs? Orruks? Ogors? We don't know because GW didn't care enough to flesh out the setting, just like they didn't care enough to write better rules, because the entire purpose of AOS is just to sell over-costed models, and GW doesn't care at all that their rules set allows Archaon to team up with the Celestant-Prime to fight a handful of Seraphon. There's no game as blatantly soulless as that.

Meanwhile, I've gotten into Kings of War, and it's set in a very real, very vibrant world, with factions who've been described and whose motivations you understand. It's filled with heroes who, when they die, they're dead. They don't respawn like video game characters. That offers far more opportunity to feel connected to the setting rather than seeing Archaon running around in a setting with less thought put into it than the most mediocre of Saturday morning cartoons.


The main purpose of my posts was to talk about some of the merits of AOS.

Expect to find disagreement on that point, especially when in the very first post you insult other people.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 16:04
I just want to comment on the two things, not go over the same stuff again....



Framework? It's not too far removed from just giving you a blank piece of paper to write your own game. Besides as a company that does this for a living a framework simply isn't enough IMO.

The army Selection isn't flexible, it's non existent! You can use whatever you like which equals zero balance (when playing with out of the box "rules" and models that are not part of the starter box.



So the models have been stunning, with the exception of the sigmarines. So far we have had 1/ Sigmarines, 2/Khorne, 3/Rereleased/renamed old Lizardmen Models and just now 4/Duardin Fyreslayers. So you are saying 1 of those 4 wasn't stunning, 1 of them is a simple rebox, so basically leaving 2 models releases ... Khorne and Duardin, so by uour own statement and the fact that Lizardmen are a simple re-release we can say 50% of the releases have been "stunning" (subjectively of course - because a lot of the original fans of Fyreslayers have since changed views). Half the models being good isn't anything to sing and shout about IMO.

your points are well made Hastings. A few comments. On the models, I really like all the chaos models and the new duardin models as well as the new terrain which represents well over half the models released.

as for the game design, it is a framework. It is much more than a blank piece of paper but there's no doubt it is incomplete. it remains a framework: phases of play with different roles for characters and certainly a different emphasis. Much more free flowing, less complexity, more terrain heavy games, different style of combat and shooting..there are some basic changes that cant be ignored. But you are absolutely right that if this company sees itself as being a games designer, then this is not acceptable. I think this isn't how they see themselves, at least when it comes to AOS. Games design as well as army construction has definitely been left in the hands of the players, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective.

I don't think there should even be a discussion about balance. It contains no mechanic to balance opposition armies and never intended to. It is a casual non competitive game. I do think that the separate armies are much more balanced against each other than in previous games. In the previous edition, there were definitely overpowered armies like the dark elves for example, but this is much less the case now, which should be commended. Not to mention that many players have said that their armies play much more how they would have expected them to play in the AOS setting than in the previous one.

Skargit Crookfang
10-01-2016, 16:06
As you well know 9th age is specifically named and intended to be a rip off, it isn't my opinion. KOW is pitching itself specifically to be as close to the old edition of WHFB as possible. This is a fact.

I can certainly understand people who don't like the mythology of AOS, as I have already said. But the main part of my post is about the qualities of AOS not related to the mythology.

No, that's your interpretation. 9th Age is a group of die-hard WHFB fans that want to keep the party going. We've worked on balance (something GW was awful at). involved the community (again...) and begun creating a lore set around a skeletal framework of rules and idea. By your definition, WHFB has never had a soul, based on the general use of high and low fantasy tropes, and a shameless pilfering of Tolkien, et al.

Again, by your logic, Infinity is just a rip off of Necromunda because it's skirmish and Sci-Fi... so... there goes your KoW attack.

You really must step back from the argument against these two systems, because to this point, your entire rhetoric has been based on personal feeling and not fact. If you don't like them, fine, but don't get in a tizzy when someone mocks you for AoS (which I won't do, as I'm no fan of of the game but a big fan of anyone playing miniature wargames).

Lexington
10-01-2016, 16:11
the depth to the game through the keywords on the warscrolls allowing overlapping synergy between units
While it's definitely a nice mechanic, keywords have been a Warmachine/Hordes mechanic for over a decade now. Innovative, they ain't.

Kingrick
10-01-2016, 16:12
I just want to comment on the two things, not go over the same stuff again....



Framework? It's not too far removed from just giving you a blank piece of paper to write your own game. Besides as a company that does this for a living a framework simply isn't enough IMO.

The army Selection isn't flexible, it's non existent! You can use whatever you like which equals zero balance (when playing with out of the box "rules" and models that are not part of the starter box.



So the models have been stunning, with the exception of the sigmarines. So far we have had 1/ Sigmarines, 2/Khorne, 3/Rereleased/renamed old Lizardmen Models and just now 4/Duardin Fyreslayers. So you are saying 1 of those 4 wasn't stunning, 1 of them is a simple rebox, so basically leaving 2 models releases ... Khorne and Duardin, so by uour own statement and the fact that Lizardmen are a simple re-release we can say 50% of the releases have been "stunning" (subjectively of course - because a lot of the original fans of Fyreslayers have since changed views). Half the models being good isn't anything to sing and shout about IMO.

While we are on the subject, does anyone else find it weird that the fyreslayers have massive helmets, and some type of armored loin cloth, and then nothing?

Malagor
10-01-2016, 16:15
While we are on the subject, does anyone else find it weird that the fyreslayers have massive helmets, and some type of armored loin cloth, and then nothing?
And monopose models where one option is with a shield that they aren't even using properly.
I said before when the WD leaks showed up that I think the designer must have just watched 300 and decided to base the dwarfs off of the spartans in that movie.

Ben
10-01-2016, 16:19
Yes.

They tried exactly one innovation, no points.
It has backfired spectacularly.

So AoS can legitimately be said to be too innovative.

There are plenty of games with no points systems. Ludo and monopoly for a start. But they have mechanisms built in to balance them.

AoS is a throw back to gaming in the 70s/early 80s, when all gaming was either scenario based or a tabletop rpg. It isn't innovative in that way, as it ignores game development for the last 40 years.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 16:19
Great stuff.

By the way I am in no way criticising the intention or committment behind 9th age or the community. I salute the community as the heartbeat behind any game like this and one of the things I strongly criticise GW for is their neglect of the community. Sadly though, 9th age has no future because it won't get updated with new models or army books and will be left behind despite the good intentions of many.

If I can move slightly the discussion forward. Where in the forum do people post tactical threads about AOS?

Kingrick
10-01-2016, 16:19
And monopose models where one option is with a shield that they aren't even using properly.
I said before when the WD leaks showed up that I think the designer must have just watched 300 and decided to base the dwarfs off of the spartans in that movie.

haha you have a point. Now I need to make an army of them with abs painted on those dwarf bellies...

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 16:24
as for the game design, it is a framework. It is much more than a blank piece of paper but there's no doubt it is incomplete. it remains a framework: phases of play with different roles for characters and certainly a different emphasis. Much more free flowing, less complexity, more terrain heavy games, different style of combat and shooting..there are some basic changes that cant be ignored. But you are absolutely right that if this company sees itself as being a games designer, then this is not acceptable. I think this isn't how they see themselves, at least when it comes to AOS. Games design as well as army construction has definitely been left in the hands of the players, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective.


It's not a "framework." It's a full game. And a very bad game, to boot. One which isn't innovative, but just poorly thought out.


I don't think there should even be a discussion about balance. It contains no mechanic to balance opposition armies and never intended to. It is a casual non competitive game. I do think that the separate armies are much more balanced against each other than in previous games. In the previous edition, there were definitely overpowered armies like the dark elves for example, but this is much less the case now, which should be commended. Not to mention that many players have said that their armies play much more how they would have expected them to play in the AOS setting than in the previous one.

Just because it never intended balance doesn't mean it can't be criticized for its lack of balance. Although to say that the game was never intended to be balanced... and then make the claim that it's much more balanced than previous games, is completely and utterly ludicrous. AOS is the most unbalanced game currently existing on the market, by its very nature. Were their unbalanced options in Warhammer Fantasy? Sure. But those were constrained by 1) Points limitations, 2) Army composition rules, 3) Alliance rules. AOS has none of those, so the end result is that no other game can ever be as wildly unbalanced as AOS.

For example, is a Steam Tank a powerful choice? Yes. But taking it was limited by the amounts of points you had, how many points you could allot in your Rare selections, and had to be taken in an army which met a minimum Core requirement and included a General from the Heroes or Lords section. Meanwhile, in AOS, you can take an army which consists of nothing but Steam Tanks (despite the fact that Steam Tanks ceased to exist millennia before, and yet here they are fighting against the AOS version of Archaon). On top of which, you couldn't pair the Steam Tank alongside certain units, because the allied rules didn't allow the Empire to work with certain races. But in AOS, you can happily pair a legion of Steam Tanks next to Archaon, the Celestant-Prime, Nagash, a Bloodthirster, Louen Leoncoeur (who's been dead for millennia), and Karl Franz (who's also been dead for millennia and is wielding the same weapon which is also being wielded by the Celestant-Prime. I guess there are two Ghal Maraz's?).

AOS, in its present state, is as far and away from creating a balanced game as you can get, and will never be anywhere near as balanced as Warhammer Fantasy in any of its iterations.

csb
10-01-2016, 16:24
If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

AoS has a very predictable future: Rereleases of old minis with stupid new names, anonymously "written" "Battletomes" that are comics without textbubbles, detailed maps of so called "realms" will never be released so we will never know where all this ******** is supposed to be happining, release of more "minis" the size of action-figures or much bigger and much more expensive and of course more retarded drivel sold by GW as "fluff" and "narrative". I don't see what's exciting in all that. Its rather frightening that somebody believes this must be the winning formula. The only thing that is unpredictable here is when it will be trashed. But given that GW now resorts to pay accounts in forums to advertise this moment cannot be so very far away.

Having said this I don't believe for a second that you talk about "your personal feelings" here, dragonelf. Some people here like AoS, but their language never was a carbon copy of GW's homepage. Yours is.

And in Reikspiel: AoS hat keine Meriten.

Ben
10-01-2016, 16:33
Great stuff.

By the way I am in no way criticising the intention or committment behind 9th age or the community. I salute the community as the heartbeat behind any game like this and one of the things I strongly criticise GW for is their neglect of the community. Sadly though, 9th age has no future because it won't get updated with new models or army books and will be left behind despite the good intentions of many.

If I can move slightly the discussion forward. Where in the forum do people post tactical threads about AOS?

There are miniature companies working with the community to produce new ranges of models.

I have no intention of playing 9th Age, but it gives fantasy players a game now that WFB has been scrapped, and I did read the Tomb Kings book, and it does something very right that GW don't.

There are no trap units. Units are either good and cost a decent amount of points, or are less good but cheaper. There is nothing like Tyranid Primes, Possessed, Mutilators, Hormogaunts, Rippers,etc etc etc where units are way overcosted for what they can do. That is one of the biggest problems with GW games, they don't balance them and seem to accidentally point people to only buying certain units as plenty of them aren't particularly effective in a game.

Kingrick
10-01-2016, 16:33
AoS has a very predictable future: Rereleases of old minis with stupid new names, anonymously "written" "Battletomes" that are comics without textbubbles, detailed maps of so called "realms" will never be released so we will never know where all this ******** is supposed to be happining, release of more "minis" the size of action-figures or much bigger and much more expensive and of course more retarded drivel sold by GW as "fluff" and "narrative". I don't see what's exciting in all that. Its rather frightening that somebody believes this must be the winning formula. The only thing that is unpredictable here is when it will be trashed. But given that GW now resorts to pay accounts in forums to advertise this moment cannot be so very far away.



pretty much.

Vazalaar
10-01-2016, 16:44
There are miniature companies working with the community to produce new ranges of models.

I have no intention of playing 9th Age, but it gives fantasy players a game now that WFB has been scrapped, and I did read the Tomb Kings book, and it does something very right that GW don't.

There are no trap units. Units are either good and cost a decent amount of points, or are less good but cheaper. There is nothing like Tyranid Primes, Possessed, Mutilators, Hormogaunts, Rippers,etc etc etc where units are way overcosted for what they can do. That is one of the biggest problems with GW games, they don't balance them and seem to accidentally point people to only buying certain units as plenty of them aren't particularly effective in a game.

Which miniature companies are working together with the 9th Age community??

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 16:48
It's not a "framework." It's a full game. And a very bad game, to boot. One which isn't innovative, but just poorly thought out.



Just because it never intended balance doesn't mean it can't be criticized for its lack of balance. Although to say that the game was never intended to be balanced... and then make the claim that it's much more balanced than previous games, is completely and utterly ludicrous. AOS is the most unbalanced game currently existing on the market, by its very nature. Were their unbalanced options in Warhammer Fantasy? Sure. But those were constrained by 1) Points limitations, 2) Army composition rules, 3) Alliance rules. AOS has none of those, so the end result is that no other game can ever be as wildly unbalanced as AOS.

For example, is a Steam Tank a powerful choice? Yes. But taking it was limited by the amounts of points you had, how many points you could allot in your Rare selections, and had to be taken in an army which met a minimum Core requirement and included a General from the Heroes or Lords section. Meanwhile, in AOS, you can take an army which consists of nothing but Steam Tanks (despite the fact that Steam Tanks ceased to exist millennia before, and yet here they are fighting against the AOS version of Archaon). On top of which, you couldn't pair the Steam Tank alongside certain units, because the allied rules didn't allow the Empire to work with certain races. But in AOS, you can happily pair a legion of Steam Tanks next to Archaon, the Celestant-Prime, Nagash, a Bloodthirster, Louen Leoncoeur (who's been dead for millennia), and Karl Franz (who's also been dead for millennia and is wielding the same weapon which is also being wielded by the Celestant-Prime. I guess there are two Ghal Maraz's?).

AOS, in its present state, is as far and away from creating a balanced game as you can get, and will never be anywhere near as balanced as Warhammer Fantasy in any of its iterations.

I just don't think you get the purpose or intention of AOS for you to make this post.

The balance lies with the players for this game. You have to trust your opponent that you want to have a fun game and that's why you won't put out 100 steam tanks.

in the old game, you could field three steam tanks within the rules and it was within the rules. People fielded cheesy lists and it was in the rules. In this game you are obligated to work out a way to play a nice game with balanced forces. it isn't a tournament game.

2DSick
10-01-2016, 16:49
Which miniature companies are working together with the 9th Age community??

Scribor and chapter house are currently in talks but there's a metric crap tonne of alternatives already out there. I don't see it as a major issue.

Smooth Boy
10-01-2016, 16:49
Yeah it's not innovate to just say 'hey guys do whatever you want'. It's just GW wanting to further cut costs. I'm not paying hundreds of Pounds for an army that gets the equivalent to the trial version of software in rules form.

To be frank also, people aren't expecting AoS to meet the depth of WHFB. What they're pissed off about is that GW threw away something they don't have the skill to replace.

Look at my poll, overall it's lore and rules that's pissed people off. I think we could have lived with not using ranks.

AoS is so bad I actually think you must be trolling by saying AoS has an 'exciting future'. It's future is in the bin.

Malagor
10-01-2016, 16:50
Sadly though, 9th age has no future because it won't get updated with new models or army books and will be left behind despite the good intentions of many.

Ehmmm no, you are wrong again.
You really should research things better before making claims.
Not only does it have a large selection of models to choose from both in alternatives to GW units but also new units, this selection applies to new armies as well and they themselfs are making the armybooks(Undying Dynasties aka Tomb Kings already got one).
And they have stated that they have gotten offers from minature companies to produce models for them.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 16:56
Ehmmm no, you are wrong again.
You really should research things better before making claims.
Not only does it have a large selection of models to choose from both in alternatives to GW units but also new units, this selection applies to new armies as well and they themselfs are making the armybooks(Undying Dynasties aka Tomb Kings already got one).
And they have stated that they have gotten offers from minature companies to produce models for them.

Lets see in one year how many releases for 9th age and how many for AOS. Wanting something to be true isn't the same as it being true. AOS has just begun, 9th is flogging a dead horse. You forget the 9th age is an update to a failing game. That model of wargaming wasn't profitable which is why GW dropped it, and thats with the quality of models and books and resources at its disposal to make it work. AOS may fail but it only exists because 8th edition already failed.

Folomo
10-01-2016, 16:56
Great stuff.

By the way I am in no way criticising the intention or committment behind 9th age or the community. I salute the community as the heartbeat behind any game like this and one of the things I strongly criticise GW for is their neglect of the community. Sadly though, 9th age has no future because it won't get updated with new models or army books and will be left behind despite the good intentions of many.

If I can move slightly the discussion forward. Where in the forum do people post tactical threads about AOS?

I can see you are a bit misinformed about 9th age. It is not just a Rebalanced 8th edition, it is indeed a new game. There are not only all the previous models, but all armies already have 2-3 extra units. That is around 30 new units already :) .
So it won't stagnate as you may fear. In addition, as pointed out before, there is already discussion between companies an the organizers. You can definitely expect even more models in the future.

Also, I am surprised no one has given you the link to the recent Tomb Kings (called now Undying Dynasty) army book. I can totally recommend you give it a cursory glance at least.
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/pdf/the-ninth-age_Undying_Dynasties_Army_Book-0-11-0_EN0.pdf

This is the first background book released. Expect all the other to come in the following months :)

Vazalaar
10-01-2016, 17:00
Scribor and chapter house are currently in talks but there's a metric crap tonne of alternatives already out there. I don't see it as a major issue.

Sounds good.

To me it is an issue, I am currently planning to collect an Empire of Sonnstahl army with only Perry plastic WotR/HYW + a couple of frostgrave metal wizards.
For me scale consitency is important. If there are no mini's that I like, than I will never build an army for army x, even if I find the rules and background magnificent.

I.e Scibor dwarves don't match at all with Mantic dwarfs and so on.

9th Age, will certainly have a big problem if the majority of models from GW isn't available anymore.. .

Folomo
10-01-2016, 17:01
Lets see in one year how many releases for 9th age and how many for AOS. Wanting something to be true isn't the same as it being true. AOS has just begun, 9th is flogging a dead horse. You forget the 9th age is an update to a failing game. That model of wargaming wasn't profitable which is why GW dropped it, and thats with the quality of models and books and resources at its disposal to make it work. AOS may fail but it only exists because 8th edition already failed.

This has been discussed to death before, so I want just to summarize most of the discussion.
WHFB wasn't losing money (consistently being in the top 3 best sold wargames until 2013), it just wasn't making as much profit as 40K.
WHFB failure was just not making as much money as GW desired to make, so they canned it and decided to try with AoS.

Which makes sense once you see all the competition to GW, who have a much more expensive cost per model produced (due to smaller size), sell their models for less and are clearly still making a profit.

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 17:02
I just don't think you get the purpose or intention of AOS for you to make this post.

No, I'm fully aware of the purpose behind AOS. GW thinks that army composition and points limits are hurting their sales, so they eliminated both in the hopes that people would spend copious amounts of money on horribly expensive kits to fill their deployment zones with.


The balance lies with the players for this game. You have to trust your opponent that you want to have a fun game and that's why you won't put out 100 steam tanks.

And how do the players find that balance? There is no mechanism whatsoever to determine that, and this game makes it ridiculously easy to have a grossly unbalanced game without even trying. For instance, I saw a game where two players decided to play a game with only 100 Wounds per side. One side was still vastly more powerful than the other, and one player got tabled before he got to his second turn. And this is a game which you labelled "accessible." If long time veterans can't properly balance a game of AOS, then what hope do brand new gamers have?


in the old game, you could field three steam tanks within the rules and it was within the rules.

Yeah, and to do that you had to play a 3,000 point game and couldn't upgrade those Steam Tanks, while having to take 2250 points of other units, 750 points of which had to be Core units. Meanwhile in AOS you can field as many as you want with no other restrictions. You could take those 3 Steam Tanks and nothing else. And with the way the game is constructed, you're effectively penalized for taking those Core units, as you're opening yourself up to suffering a Sudden Death effect. So if the guy with 3 Steam Tanks plays a guy with 10 Goblins, not only is his force far more powerful, but he benefits from Sudden Death on top of that.


People fielded cheesy lists and it was in the rules. In this game you are obligated to work out a way to play a nice game with balanced forces. it isn't a tournament game.

No, you're not obligated in the slightest. Point to where in the game it says you're obligated to do that. You're not obligated to do any such thing, no more than you're obligated to do that in any other game. The only difference here is that every other game imposes hard limits on the cheesy stuff you can take, while AOS has no limits.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
10-01-2016, 17:05
Aye, the agreement thing is great in practice, then you go to your FLGS and have two hours to play, do you really want to spend a third of that figuring out if the armies you have brought are near enough going to provide a fun game for both players. So its a great game if you are at home, planning out scenarios etc, not so good for pick up and play. Hence why I've seen some major independent retailers saying AoS has died after about a month after release in their stores.

Hell I played AoS for a few months before my lads got fed up of it, the rules are fine for what they are, but the lack of a true balancing system is an issue, if you say oh we'll take three heroes each for example, some of the older Chaos ones totally outclass the Sigmarite equivalents, even at what once would have been considered Hero level.

Our call in the end was to drop Fantasy all together, we just play 40K now, Heroclix (I mean how scary is that, Heroclix is better balanced than AoS for pick up and play, Heroclix is awful for balance) Imperial Assault and a few other things, at least the good news from GW and what was specialist games returning means we can look forward to the potential re-releases there.

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 17:13
Lets see in one year how many releases for 9th age and how many for AOS. Wanting something to be true isn't the same as it being true. AOS has just begun, 9th is flogging a dead horse. You forget the 9th age is an update to a failing game. That model of wargaming wasn't profitable which is why GW dropped it, and thats with the quality of models and books and resources at its disposal to make it work. AOS may fail but it only exists because 8th edition already failed.

I'm willing to take that bet, since AOS will probably be discontinued inside a year.

As for 9th Age being "an update to a failing game", first off, as pointed out above, Fantasy was a profitable line. It just didn't make as much money as GW wanted it to make. As for AOS, from all evidence, AOS is selling far worse than Warhammer Fantasy, which in 2012 was the 3rd best selling game on the market (which was around the time they made the decision to make AOS). Warhammer Fantasy, for instance, sold out limited edition books within days, while AOS has so far released six books, two of which were removed for failing to sell out, and another two finally sold out after being available for sale for months on end. Meanwhile, numerous independent retailers have been flogging AOS sets for 40% off or greater, sometimes to the point where they're losing money on it, which is something you never saw with Island of Blood, which again doesn't point to AOS being a successful seller (and some of those retailers have flat out admitted that they're selling AOS that cheap because they just want to get rid of their stock and never carry it again). Then there's hundreds of anecdotal reports of AOS killing the Fantasy scene in their area. And when asked about it by an investment reporter, a GW rep refused to make any claims about its being a financial success, and instead said it was a long-term investment (Business code for: "It's not actually selling like we thought it would").

And best of all? The latest financials, which shows GW making less money. This is a period in which AOS was released, as well as Tau and Betrayal at Calth, the latter of which we know was a hit. So if AOS was selling at least as well as Fantasy, then the success of Betrayal at Calth should've resulted in them making more money. The only way for that report to make sense is for AOS to have left a giant crater in their financials. A hole which Betrayal at Calth wasn't able to make up for.

So yeah, it looks like AOS is a huge financial failure on the part of GW.

Lexington
10-01-2016, 17:23
In this game you are obligated to work out a way to play a nice game with balanced forces.
So...it's up to the players to create a system in which models can be balanced against each other. Since models are, obviously, not directly comparable without some sort of objective measuring measuring system, players themselves will have to come up with a method to peg model value to. Numbers are the obvious way to go about this, so most anyone who wants to do this will create a system wherein models are assigned a numeric value in order to compare their relative worth to other models. Players who want to play a balanced game will, of course, want to play games wherein their overall forces are comprised of roughly the same total values.

What was wrong with points, again?

Katastrophe
10-01-2016, 18:04
I have let the dust on AOS and returned to these boards and sadly the negativity is still flowing. I am really struggling to understand both the depth of feelings and the content of the objections.

I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

Apparently everyone wants the same ranked system, the same points system, the same world and the same mythology.

The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger. I do take the criticism of the new settings on board in so far as it is poorly written. But there's no way a 30 year old mythology (that by the way was very derivative, didn't move forward at all in terms of the story and had become stale) can be replaced in 6 months. But there is no doubt that the writing and story development could be much better.

But I see AOS as having many more positives. It empowers players, is much more accessible, the models by and large have been stunning (with the exception of the space marines) and the scenarios add a much greater dimension to the game.

I hope it starts to turn a corner and I really look forward to new models for the previously established races.

If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age. If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

No, just stop.

Shame GW shills have become so transparent.

Kingrick
10-01-2016, 18:12
I'm willing to take that bet, since AOS will probably be discontinued inside a year.

As for 9th Age being "an update to a failing game", first off, as pointed out above, Fantasy was a profitable line. It just didn't make as much money as GW wanted it to make. As for AOS, from all evidence, AOS is selling far worse than Warhammer Fantasy, which in 2012 was the 3rd best selling game on the market (which was around the time they made the decision to make AOS). Warhammer Fantasy, for instance, sold out limited edition books within days, while AOS has so far released six books, two of which were removed for failing to sell out, and another two finally sold out after being available for sale for months on end. Meanwhile, numerous independent retailers have been flogging AOS sets for 40% off or greater, sometimes to the point where they're losing money on it, which is something you never saw with Island of Blood, which again doesn't point to AOS being a successful seller (and some of those retailers have flat out admitted that they're selling AOS that cheap because they just want to get rid of their stock and never carry it again). Then there's hundreds of anecdotal reports of AOS killing the Fantasy scene in their area. And when asked about it by an investment reporter, a GW rep refused to make any claims about its being a financial success, and instead said it was a long-term investment (Business code for: "It's not actually selling like we thought it would").

And best of all? The latest financials, which shows GW making less money. This is a period in which AOS was released, as well as Tau and Betrayal at Calth, the latter of which we know was a hit. So if AOS was selling at least as well as Fantasy, then the success of Betrayal at Calth should've resulted in them making more money. The only way for that report to make sense is for AOS to have left a giant crater in their financials. A hole which Betrayal at Calth wasn't able to make up for.

So yeah, it looks like AOS is a huge financial failure on the part of GW.

yep, this so called "failed system" use to hold an ironfist on fantasy wargaming, I think any failures it had in the recent decade was more mismanagement on GW's part and constant price hikes. AoS release will probably end up hurting GW more than they realize now, I don't know about a lot of you but I don't even buy 40k anymore, because I know that these are the same people that expected us to like AoS, so I have very little faith in what they are about to release. Honestly, if it wasn't for forgeworld doing horus heresy and people into older editions of fantasy, I probably wouldn't be doing much gaming at all.

ihavetoomuchminis
10-01-2016, 18:19
Why does this seems like "they dont get it" reformulated?

Why does this appears 3 days after the 6 months report wich shows (for those who want to see it) AoS is a failure?

Why does the OP speaks like a salesman? "If you want X, look no further AoS". Omg.

And on topic. No, AoS isnt innovative at all. It's just a lazy rushed work of a " game", with a mix of pay-to-win design philosophy and "buy this dlc we should have included in the game in the first place and you would somehow enjoy it", that seems to cater to the most hardcore brand-loyal GW fans who are desperate for using the models they are invested in, and nobody else.

And i dont get the love for the scenarios. I've read them and don't seem to improve the game at all and have zero replayability.

Pojko
10-01-2016, 18:25
You don't have to buy a book for the scenarios. They can be bought individually. This is one of the main areas of innovation that GW should make more of, but for some reason decided that they could not make that wholly positive change without changing everything else too.

It may not be innovative in 21st century business, but it is new to GW on this scale.

I bought the starter set, and one battlepack in Black Friday deals. Have not needed to buy more and more, and where I have, it has only been a few pounds.

Which still doesn't empower the player when the highly touted scenarios are locked behind a pay wall. You used to get scenarios for free in White Dwarf. That's not innovative for GW. That's taking a step backwards.
What you're basically describing is DLC. And we all know how much gaming communities hate that. The rules are free, but additional content to enrich the game will cost you a few bucks at a time. That adds up.

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 18:26
I have let the dust on AOS and returned to these boards and sadly the negativity is still flowing. I am really struggling to understand both the depth of feelings and the content of the objections.

I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

Apparently everyone wants the same ranked system, the same points system, the same world and the same mythology.

The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger. I do take the criticism of the new settings on board in so far as it is poorly written. But there's no way a 30 year old mythology (that by the way was very derivative, didn't move forward at all in terms of the story and had become stale) can be replaced in 6 months. But there is no doubt that the writing and story development could be much better.

But I see AOS as having many more positives. It empowers players, is much more accessible, the models by and large have been stunning (with the exception of the space marines) and the scenarios add a much greater dimension to the game.

I hope it starts to turn a corner and I really look forward to new models for the previously established races.

If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age. If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

I don't think AoS is innovative at all, in fact it is recapturing something that is decades old, but largely missing from the contemporary wargaming market, so I guess you could call it 're-innovating'.

A lot of folks think the only games that count as games are those where you can turn up and throw down with xyz point armies to see who is the better player so a game where building your army is all about role-playing a story rather than maximising how you spend your points does seem pretty meaningless.

I don't know a great deal about KoW, having no opportunities to play the game locally (though the poor quality of the model range speaks volumes), 9th age is essentially a protest game by people who need to show GW what they should have done, it's just such a pity so many of the fluffy rules that gave WFB it's unique flavour and charm have been sacrificed in the search for rule-perfection. 'Soulless' is a little harsh for either game, they just cater to a very different kind of hobbiests to me (and probably many of the other people interested in AoS).

ihavetoomuchminis
10-01-2016, 18:30
I don't know a great deal about KoW, having no opportunities to play the game locally (though the poor quality of the model range speaks volumes), 9th age is essentially a protest game by people who need to show GW what they should have done, it's just such a pity so many of the fluffy rules that gave WFB it's unique flavour and charm have been sacrificed in the search for rule-perfection. 'Soulless' is a little harsh for either game, they just cater to a very different kind of hobbiests to me (and probably many of the other people interested in AoS).

And those fluffy rules that gave WFB its unique flavour and charm in AoS are where??

Asmodios
10-01-2016, 18:35
It's not a "framework." It's a full game. And a very bad game, to boot. One which isn't innovative, but just poorly thought out.



Just because it never intended balance doesn't mean it can't be criticized for its lack of balance. Although to say that the game was never intended to be balanced... and then make the claim that it's much more balanced than previous games, is completely and utterly ludicrous. AOS is the most unbalanced game currently existing on the market, by its very nature. Were their unbalanced options in Warhammer Fantasy? Sure. But those were constrained by 1) Points limitations, 2) Army composition rules, 3) Alliance rules. AOS has none of those, so the end result is that no other game can ever be as wildly unbalanced as AOS.

For example, is a Steam Tank a powerful choice? Yes. But taking it was limited by the amounts of points you had, how many points you could allot in your Rare selections, and had to be taken in an army which met a minimum Core requirement and included a General from the Heroes or Lords section. Meanwhile, in AOS, you can take an army which consists of nothing but Steam Tanks (despite the fact that Steam Tanks ceased to exist millennia before, and yet here they are fighting against the AOS version of Archaon). On top of which, you couldn't pair the Steam Tank alongside certain units, because the allied rules didn't allow the Empire to work with certain races. But in AOS, you can happily pair a legion of Steam Tanks next to Archaon, the Celestant-Prime, Nagash, a Bloodthirster, Louen Leoncoeur (who's been dead for millennia), and Karl Franz (who's also been dead for millennia and is wielding the same weapon which is also being wielded by the Celestant-Prime. I guess there are two Ghal Maraz's?).

AOS, in its present state, is as far and away from creating a balanced game as you can get, and will never be anywhere near as balanced as Warhammer Fantasy in any of its iterations.
I don't think I could have said it any better

Lexington
10-01-2016, 18:38
I'm actually curious which fluffy rules 9th Age has actually sacrificed. O&G animosity always get brought up, but that's pretty much it. I was an O&G player for ages, and probably forgot about Animosity more times than I remembered it. Opponent, too. Fun as it might've been, that's the sign of a rule that wasn't really necessary.

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 18:41
I'm actually curious which fluffy rules 9th Age has actually sacrificed. O&G animosity always get brought up, but that's pretty much it.

Undead no longer cause fear, despite that always having been their thing in WFB, I'm not even sure why, it's not as if that was a random effect that spoiled the precision of points-values or whatever lame excuse is used for re-writing the personality of the greenskins. Since night goblins and tomb kings are my two main armies I rather lost interest in the whole project after they dropped the ball with those two.


And those fluffy rules that gave WFB its unique flavour and charm in AoS are where??

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, AoS is a different game set in a different world, it has a unique flavour all of its own. I'm interested to see how the orruks and grots are portrayed when they enter the AoS world. 9th Ages problem is that it is trying to be warhammer but the greenskins now get along famously with each other and nobody finds daemons or reanimated corpses any more frightening than a Bretonnian farmer, which rather ruins the immersion.

At the end of the day I feel that 9th age takes away from the WFB I remember rather than adding to it, and since I still have plenty of folks locally willing to play 8th edition that's a much easier path for me to take.

ScruffMan
10-01-2016, 18:42
This guy is clearly trying to stir things up (see "where do I post about AOS tactics"). Any responses are just feeding it.

ihavetoomuchminis
10-01-2016, 18:54
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, AoS is a different game set in a different world, it has a unique flavour all of its own. I'm interested to see how the orruks and grots are portrayed when they enter the AoS world. 9th Ages problem is that it is trying to be warhammer but the greenskins now get along famously with each other and nobody finds daemons or reanimated corpses any more frightening than a Bretonnian farmer, which rather ruins the immersion.

So, archaon in AoS is just a guy with the same name than that other guy in WFB. A happy coincidence.

Seraphon are not lizardmen, they just use the same models because reasons.

Fyreslayers are not slayers by any means.

Khorne....

Sigmar....

Skaven....

Ok, i get it. What is bad in non GW games, is good in a GW game.

Malagor
10-01-2016, 19:04
I'm actually curious which fluffy rules 9th Age has actually sacrificed. O&G animosity always get brought up, but that's pretty much it. I was an O&G player for ages, and probably forgot about Animosity more times than I remembered it. Opponent, too. Fun as it might've been, that's the sign of a rule that wasn't really necessary.
Ogre Kingdom's Ogres lost their ogre charge.

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 19:06
Ok, i get it. What is bad in non GW games, is good in a GW game.

So 40k must be the same game as WFB because it has Khorne and Slaanesh and orks right? No, because it's a different game with different mechanics set in a different world, kind of like the relationship between WFB and AoS.

AoS is not trying to be WFB, 9th age is, if the inhabitants of the warhammer world don't find daemons or skeletons scary any more and greenskins have suddenly become the model of a cooperative society the 9th age authors probably need to explain why in some actual fluff. Or if they're not bothered about the consistency and integrity of the setting so much as fixing the rules of the game then I guess they don't have to.


Ogre Kingdom's Ogres lost their ogre charge.

Which is sad for ogre players, do ogres still cause fear now or did they cop for that one like daemons and undead (is fear still a thing in 9A at all?)

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 19:08
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, AoS is a different game set in a different world, it has a unique flavour all of its own. I'm interested to see how the orruks and grots are portrayed when they enter the AoS world. 9th Ages problem is that it is trying to be warhammer but the greenskins now get along famously with each other and nobody finds daemons or reanimated corpses any more frightening than a Bretonnian farmer, which rather ruins the immersion.

I'm looking at my warscroll downloads, and I was wondering... Where are the animosity rules there? Why is it that when I look under the rules for daemons and reanimated corpses like zombies and skeletons, I see nothing about them being more frightening than a Bretonnian farmer?

Incidentally, right on the first page of the warscrolls, it states the following:

"The warscrolls in this compendium allow you to use your Citadel Miniatures collection in fantastical battle, whether telling epic stories set during the Age of Sigmar, or recreating the wars of the world-that-was."

MagicAngle
10-01-2016, 19:08
I don't want to re-surface the same arguements (sic) but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

Well if this conclusion is correct we can expect a whole tranche of games to be released along the lines of Age Of Sigmar in the next few years, as the community finally wakes up to this revolution in game design.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

Teurastaja
10-01-2016, 19:10
I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.


I guess you don't really play non-GW wargames, don't you? That would explain a lot.
AoS is a failed attempt at copying good ideas from other, well established games like Warmachine and merging them with some elements of WFB/40k.
There's nothing innovative about it. They just tried to cut cost of game design. Also, when it comes to background you don't really need 30 years for it to grow. Just look at Wrath of Kings - new game, full rulebook for free and a lot of information about whole setting. Here's a link for you: http://wrathofkings.com/ks/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WoK-Kickstarter-Rules.pdf

By all means enjoy AoS. Just, you know, do some research because there's nothing original about it.

75hastings69
10-01-2016, 19:11
your points are well made Hastings. A few comments. On the models, I really like all the chaos models and the new duardin models as well as the new terrain which represents well over half the models released.

as for the game design, it is a framework. It is much more than a blank piece of paper but there's no doubt it is incomplete. it remains a framework: phases of play with different roles for characters and certainly a different emphasis. Much more free flowing, less complexity, more terrain heavy games, different style of combat and shooting..there are some basic changes that cant be ignored. But you are absolutely right that if this company sees itself as being a games designer, then this is not acceptable. I think this isn't how they see themselves, at least when it comes to AOS. Games design as well as army construction has definitely been left in the hands of the players, rightly or wrongly depending on your perspective.

I don't think there should even be a discussion about balance. It contains no mechanic to balance opposition armies and never intended to. It is a casual non competitive game. I do think that the separate armies are much more balanced against each other than in previous games. In the previous edition, there were definitely overpowered armies like the dark elves for example, but this is much less the case now, which should be commended. Not to mention that many players have said that their armies play much more how they would have expected them to play in the AOS setting than in the previous one.

But here lies one of the biggest problems of AoS and sale. Because of its lack of balance mechanic (and structured unit formation) and also it's drop to a lower model count game (rather than large blocks of infantry etc) it fails to be a vehicle to drive sales. Who would have bought 5 boxes of empire soldiers if they hadn't needed to field big units/detachments for the GAME? The sales of these multiple boxes was driven by the rules and the army building mechanic, now look at AoS, buy and field what you like.... why would I buy 5 boxes of anything now? I don't need that many models any more for a start, I can mix and match anything from an army, and also the fact prices are up again is off putting also. The main problem is GW thought people are buying because they are collectors in the majority and so produced a "game" that is nothing more than a suggestion of something to do with your collection, problem is they're wrong, gamers are the main buyers and they will buy multiple kits etc to give them advantage in game or even in some cases just to build a fluffy army.

On another note I would find it incredibly ironic if chapter house started producing 9th age models, capitalising basically on a system that GW dropped, especially after all the legal shenanigans.

Malagor
10-01-2016, 19:16
Which is sad for ogre players, do ogres still cause fear now or did they cop for that one like daemons and undead (is fear still a thing in 9A at all?)
Some do but it's not a universal rule anymore.
The problem with fear in 8e was that most units had either high LD, fear causing themselfs or they were immune to psychology making things like fear and terror quite pointless.
I have lost count of how many times I played with my VC army and my opponent never had to take a fear test.
In 9th age they have reduced the number of fear causing units, ItP and all that just so that fear and terror has more of an effect on the game rather then just being a dead rule.

scruffyryan
10-01-2016, 19:18
For me, it is one step short on innovation.

Open access to rules, great flexibility on release schedule, automatically updating app for new releases. A great step forward.

.

These aren't innovations though, they're following the footsteps of OTHER games companies. Privateer Press has the flexible release schedule and updating app, Mantic has the open access to rules, PP also has rules cards for individual units that you get when you buy the unit. Nothing particularly innovative in copying things others have done for years.

Nubl0
10-01-2016, 19:18
Ogre Kingdom's Ogres lost their ogre charge.

No. They didn't.

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 19:19
But here lies one of the biggest problems of AoS and sale. Because of its lack of balance mechanic (and structured unit formation) and also it's drop to a lower model count game (rather than large blocks of infantry etc) it fails to be a vehicle to drive sales. Who would have bought 5 boxes of empire soldiers if they hadn't needed to field big units/detachments for the GAME? The sales of these multiple boxes was driven by the rules and the army building mechanic, now look at AoS, buy and field what you like.... why would I buy 5 boxes of anything now? I don't need that many models any more for a start, I can mix and match anything from an army, and also the fact prices are up again is off putting also. The main problem is GW thought people are buying because they are collectors in the majority and so produced a "game" that is nothing more than a suggestion of something to do with your collection, problem is they're wrong, gamers are the main buyers and they will buy multiple kits etc to give them advantage in game or even in some cases just to build a fluffy army.

On another note I would find it incredibly ironic if chapter house started producing 9th age models, capitalising basically on a system that GW dropped, especially after all the legal shenanigans.

I think that's the first time I've read anyone advance the theory that not requiring you to buy 5 boxes of state troops to field a single unit in AoS is a bad thing. This was the biggest problem that crippled WFB in the end, requiring such an absurd outlay to compile a single unit all but neutered recruitment for WFB. GW drive WFB into the dirt because of their emphasis on larger and larger armies but just as that drove the veterans to buy more and more models it also created a mounting barrier to entry to new people starting in the hobby.

The obvious solution seems to be launch a new game with a smaller buy-in requirement in the hope that more people will pick it up, it's better to have 500 people buying one box of state troops than 50 people buying 5 boxes after all.

I'm under few illusions, if AoS does eventually take off it wouldn't surprise me if GW pulled the same trick over the next however many years and editions of AoS, incrementally increasing the size of units forcing players to buy more and more models to keep playing and repeating their mistakes of the past all over again, but for the moment I like where AoS is.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 19:20
This guy is clearly trying to stir things up (see "where do I post about AOS tactics"). Any responses are just feeding it.
Yep, it's quite clearly a trolljob (although it's not quite outlandish enough for it to not have been a real AoS-supporter).


All from July 2015:

I have no doubt GW couldn't care less about forums. In the same way they couldn't care less about producing a game of high quality that they can put their names on proudly. The rules for AOS could have been written by a teenager. And I am being generous. I can't believe that a rules/games design team was used to produce that. The tragedy will be that fantastic models will be released that won't sell because the foundation of the game, the framework, is garbage.

Instead they offer rules that are actually not player friendly in any way. No diagrams, walls of text, no examples, just a basic framework and then we are told to get on with it. They don't even state how long the game lasts! Not to balance the game in some way is frankly negligent. Every game of any type I can think of has a balancing mechanic. Equal number of players on each side, equal pieces on each side, equal turns, whatever it may be. No one expects the players themselves to micromanage their own game. Forget about tabletop games, I am talking games in general.

I cannot believe anyone at GW is genuinely proud of this product as a game. If they are, then they are staggeringly incompetent. It has a sense of insulting its customers, by not doing them the service of actually writing proper rules. Monopoly has more rules than this. My son is at the right age where I would have introduced him to tabletop gaming. As it stands he is going to grow out of this game in about 3 months. If they think kids aren't going to get bored of this then they are about to get a big surprise. Kids aren't stupid, they need constant engagement and variety, more so than adults. This will be far too mundane for them..

F2P games give you a good game for free and offer you bonuses that you can pay for. This game asks you to buy the models with no decent game to support them. It's not free to play. It's pay and play a bad game.

I am assuming that most people won't simply buy the models because they are nice. They will want to use them in the gaming environment. I repeat what I said, make the best product you can and people will want it. Especially hobby customers who are usually susceptible to reckless spending on collections, and emotional investment in their hobby. It would have taken very very little to snare me into AoS. But I am not going to waste my time doing games designer's job for them. The very fact that they didn't want to do it in the first place bothers me!

To me it shows that GW no longer take pride in their products, or care very much about their customers. Why do you think store managers are fire fighting right now.s
Well done I guess dragonelf. You got us:eyebrows:

Zywus
10-01-2016, 19:20
This guy is clearly trying to stir things up (see "where do I post about AOS tactics"). Any responses are just feeding it.
Yep, it's quite clearly a trolljob (although it's not quite outlandish enough for it to not have been a real AoS-supporter).


All from July 2015:

I have no doubt GW couldn't care less about forums. In the same way they couldn't care less about producing a game of high quality that they can put their names on proudly. The rules for AOS could have been written by a teenager. And I am being generous. I can't believe that a rules/games design team was used to produce that. The tragedy will be that fantastic models will be released that won't sell because the foundation of the game, the framework, is garbage.

Instead they offer rules that are actually not player friendly in any way. No diagrams, walls of text, no examples, just a basic framework and then we are told to get on with it. They don't even state how long the game lasts! Not to balance the game in some way is frankly negligent. Every game of any type I can think of has a balancing mechanic. Equal number of players on each side, equal pieces on each side, equal turns, whatever it may be. No one expects the players themselves to micromanage their own game. Forget about tabletop games, I am talking games in general.

I cannot believe anyone at GW is genuinely proud of this product as a game. If they are, then they are staggeringly incompetent. It has a sense of insulting its customers, by not doing them the service of actually writing proper rules. Monopoly has more rules than this. My son is at the right age where I would have introduced him to tabletop gaming. As it stands he is going to grow out of this game in about 3 months. If they think kids aren't going to get bored of this then they are about to get a big surprise. Kids aren't stupid, they need constant engagement and variety, more so than adults. This will be far too mundane for them..

F2P games give you a good game for free and offer you bonuses that you can pay for. This game asks you to buy the models with no decent game to support them. It's not free to play. It's pay and play a bad game.

I am assuming that most people won't simply buy the models because they are nice. They will want to use them in the gaming environment. I repeat what I said, make the best product you can and people will want it. Especially hobby customers who are usually susceptible to reckless spending on collections, and emotional investment in their hobby. It would have taken very very little to snare me into AoS. But I am not going to waste my time doing games designer's job for them. The very fact that they didn't want to do it in the first place bothers me!

To me it shows that GW no longer take pride in their products, or care very much about their customers. Why do you think store managers are fire fighting right now.s
Well done I guess dragonelf. You got us:eyebrows:

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 19:20
Ok, first off, I do not and have never worked for GW. I am no salesman and in fact I have purchased precisely zero of the new AOS releases mainly because I have so much fantasy stuff I don't see the need to.

I have serious concerns about GW and those issues contributed to the failure of fantasy. And whoever tells you different is frankly deluded. Show me the profit/loss figure for fantasy because that would be news to me since GW don't break down their financials.

I have no doubt AOS has been a financial failure by the way. The launch was shambolic, the pre-launch was even worse, and the game was unfinished and the whole thing has come across as distinctly amateur.

That does not change the potential of the game that I personally see and some others who have commented on this thread.
The new fluff was never going to catch on immediately because it takes years to do that, and it isn't helped by the poor quality of the writing and some of the books.

However, it has tried to retain some of the WHFB mythology, some of the well known characters which is to be expected so that it can bridge the two universes more easily. There is a world of difference between GW using their own characters and mythology in their new world albeit with different names, and another manufacturer doing it. One is authentic, the other is not. George Lucas putting jedi in episode 1 is not the same as someone else putting deji in trek wars episode 1.

I wish 9th age well, I really do. If the community wants it and sustains it, then I hope it goes on forever, but it doesn't change the fact that it is going to suffer from no miniatures, no books, no manufacturing base and no resources in comparison to GW. It is also trying to improve on a failed model as I have said. If fantasy was such a success there is no way that GW would scrap it in the manner that it has.

I take on board people who hate AOS, I personally am cautiously optimistic, and am willing to give it a chance. That is all.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 19:24
Yep, it's quite clearly a trolljob (although it's not quite outlandish enough for it to not have been a real AoS-supporter).


All from July 2015:




Well done I guess dragonelf. You got us:eyebrows:

Sorry to double post but I think you owe me an apology.

Do you still think I work for GW!

Look at the dates of those posts.

That is exactly how I felt when the game came out, as did many others. Then, I decided to give it a chance and try it out and try and be positive especially as I had invested so much in the game till that point.

I notice you don't dig up my posts from a few months ago. Why don't you enlighten us on what they say....

(sorry to double post)

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 19:26
I take on board people who hate AOS, I personally am cautiously optimistic, and am willing to give it a chance. That is all.

Welcome to the club, regrettably that won't change the fact that some folks on Warseer see it as their sacred duty to witch-hunt anyone who expresses a positive opinion of aos. Prepare to have every post you've ever written on Warseer scrutinised for the slightest inconsistency.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 19:29
Welcome to the club, regrettably that won't change the fact that some folks on Warseer see it as their sacred duty to witch-hunt anyone who expresses a positive opinion of aos. Prepare to have every post you've ever written on Warseer scrutinised for the slightest inconsistency.

Spot on. I have no problem with people who hate AOS, but why they feel the need to take it out on people that don't is beyond me....

Tyelacoirii
10-01-2016, 19:35
I don't think Fantasy was profitable. Maybe in 2012 but certainly not by 2015. With rising competition from Warmachine, X-Wing and others (many of which were only starting or had yet to really break into mainstream) the writing was on the wall.

I feel the problem with Fantasy was that you had to buy, assemble and preferably paint vast numbers of rank and file troops (often core, often undesirable). This was perhaps unsurprisingly not popular and was getting less popular year on year.

No one wants to go "I really like the look of the screaming bell, a doomwheel and those new mech-rat ogres" to be told "yeah that's great, but here is 100-150 clanrats for you to be getting on with - come back in 6 months to a year once you have got them ready."

I think the only armies this doesn't apply to is Chaos Warriors and I guess to some degree Ogres. Even Elves unless you bulk out on cavalry will have a fair number of repetitive infantry to paint.

Partly the reason for this (although you can only go so far) is that the rules do not really work for small armies. Sub 2000 points is suspect, sub 1000 is just silly.

So GW were faced with a problem. Really to compete they wanted a game where you could pick whatever models you liked the look of and could scale up from say around £100 spent up to whatever. Rather than the current situation where you had to spend something like £500-600 and probably around £150 was on core units whether you liked them or not (with a bit of variation from army book to army book).

There is also the criticism that the rules were quite complicated, there is a lot to remember and some slimming down might be a good thing. To be fair this is a requirement of every new edition and by the end there is always rule bloat. The problem is rules bloat is how armies get character.

The hard solution would be to completely rebalance the game so that it did work from micro armies up to big ones and you could use whatever you liked. There wouldn't be core, special and rare. Basic infantry would have to be balanced to the point where people would want to take them. Maybe this would be impossible (I can't say) but I feel it shouldn't be.

Instead we had:
Learning rules are a problem? Here are some incredibly simple rules that are so simple its explicitly a board game. There is no intention to replicate a battle in any sort of sense.
Points are stopping people buying models? Scrap points.

As a result you end up with an incredibly shallow game. Its less narrative because it pure stats. There is no trade off for anything than the best units. That unit being better because it hits and wounds on a 3+ always while that unit hits and wounds on a 4+. Oh you can say there is synergy but its explicitly written in the unit description. There is no soul at all.

As for killing the fluff - its just weird. I don't see how it has freed up any creative possibilities that were not there already.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 19:39
Sorry to double post but I think you owe me an apology.

Do you still think I work for GW!
I have never claimed that you worked for GW


Look at the dates of those posts.

That is exactly how I felt when the game came out, as did many others. Then, I decided to give it a chance and try it out and try and be positive especially as I had invested so much in the game till that point.You had it right the first time.

I am sorry to hear that you have fallen into the trap of the sunk cost fallacy ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy ). There are much better uses for your models. Have you heard about this game called Kings of War or perhaps 9th age?


I notice you don't dig up my posts from a few months ago. Why don't you enlighten us on what they say....

(sorry to double post)I just checked on your started threads and those were the latest before this one. If you've truly had a change of heart and converted to AoS, then so be it and I guess i owe you an apology for accusing you of trolling. Please do tell your story all about how, your views on AoS got flipped; turned upside down...

I just found it more probable that someone were trolling than you having once realized what a hack-job AoS are but then sings it's praises a few months later

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 19:43
I am hoping the synergy/tactics will come from the buffs from support units. There are also some improvements in the mechanics. The unkillable characters of 8th edition, the apocalyptic spells, cannon sniping, the cumbersome rules that you mention. The game is much more playable.

It is much more narrative, in fact it probably only works as part of a narrative. The fluff is definitely an issue but one thing I do like is that at least it isn't chaos always trying to invade or rebel or overthrow. I nice difference is that it is chaos in control and the 'good guys' are trying to overthrow them. I also like the difference realms and the variety that the terrain rules bring with each realm.

The rest I am not a fan of although if I am honest, apart from my beloved skaven, I wasn't really in love with the mythology of the previous world which is probably why I haven't taken it getting blown up as badly as others. I do think the story of what happened next though is rather silly.

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 19:43
To be fair I've played games of warhammer as small as 500pts, but the limitations of the game at that size are so immense that you have virtually no choice in list building and as a result games become incredibly boring and predictable. The other thing I really like about AoS over WFB is that if I buy three boxes of troops for AoS I've potentially got three different, completely functional units, in WFB I have to buy three identical boxes (or in the case of state troops or skeletons, 5 boxes) to field a single unit, a unit like that is going to take me months to get it painted even assuming I can maintain my momentum.

I actually started collecting an Empire army when the 7th edition army book came out but I never summoned the motivation to paint the two hordes of state troops required to fill out my core section and as a result never even played a game with them.

Kahadras
10-01-2016, 19:44
Welcome to the club, regrettably that won't change the fact that some folks on Warseer see it as their sacred duty to witch-hunt anyone who expresses a positive opinion of aos.

Don't worry you can always see it as your sacred duty to steam into any thread that's expressing a negative opinion of AoS and set them straight.

On topic. No. No I don't think it is. With GW drawing down the curtain on Warhammer it was a chance to break from the old and come up with something new and innovative. So why not come up with some new races? Screw Orcs, Dwarves and Elves. Lets have Mermen, Cat people, Gnomes, Mechanical golems and Faries as the new Races. Instead of D6 lets use D8 or D10. Instead of IGUG let's have alternate activations. Lets have rule cards/upgrade cards for the individual units in the box (a la X-Wing).

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 19:45
Lets have rule cards/upgrade cards for the individual units in the box (a la X-Wing).

Well, to be fair, that'd be derivative, not innovative. :D

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 19:46
I have never claimed that you worked for GW

You had it right the first time.

I am sorry to hear that you have fallen into the trap of the sunk cost fallacy ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy ). There are much better uses for your models. Have you heard about this game called Kings of War or perhaps 9th age?

I just checked on your started threads and those were the latest before this one. If you've truly had a change of heart and converted to AoS, then so be it and I guess i owe you an apology for accusing you of trolling. Please do tell your story all about how, your views on AoS got flipped; turned upside down...


And this is how you troll when you dislike AoS, there really is no need to trawl through someone's posting history looking for ammunition just because you disagree with them about AoS, that's called harassment.


Lets have rule cards/upgrade cards for the individual units in the box (a la X-Wing).

I'm pretty sure that is what they're doing with the new AoS models (at least the box of blood warriors I bought yesterday have a copy of their warscroll in the box), of course I find it much more convenient to use the AoS app, but I guess having the option of a paper warscroll is what some folks like.


Don't worry you can always see it as your sacred duty to steam into any thread that's expressing a negative opinion of AoS and set them straight

I like to offer the opposing view point when I think the game is being unfairly represented (which in AoS' case it often), but I do usually stop short of trawling through the posting history of users with a different opinion to find quotes I can use against them or trivialising someone's personal opinion by claiming they have a psychological syndrome or disorder.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 19:51
And this is how you troll when you dislike AoS...
I'm not sure your definition of trolling corresponds with the definition of the word. But I do dislike AoS. Guilty as charged on that point.

Kahadras
10-01-2016, 19:52
Well, to be fair, that'd be derivative, not innovative.

It would be innovative for GW. They could include cards for special equipment/magic items/magic banners/unique named units. No need for army books anymore. GW wouldn't be limited to splurge releases but could drop individual units for each army whenever they want.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 19:52
I have never claimed that you worked for GW

You had it right the first time.

I am sorry to hear that you have fallen into the trap of the sunk cost fallacy ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy ). There are much better uses for your models. Have you heard about this game called Kings of War or perhaps 9th age?

I just checked on your started threads and those were the latest before this one. If you've truly had a change of heart and converted to AoS, then so be it and I guess i owe you an apology for accusing you of trolling. Please do tell your story all about how, your views on AoS got flipped; turned upside down...

I just found it more probable that someone were trolling than you having once realized what a hack-job AoS are but then sings it's praises a few months later

I have never deliberately tried to troll people. I won't bore you with my full story but basically, I stopped playing fantasy before the End Times. I was a fantasy player since University, for those that remember, back in the days of the Undead army book of cheese, third edition I think!

But I didn't like 8th edition at all. I found it cynical, I didn't like the idea of building huge units of 50, i didn't like the return of the crazy powered spells and heroes that ruined the game several editions before. Our gaming group was more or less in agreement so we stopped playing. End Times didn't really re-ignite our interest. But with AOS coming, I was excited. I had this big fantasy collection and was looking forward to something new and exciting. Then the shambles that was the launch and the awful first 'book', and I was really angry. I like the idea of warscrolls but couldn't believe I was reading about hoodies and kneeling, and drinking beer to get advantages. So like many and was very angry.

But being angry isn't productive. So I let everything settled down and watched and waited. The community tried to balance the game, I had the models so I gave it a try using one of the balance methods and found it enjoyable and I still do.

It's no high brow technical game of millimetres and areas of effect and tactical expertise. But it is fun. Sometimes pizza is a nice meal, even though it's cheese and tomato on toast.

We meet up, have a chat, put models on a table filled with terrain, create a back story and play it out.
It has serious problems, it is unfinished, it has loopholes and it requires a lot of house ruling, but it is still fun. I no longer lie awake in bed thinking about army selection but there is definite in-game tactics and it works beautifully as a multiplayer game. In fact the 3-4 player rules are some of the most fun I have had wargaming.

That is it for me. I am not a convert, I am not a fanboy, but I am not a doom monger. You can fall between those two extremes.

75hastings69
10-01-2016, 19:53
I think that's the first time I've read anyone advance the theory that not requiring you to buy 5 boxes of state troops to field a single unit in AoS is a bad thing. This was the biggest problem that crippled WFB in the end, requiring such an absurd outlay to compile a single unit all but neutered recruitment for WFB. GW drive WFB into the dirt because of their emphasis on larger and larger armies but just as that drove the veterans to buy more and more models it also created a mounting barrier to entry to new people starting in the hobby.

The obvious solution seems to be launch a new game with a smaller buy-in requirement in the hope that more people will pick it up, it's better to have 500 people buying one box of state troops than 50 people buying 5 boxes after all.

I'm under few illusions, if AoS does eventually take off it wouldn't surprise me if GW pulled the same trick over the next however many years and editions of AoS, incrementally increasing the size of units forcing players to buy more and more models to keep playing and repeating their mistakes of the past all over again, but for the moment I like where AoS is.

It's a bad thing for sales spiney. Don't forget gws entire production is geared towards plastic (I.e. High tooling costs but low casting medium costs) this relies on either mass sales (I.e. People buying multiple boxes or many many people buying small amounts) or for larger plastic kits paying an excessive price because there is no reason to buy more than 1 kit (I.e. New archaon £100).

The problem was GW moved both goal posts as it were, wfb ended up you required buying multiple boxes and at a high price per box, which as you rightly say was an entry barrier and a turn of for existing customers.

IMO what wfb needed was an entry level game (which AoS could have been) to allow people to dip into the world without having to spend a fortune or having to paint a unit of 60 shaven slaves. If people took up the main WFB game then great more sales, but even if they didn't at least you've sold some stuff to people that just dipped their toes in, and also importantly exposed them to the brand. But obviously that's just my opinion.

Flipmode
10-01-2016, 19:54
Which still doesn't empower the player when the highly touted scenarios are locked behind a pay wall. You used to get scenarios for free in White Dwarf. That's not innovative for GW. That's taking a step backwards.
What you're basically describing is DLC. And we all know how much gaming communities hate that. The rules are free, but additional content to enrich the game will cost you a few bucks at a time. That adds up.

Yeah, people hate DLC. They also hate unsupported games.

If one part of a system is free, another gets more expensive.

I agree with you, but AoS is bad enough in places without needing to misrepresent it further, like saying you have to buy full books, or Buddy's fixation with selling non-mandatory special editions.

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 19:56
It would be innovative for GW. They could include cards for special equipment/magic items/magic banners/unique named units. No need for army books anymore. GW wouldn't be limited to splurge releases but could drop individual units for each army whenever they want.

Sorry, I couldn't resist the urge to make a joke. ;) But yeah, that would be a fantastic way to go about things. Sadly, GW will only ever copy the worst ideas of other companies and pile even dumber ideas on top of those, rather than emulating the good ideas their competitors have come up with.

Zywus
10-01-2016, 19:59
It's no high brow technical game of millimetres and areas of effect and tactical expertise. But it is fun. Sometimes pizza is a nice meal, even though it's cheese and tomato on toast.

We meet up, have a chat, put models on a table filled with terrain, create a back story and play it out.
I'm sure you and your friends are having fun. I'd argue though, that it's despite the game you are playing being AoS rather than because that's the game of your choice.

If you had given KoW, 9th Age or one of the other offerings out there the same leeway and benefit of the doubt as you eventually gave AoS, you'd most probably have as good a time with those games and probably better.

Kahadras
10-01-2016, 20:03
Sorry, I couldn't resist the urge to make a joke. But yeah, that would be a fantastic way to go about things. Sadly, GW will only ever copy the worst ideas of other companies and pile even dumber ideas on top of those, rather than emulating the good ideas their competitors have come up with.

Yeah I understood it was a joke but having played so much Armarda/X-wing I seriously wish GW had 'looked over' FFG's shoulder a bit when they were comming up with AoS (and over WotC's shoulder when they were writing the AoS background).


I like to offer the opposing view point when I think the game is being unfairly represented (which in AoS' case it often),

No worries. Just remember that people might feel that the game is being unfairly represented by those who are supportive of AoS

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 20:04
I'm sure you and your friends are having fun. I'd argue though, that it's despite the game you are playing being AoS rather than because that's the game of your choice.

If you had given KoW, 9th Age or one of the other offerings out there the same leeway and benefit of the doubt as you eventually gave AoS, you'd most probably have as good a time with those games and probably better.

Yeah, Dragonelf is clearly having fun wrong and should stop immediately and find a way to have the more correct form of fun. Stop with the over-biased sales pitch please.

All those games require a much larger investment of time and a larger quantity of models than AoS, 8th ed WFB is a brilliant game but it fills a very different niche in my hobby experience to AoS, and most of the reasons I like AoS are incompatible with the games you mentioned.

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 20:05
... or Buddy's fixation with selling non-mandatory special editions.

You say that as if GW didn't expect to sell them, or their inability to sell them out didn't lose them hundreds of thousands of dollars which they would have now if they'd instead been Warhammer Fantasy limited editions, which all sold out within days. But I guess that's pocket money in your estimation...


IMO what wfb needed was an entry level game (which AoS could have been) to allow people to dip into the world without having to spend a fortune or having to paint a unit of 60 shaven slaves. If people took up the main WFB game then great more sales, but even if they didn't at least you've sold some stuff to people that just dipped their toes in, and also importantly exposed them to the brand. But obviously that's just my opinion.

Personally, what I think would have done wonders for them would have been to bring back Warhammer Quest and Mordheim, or a game more similar to Mordheim, and create tighter links between the two and Warhammer Fantasy. Have Warhammer Quest be the game that's marketed in Walmart's and Barnes & Noble's and Toys R Us's all over the world, then develop it so you can then move on to Mordheim, with warbands more closely aligned with the factions of the setting, before escalating fully into Warhammer Fantasy. So you might start Warhammer Quest with a Bretonnian Questing Knight, then move on to a Bretonnian Warband which could include that Questing Knight, and that Bretonnian Warband could then serve as the foundation of your Bretonnian army in Warhammer Fantasy. And of course, it would've helped a lot if kits were more affordable...

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 20:05
I'm sure you and your friends are having fun. I'd argue though, that it's despite the game you are playing being AoS rather than because that's the game of your choice.

If you had given KoW, 9th Age or one of the other offerings out there the same leeway and benefit of the doubt as you eventually gave AoS, you'd most probably have as good a time with those games and probably better.

Maybe so, I did download the KOW rules, but although the rules are tight and well written, I couldn't get emotionally invested in the armies themselves. That's not to say that I won't take another look at it.

But we are having a lot of fun with AOS and it has actually taken the competitive edge out of some of the more competitive players in our group which has made the whole experience much more enjoyable. You can still power list with AOS and we do use one of the existing balancing methods, but the bits we talk about in games are usually story driven rather than what is the optimal build of something or other. I have also been much more engaged with painting because I can just buy more or less whatever models I like and still use them in my army. I am not restricted although we do stick to having an overarching faction eg order destruction etc

Spiney Norman
10-01-2016, 20:18
IMO what wfb needed was an entry level game (which AoS could have been) to allow people to dip into the world without having to spend a fortune or having to paint a unit of 60 shaven slaves. If people took up the main WFB game then great more sales, but even if they didn't at least you've sold some stuff to people that just dipped their toes in, and also importantly exposed them to the brand. But obviously that's just my opinion.

I agree actually, I would have liked them to continue WFB alongside AoS, but I understand why they didn't, they tried running a mass-battle game alongside a skirmish game with Lotr and Battle for middle earth and that failed spectacularly (though probably not for the reasons they thought).

I think they wanted AoS to be a game where they could show off how good their models could be without having to worry about ranking them up on a tiny square base, which I'm glad about really, there is no way we would have had the new blood warrior models in the old square-based paradigm because they would have been harder to rank up than the old metal temple guard. I'm really enjoying the small-unit sizes that AoS makes viable, units of 50+ models had really started to get me down in WFB and is the main reason I haven't started a new army for WFB since the beginning of 8th.

It's fair to say that GW isn't the company I wish it was, and there are many things about AoS that I think could be improved, but I'm not ready to walk just yet.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 20:25
Remember there was a game called Warhammer Skirmish and Mordheim as well. I think their main failure with fantasy was making the entry point too high by composing rules that were not functional at low points values. They tried to sell their product first and wrote the rules to facilitate that. They should have concentrated on making a great game that could function at multiple points level, in a setting that was vibrant, exciting and moved forwards and trust that profits would roll in by virtue of it being a good product.

Now they have made a game with a low price point that they hope will be scaleable through the freedom that it allows. They've gone for great models and compromised the setting and especially the rules have been very much an afterthought.

scruffyryan
10-01-2016, 20:30
Mordheim was amazing, AoS being a modified mordheim setting would have served the smaller scale goal nicely, while still being a good way to collect models to use in a larger WFB. The fact that they never meshed the factions of mordheim with the factions of WFB and the same for necromunda is one of the biggest failures of GW in the last 20 years as far as i'm concerned.

Voss
10-01-2016, 20:35
Now they have made a game with a low price point that they hope will be scaleable through the freedom that it allows. They've gone for great models and compromised the setting and especially the rules have been very much an afterthought.

Sorry, what is this game with a low price point and great models, and why hasn't anyone heard of it?

And why, of all things, would you think that low prices and great model design (even if they were true, despite all evidence to the contrary- GW's model prices are in fact the worst they've ever been) would compromise setting and rules? They're different aspects worked on by completely different teams. There is no opportunity cost or reason for one to affect the other.

Gonefishing
10-01-2016, 20:49
But here lies one of the biggest problems of AoS and sale. Because of its lack of balance mechanic (and structured unit formation) and also it's drop to a lower model count game (rather than large blocks of infantry etc) it fails to be a vehicle to drive sales. Who would have bought 5 boxes of empire soldiers if they hadn't needed to field big units/detachments for the GAME? The sales of these multiple boxes was driven by the rules and the army building mechanic, now look at AoS, buy and field what you like.... why would I buy 5 boxes of anything now? I don't need that many models any more for a start, I can mix and match anything from an army, and also the fact prices are up again is off putting also. The main problem is GW thought people are buying because they are collectors in the majority and so produced a "game" that is nothing more than a suggestion of something to do with your collection, problem is they're wrong, gamers are the main buyers and they will buy multiple kits etc to give them advantage in game or even in some cases just to build a fluffy army.



Yep - this.

I've been a gamer for 26 years, I've never been a collector. I no longer buy GW products because they don't make a game remotely worth playing with them, AOS is barely a game and I want a company to supply me with a finished product - not the suggestion of something I can do with the models. 40K is just now a ever expanding mess that's impossible to keep up with, and seems intent on forcing everyone to play epic in 28 MM scale / Armageddon. Both of GW's main gaming products (imo) are pretty awful, as games.

That's why I now play DZC and give my gaming budget to Hawk - the game is awesome - the fact that the models are also pretty is nice, but completely secondary to why I game.

I would love to know where GW suddenly got the idea that their customers were all collectors rather than gamers, as in my experience that's just a laughable conclusion and shows no understanding of the demographics of their games or product....was it just wishful thinking?

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 20:56
Remember there was a game called Warhammer Skirmish and Mordheim as well.

I don't recall Warhammer Skirmish. Mordheim, though, didn't feed into Warhammer Fantasy, with warbands which really weren't related to the armies played on the tabletop. For instance, there were no Sisters of Sigmar anywhere in Warhammer Fantasy as a unit. Although set in Warhammer Fantasy, it was developed as a more standalone game and didn't really serve as an entry point into Warhammer Fantasy, much in the same way that Necromunda was set in the 40k universe, but was mostly divorced from 40k, as the gangers generally weren't used for 40k games. What would have been more useful for the purposes of providing a hook to get people into the bigger game would have been to have warbands which represented all the armies, and for the models in those warbands to be usable in those armies. For instance, you want to have a Sisters of Sigmar warband? Great. But how much better would it be if the Sisters of Sigmar were a unit which I could take in my Empire army? See, in that case, I would not only be collecting a warband for Mordheim, but I'd also have a unit usable in Warhammer Fantasy.


I think their main failure with fantasy was making the entry point too high by composing rules that were not functional at low points values.

I've never had a problem playing 1,000 point games. I think people are grossly over exaggerating the "unplayability" of Fantasy at low levels. Even at the 500 point level I could come up with a pretty interesting Empire force, with a Captain of the Empire on an Imperial Pegasus, 20 Halberdiers, a 5 Handgunner Detachment, 5 Pistoliers, and a Great Cannon. That force right there is not only bigger than the Sigmarine force you find in the starter set, but it has just as much unit variety.

Personally, though, I think their main issue was not doing a better job with the rules and pricing themselves out of the marketplace. They designed the 8th edition rules with larger and larger units in mind and then, rather than making units easier to purchase, they jacked the prices up to ridiculous levels. I think Warhammer Fantasy would be sitting pretty solidly on the market right now if it had a rules set along the lines of 9th Age or Kings of War and was accompanied by more reasonably priced kits, like 20-man infantry boxes for $35, whether they're State Troops, Greatswords, Witch Elves, etc, and no absurdly costed units like $74.25 Grail/Questing Knights or $99 Blood Knights. And it'd be doing even better if it had a Mordheim scale game feeding into it, and a widely disseminated Warhammer Quest game which in turn fed into the Mordheim style game.


They tried to sell their product first and wrote the rules to facilitate that. They should have concentrated on making a great game that could function at multiple points level, in a setting that was vibrant, exciting and moved forwards and trust that profits would roll in by virtue of it being a good product.

Agreed. I just wish they had made that game instead of Age of Sigmar.


Now they have made a game with a low price point...

What game would that be? It's certainly not Age of Sigmar.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Archaon-Exalted
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Varanguard-Knights-of-Ruin
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Celestant-Prime
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Prosecutors-with-Celestial-Hammers
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Paladins-Retributors
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Rotbringers-Putrid-Blightkings
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Judicators


They've gone for great models and compromised the setting and especially the rules have been very much an afterthought.

Again, you say that as if great models didn't or couldn't exist prior to Age of Sigmar. The quality of the models are totally independent of the setting and the rules, and plenty of great models came out before Age of Sigmar. I'd argue that better models came out before Age of Sigmar, actually, as GW is now fixated on developing models which are overloaded with details and tied in to their new mediocre setting, which is why we can't just have Dwarf Slayers with weapons. They also have to have ur-gold plastered all over their body, which eliminates my interest in using them as part of my planned Kings of War Dwarf army.

dragonelf
10-01-2016, 20:57
Sorry, what is this game with a low price point and great models, and why hasn't anyone heard of it?

And why, of all things, would you think that low prices and great model design (even if they were true, despite all evidence to the contrary- GW's model prices are in fact the worst they've ever been) would compromise setting and rules? They're different aspects worked on by completely different teams. There is no opportunity cost or reason for one to affect the other.

You can effectively buy a box of 5 models in AOS and have a unit. You can easily play this game with 3 or 4 units. You may not like the models but in my opinion with the exception of the stormcast models, they are excellent not to mention the new terrain.

It scales up and down very effectively and is easy to learn. Whether you like the rules or not this cannot be denied.

In comparison to fantasy 8th edition it has a much much lower entry point.

Gonefishing
10-01-2016, 21:18
You can effectively buy a box of 5 models in AOS and have a unit. You can easily play this game with 3 or 4 units. You may not like the models but in my opinion with the exception of the stormcast models, they are excellent not to mention the new terrain.

It scales up and down very effectively and is easy to learn. Whether you like the rules or not this cannot be denied.

In comparison to fantasy 8th edition it has a much much lower entry point.

To my mind though, what's the point? Yes, I could play it more cheaply than GW's other game - but as the "rules" are very much pay to win, as soon as someone in my group started buying more mini's or just focusing on the elite units I would have to buy more to catch up. Its the table top equivalent of Pokémon...or its meant to be anyway (and its to expensive for that model to work). And all that aside, there's no hard choices to make, no tactical finesse needed.... no structure to what I can take, no planning or list building - effectively, nothing about it to get my teeth into or keep me interested / make me interested enough to play it (as someone who has no real interest in or attachment to the models themselves).

If you enjoy it then great, but you have to concede that the concept behind it is pretty damn limited for those of us who like to "game". It's not innovative - it's just poor games design and a regressive step back to GW circa 1980, there's a reason no one out there is trying to emulate it you know, and why all the other games companies do things differently. The games evolved for a reason.

Of course none of that means people cant enjoy it, it just means it appeals to a much smaller section of the market than the game it replaced (and the many other games out there that do things differently).

Buddy Bear
10-01-2016, 21:25
n comparison to fantasy 8th edition it has a much much lower entry point.

Hmm, well let's think about that. Let's assume four units, one of which is a character model.

SIGMARINES
$50 Liberators
$50 Judicators
$60 Prosecutors
$40 Lord-Castellant

14 models total. Meanwhile, for that same price, I could get the following for the Empire:

$49.50 Empire army book
$35.00 Free Company
$35.00 Empire Knights
$29.75 Empire General
$24.75 Empire State Troops
$24.75 Empire Handgunners

Even with the price of an army book, you get 50 models versus 14, and 6 units versus 4. So given that the Sigmarines represent the direction GW intends to take the game, it doesn't seem to have a lower entry point.


It scales up and down very effectively and is easy to learn. Whether you like the rules or not this cannot be denied.

The idea that it scales up well can very well be denied, and I'm sure plenty of people can personally attest to how painful the game becomes as you scale it up. As for the rest, well, Tic-Tac-Toe is an easier game to learn than Chess. That doesn't make it a better game.

HelloKitty
10-01-2016, 21:28
I don't think AoS does anything really innovative. I think AoS is almost a social media experiment to see what would happen if a large scale company made a game that defied all of the FLGS population expectations (cost, tournament support, points) and see what happened.

I think going pointless COULD be considered kind of "innovative" in that it makes you approach the game totally different, in a way that I started way back with historicals in the games I Played in the 80s, but those games had Game Masters. I don't think the modern world is ready or wants to be ready for no points personally. Though the facebook groups I am in really really don't like people talking about points and seem very happy with no points and no list building.

Now that being said, you can have a lot of fun with AoS. I know I did before I got out of models altogether. I found AoS much more fun than 8th, 9th, or KoW. In fact, I really don't like KoW or 9th because they brought back the things I really didn't like about 7th in the first place. However, we had to put a lot of work into making a framework to make AoS what it was when we were having fun, and that again defies what most FLGS players want - a system by a company - not a fan made comp system that is not "official".

Kahadras
10-01-2016, 21:29
To my mind though, what's the point? Yes, I could play it more cheaply than GW's other game - but as the "rules" are very much pay to win, as soon as someone in my group started buying more mini's or just focusing on the elite units I would have to buy more to catch up. Its the table top equivalent of Pokémon...or its meant to be anyway (and its to expensive for that model to work).

I think it's supposed to be a game which works like that. As with most GW games you can just buy the starter box set and play with that but you won't. You'll pick up a unit. Then somebody else picks up a unit or two. Then somebody else picks up a big monster. So you get another unit and a big monster. Then the person who only picked up a unit or two buys a big monster. Then the person who bought a big monster buys another big monster. So you buy a warmachine or two and on and on it goes.

Flipmode
10-01-2016, 21:37
These aren't innovations though, they're following the footsteps of OTHER games companies. Privateer Press has the flexible release schedule and updating app, Mantic has the open access to rules, PP also has rules cards for individual units that you get when you buy the unit. Nothing particularly innovative in copying things others have done for years.

We covered that a bit later. It is new to GW.

A smaller company would offer free rules to try and make an impression in the market.

GW have survived for years without having to worry about this. Now, they are trying it out. It is surprising for them to try it out with a flagship line though. Some testing with Specialist Games would have made more sense, but perhaps the complexity of the core rules didn't fit.

Flipmode
10-01-2016, 21:38
I think it's supposed to be a game which works like that. As with most GW games you can just buy the starter box set and play with that but you won't. You'll pick up a unit. Then somebody else picks up a unit or two. Then somebody else picks up a big monster. So you get another unit and a big monster. Then the person who only picked up a unit or two buys a big monster. Then the person who bought a big monster buys another big monster. So you buy a warmachine or two and on and on it goes.

Like X-wing?

Kahadras
10-01-2016, 22:01
Like X-wing?

X-wing kinda worked the other way for me. I found myself looking at my fleet and thinking 'If I got another A-Wing I could run with all A-Wing list' or 'I could pick up another YT-1300 freighter and have two YT-1300 list'. It was less about keeping up with what other people were getting and more about increasing the variety of stuff I could use (especialy ships that I liked such as the A-Wing) especialy seen as X-wing has a points cap so a bigger collection doesn't mean more points on the table (just more choice).

scruffyryan
10-01-2016, 22:08
We covered that a bit later. It is new to GW.

A smaller company would offer free rules to try and make an impression in the market.

GW have survived for years without having to worry about this. Now, they are trying it out. It is surprising for them to try it out with a flagship line though. Some testing with Specialist Games would have made more sense, but perhaps the complexity of the core rules didn't fit.

Thats fair but its not really accurate to call "being behind the times by a decade or so" innovation. Especially when you didn't even do that right. PP scenarios are free.

Khaines Wrath
10-01-2016, 22:08
This is either a troll or the most entertaining hissy fit I've seen in a while.

AngryAngel
10-01-2016, 23:14
So, I had this innovative idea for a house, without ceilings or a roof of any kind, I call it natures' home. That about sums up my idea on the innovation of AoS, lack of what should be there isn't really innovative anymore then me going to work nude is innovating on social expectation in the work place.

Flipmode
10-01-2016, 23:16
Thats fair but its not really accurate to call "being behind the times by a decade or so" innovation. Especially when you didn't even do that right. PP scenarios are free.

Awesome. I will try out those free scenarios.

Where do I get my unit rules?

Ben
10-01-2016, 23:23
Awesome. I will try out those free scenarios.

Where do I get my unit rules?

Free, packed with the miniatures.

Or pay 7 dollars and get the war room support for your faction, which is all the unit stuff and rules. Compared to GW, that isn't pricey.

Pojko
10-01-2016, 23:26
You can effectively buy a box of 5 models in AOS and have a unit. You can easily play this game with 3 or 4 units. You may not like the models but in my opinion with the exception of the stormcast models, they are excellent not to mention the new terrain.

It scales up and down very effectively and is easy to learn. Whether you like the rules or not this cannot be denied.

In comparison to fantasy 8th edition it has a much much lower entry point.

Yeah, you can play with 3-4 units of five men each. If you're talking about Sigmarines that's going to be $150-$200. For 3-4 units. 15-20 models.

A comparison like that is like saying buying a BMW has a lower entry point than buying a Ferrari. It's gotten to the point where in order to play any GW game you need enough disposable income so that the difference in entry cost doesn't make a difference to you.

GrandmasterWang
10-01-2016, 23:27
TC, a lot of your points about the innovation of AOS have been shut down.

What do you now consider its 3 most innovative features?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Ben
10-01-2016, 23:44
Yeah, you can play with 3-4 units of five men each. If you're talking about Sigmarines that's going to be $150-$200. For 3-4 units. 15-20 models.

A comparison like that is like saying buying a BMW has a lower entry point than buying a Ferrari. It's gotten to the point where in order to play any GW game you need enough disposable income so that the difference in entry cost doesn't make a difference to you.

To be fair Sigmarines are £8 for 5 plus postage on ebay. They are actually really cheap to get into. Don't pay full price when there are stores and customers dumping them all over the place.

There's a mint in box game currently on £31 finishing tomorrow at 10am if anyone is interested.

Voss
11-01-2016, 00:02
You can effectively buy a box of 5 models in AOS and have a unit.
And in many other games.

You can easily play this game with 3 or 4 units.
True for quite a few games



You may not like the models but in my opinion with the exception of the stormcast models, they are excellent not to mention the new terrain.
And in my opinion they're pure trash, and the terrain is ridiculous nonsense that doesn't fit in on a battlefield. Why is there a door or stairway in the middle of nowhere? No idea, nothing explains it. There just is, because there is no usable background or coherent story attached to the shoddy rules. That you think they're good means nothing to me: it certainly doesn't demonstrate innovation or explain why the rules and background are awful.


It scales up and down very effectively and is easy to learn. Whether you like the rules or not this cannot be denied.
It scales up badly, and the game breaks as it scales up (large mobs of units auto-hitting & auto-wounding or getting attack multipliers for no reason.
It is indeed easy to learn... in much the same way Chutes and Ladders is easy to learn, though honestly it makes less sense than Chutes & Ladders.


In comparison to fantasy 8th edition it has a much much lower entry point.
No, no it does not. It has the same or higher entry point, depending on what you're buying. If you buy older kits (pre various price revisions, some of which are still 'current,' your entry point can be a lot lower... even if you stick to GW games.

But unsurprisingly, you didn't answer my question. Why do think the theoretical focus on models would force the production of shoddy rules and background?

And I've still yet to see anything resembling innovation, unless 'innovation' suddenly means 'be factually wrong'


@Ben- finding cheap firesales on ebay really isn't a useful metric for the cost of anything. Some people will post up anything. I've heard several college horror stories of roommates selling a 'buddy's' 2000 point army for $50.

Ben
11-01-2016, 00:35
@Ben- finding cheap firesales on ebay really isn't a useful metric for the cost of anything. Some people will post up anything. I've heard several college horror stories of roommates selling a 'buddy's' 2000 point army for $50.

A quick check and I think the American LGSs dumping their stock has mainly passed.

The boxed set can be had for £55 P&P included (which is basically 33% off) from a UK based retailer on ebay.

Might be worth doing a survey for who's LGSs have been dropping AoS, or will only order if people are putting in preorders.

MohRokTah
11-01-2016, 00:50
I must be an old fatbeard or something, but I'm pretty used to having a set of rules (Chainmail, Battlesystem, Battlesystem 2nd. Edition) and purchasing miniatures from multiple companies to build armies from. My dwarves were made up from Ral Partha, Citadel, RAFM, and Grenadier back in the early 80s.

Dosiere
11-01-2016, 03:40
Spot on. I have no problem with people who hate AOS, but why they feel the need to take it out on people that don't is beyond me....

What? You started a thread intentionally meant to provoke a response from those who dislike AoS and then post this? Not even Spiney tries that hard to forge the persecuted narrative, and he tries real hard.

Sharkbelly
11-01-2016, 03:56
Age of Sigmar makes it a lot easier to bring new people into the hobby. The rules are quick and easy to learn and you can play with pretty small (by 8th edition standards) forces.

Soundwave
11-01-2016, 04:03
Age of Sigmar makes it a lot easier to bring new people into the hobby. The rules are quick and easy to learn and you can play with pretty small (by 8th edition standards) forces.
Maybe at a G.W store only. There are whole regions and local game stores where not a single soul is touching it so I would have to disagree here.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 04:27
Age of Sigmar makes it a lot easier to bring new people into the hobby. The rules are quick and easy to learn and you can play with pretty small (by 8th edition standards) forces.

I agree with the second part of your post, the problem lies with the first part. Whilst essentially AoS should indeed make it easier to bring in new people due to the smaller buy in (both of money and of commitment) sadly GW have done nothing to capitalise on this, they have not marketed the product to anyone who wasn't already in the hobby, and that is a reduced customer base anyway due to the already well documented problems of price, and how AoS was received, the only effort GW made to expose these new people to the product was a handful of conventions they attended, where in all honesty they might has well not have bothered turning up (and in one case actually didn't turn up!). Without any sort of marketing (externally) I have no idea who GW thought they were going to reach out to with this product.

Like I said earlier AoS should have been marketed as an entry level game with a follow on mass fantasy battle system if only just to drive sales. Instead the whole thing is a mess, and a mess that has split the community and already had a negative impact on financial performance.

Voss
11-01-2016, 05:29
Age of Sigmar makes it a lot easier to bring new people into the hobby.
The opening weeks after release at the Local(ish) Games Stores would differ with you. The shop owners tried very hard to sell people on AOS. No one took them up on it. Several laughed. The few people who played WFB before vanished. Over the months, people have wandered in and talked about 'that warhammer game they used to play.' One last week was explaining to his son (who apparently found his old WH figures in a closet) what was involved (describing it as lord of the rings on a table, which I found amusing), and basically talking the kid out of it, explaining the problems of assembly and painting, and how much it cost to get a force together.

I've yet to actually meet anyone who takes it seriously as a product. It is merely the sad punchline to a prolonged joke by a company in decline.

scruffyryan
11-01-2016, 05:49
Awesome. I will try out those free scenarios.

Where do I get my unit rules?

Here (http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/leagues) is a narrative league with special unit rules. Here (http://privateerpress.com/organized-play/steamroller-tournaments) are the free scenarios that are used for tournaments, these are adjusted yearly. Rules for individual units come on cards with each unit purchased. Here is a pdf of quick start rules. (http://privateerpress.com/files/warmachine-quick-start-rules.pdf)

So yeah, not particularly innovative to hand out rules for free.

Sharkbelly
11-01-2016, 06:08
New people. Not crabby old vets who glare at newcomers. You can't really believe it was a sir to teach a 50-page rule book than 4?


The opening weeks after release at the Local(ish) Games Stores would differ with you. The shop owners tried very hard to sell people on AOS. No one took them up on it. Several laughed. The few people who played WFB before vanished. Over the months, people have wandered in and talked about 'that warhammer game they used to play.' One last week was explaining to his son (who apparently found his old WH figures in a closet) what was involved (describing it as lord of the rings on a table, which I found amusing), and basically talking the kid out of it, explaining the problems of assembly and painting, and how much it cost to get a force together.

I've yet to actually meet anyone who takes it seriously as a product. It is merely the sad punchline to a prolonged joke by a company in decline.

Dosiere
11-01-2016, 06:10
New people. Not crabby old vets who glare at newcomers. You can't really believe it was a sir to teach a 50-page rule book than 4?

Come again?

Sharkbelly
11-01-2016, 06:42
Easier. Sorry. I don't think old players turning their backs on AoS is really evidence that it is not easier to teach it to new people.

Flipmode
11-01-2016, 07:04
Free, packed with the miniatures.

Or pay 7 dollars and get the war room support for your faction, which is all the unit stuff and rules. Compared to GW, that isn't pricey.
Shiny! That is good.

Dosiere
11-01-2016, 07:11
Easier. Sorry. I don't think old players turning their backs on AoS is really evidence that it is not easier to teach it to new people.

Agreed, just evidence of a botched release that could have gone much more smoothly had they released some scenarios, cut the "funny" rules out of the old warscrolls, revised the most obvious things like summoning, and just generally communicated more.

When there are no vets at a store playing the game to teach a new person, it doesn't really matter that it would be easier for them to do so.

Allen
11-01-2016, 07:47
I have let the dust on AOS and returned to these boards and sadly the negativity is still flowing. I am really struggling to understand both the depth of feelings and the content of the objections. I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it

If you look generally at the wargaming environment, not really: AoS is a skirmish game, very easy and uncomplicated rule-wise...it's hardly innovative stuff. If you look specifically to GW environment/customer base: maybe. Ditching the point system and switching from massed battles to skirmish could be defined "innovative" if we speak about GW.


Apparently everyone wants the same ranked system, the same points system, the same world and the same mythology

Actually not true. On the contrary, a lot of companies are launching/redesigning skirmish games lately because apparently there's a large part of the market that wants skirmish games. Massed rank&file combat is an heritage from historical wargaming: that kind of preference is not dead, but it seems that lately more and more people are considering skirmish game pretty interesting...the reasons could be several: it's easier to paint and collect fewer miniatures, the games are shorter and so on.


The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger

Not exactly. The problem seems the be the combination of poorly developed skirmish game with a new setting deployed to replace a beloved game and setting. And, even if I like AoS, let's be honest: it's really hard defining it an innovative game. Or a well-developed one, either. It's good and funny, but it's really not the top dog in the skirmish game arena.

SVKBaki
11-01-2016, 07:53
Not enough time to read the 8 pages, but just my 2 cents...

AoS in my opinion needs only 2 things to make it at least meaningful:
- upper limit on units, like it was in the 7th WHFB or in 40K, on deployed as well as summoned units.
- bases should matter again, measuring from base to base of the models, I believe it is like this in 40K.

now, when everything hits and wounds on 3+ or 4+, I think upper unit caps can bring at least some balance.

and of course remove the silly embarassing rules from the old armies.

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 08:02
Easier. Sorry. I don't think old players turning their backs on AoS is really evidence that it is not easier to teach it to new people.

Who ever said it wasn't easier to learn? Being easier to learn, however, doesn't mean it's more likely to capture the interest of new players. There's a reason, after all, that when it comes to card games, Poker is more popular than Go Fish. And if the past six months have demonstrated anything, it's that the simplicity of the AOS rules has not done the game any favors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 08:52
Who ever said it wasn't easier to learn? Being easier to learn, however, doesn't mean it's more likely to capture the interest of new players. There's a reason, after all, that when it comes to card games, Poker is more popular than Go Fish. And if the past six months have demonstrated anything, it's that the simplicity of the AOS rules has not done the game any favors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think your assertion that poker is more popular than go fish could use some qualifying data, go fish is a popular game among high school students who have a decent chance of outnumbering adult gamblers, when I was at high school we spent a lot of time playing games like go fish, cheat, Pontoon, but never poker.

My point is there is always a demographic to whom simpler games appeal, just as there is a demographic to whom AoS appeals.

UlrikTheslayer
11-01-2016, 09:16
Mr. Norman. ... Spiney.... Are you the defender of AoS poor players ? GW Lawyers ?
Everything you say is so aggressive to the "haters" as you say. You have no facts "excepts" : Players that like this game are right. Of course, they are. They can like a dull game thats their choice. We do not attack players but the worst game ever created for this amount of cash without any innovative system (as there is no "system"). Even the keywords are utterly useless.

You always state false information about other games to try to defend AoS in everyway.

-WHFB was okay but not enough "income" for GW. Stop saying it was an utter failure. It was a well-made game but as usual a wrongly updated game developped by GW. They forgot "Games in their name"... Actually they will soon remove it.
-AoS is a bad game and is wrong, we have numbers, we have more facts than stating WHFB was a failure (always say it was 10% of CA... AoS is now maybe not even 1%).
-AoS is the continuity of WHFB, so do not say its "not the same". They should have changed every name and left all heroes and create new gods. Ulrik was the true god.
-Everything was wrong with this game and you still defend "wrong" over "right". Its like "save the murderer", it was not his fault, "he just pulled the trigger but did not intend to kill". Its like a lawyer trying to save a criminal knowing that the criminal is actually guilty and should have more years in jail, but "he pays well".

Thats facts, and i am hard on you, but you are starting to **** me off with your "so fanboy" point of view that is aggressive towards others.

Allen
11-01-2016, 09:30
Who ever said it wasn't easier to learn? Being easier to learn, however, doesn't mean it's more likely to capture the interest of new players. There's a reason, after all, that when it comes to card games, Poker is more popular than Go Fish. And if the past six months have demonstrated anything, it's that the simplicity of the AOS rules has not done the game any favors.

AoS being simple rule-wise isn't really a problem: WHFB wasn't much more elaborated and certaintly WH40K isn't a refined/complicated wargame.
Considering that GW launched AoS trying to recruit more gamers, hitting the shelves with an easy to discuss/present/demo/play wargame is an asset, not a problem. The real problems of AoS are completely different: price tags, for starters. Community management, obviously. Lore/setting development rate, also. For people with certain tastes in rules, another big problem is the lack of innovation...but rules being simple? Nah. The market seems to request quick and easy to play skirmish games, lately.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 09:34
Mr. Norman. ... Spiney.... Are you the defender of AoS poor players ? GW Lawyers ?
Everything you say is so aggressive to the "haters" as you say. You have no facts "excepts" : Players that like this game are right. Of course, they are. They can like a dull game thats their choice. We do not attack players but the worst game ever created for this amount of cash without any innovative system (as there is no "system"). Even the keywords are utterly useless.

I'm sorry if I come across as aggressive, frankly I don't think I have posted anything as remotely aggressive as your post in a long time...


You always state false information about other games to try to defend AoS in everyway :

-WHFB was okay but not enough "income" for GW. Stop saying it was an utter failure. It was a well-made game but as usual a wrongly updated game developped by GW. They forgot "Games in their name"... Actually they will soon remove it.

That's not false, if WFB didn't make enough money to justify its existence that is failure, let's not beat about the bush with this, GW shoulders the responsibility for that failure, but there was a very clear pattern of WFB sliding down the tubes with the terrible 7E army books and 8E Core rules which were a deal breaker for many long time players and created an almost insurmountable barrier to entry for new players.


-AoS is a bad game and is wrong, we have numbers, we have more facts than stating WHFB was a failure (always say it was 10% of CA... AoS is now maybe not even 1%).

That's entirely your opinion, the latest GW figures show a roughly consistent profit with the previous period, I.e. AoS is currently performing at around the same level WFB was before it was dropped (unless 40k sales have grown considerably, which seems unlikely). While that's not great news for AoS it's still very early days and the game only has three armies out currently, it remains to be seen if the game can win fans back as it expands to other fantasy tropes like dwarfs, orcs and elves.


-AoS is the continuity of WHFB, so do not say its "not the same". They should have changed every name and left all heroes and create new gods. Ulrik was the true god.

there is a lore-based link, but there are also pronounced differences, for example the Seraphon a very different to the lizardmen of old, there is no reason to suspect that other factions like dwarfs and elves might not also be different to their previous iterations. Also GW has not really acknowledged ulrik properly since they discontinued his priest models back in 6th edition, I think you're probably on your own there.


-Everything was wrong with this game and you still defend "wrong" over "right". Its like "save the murderer", it was not his fault, "he just pulled the trigger but did not intend to kill". Its like a lawyer trying to save a criminal knowing that the criminal is actually guilty and should have more years in jail, but "he pays well".

Again that's your personal, and very subjective opinion, the fact that people exist who enjoy playing AoS because of the game that it is would appear to disprove your attempt to claim you opinion as universal truth.


Thats facts, and i am hard on you, but you are starting to **** me off with your "so fanboy" point of view that is aggressive towards others.

Perhaps you could highlight the 'facts' from your post, because I couldn't find any

Khaines Wrath
11-01-2016, 09:43
I think your assertion that poker is more popular than go fish could use some qualifying data, go fish is a popular game among high school students who have a decent chance of outnumbering adult gamblers, when I was at high school we spent a lot of time playing games like go fish, cheat, Pontoon, but never poker.

My point is there is always a demographic to whom simpler games appeal, just as there is a demographic to whom AoS appeals.


I applaud your persistence Spiney but boy did I have to laugh at this post. Personally my own anecdotal evidence from high school is the complete opposite.

To be clear, my laughter is not meant as derogatory, I just found it charmingly innocent.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 10:22
there is a lore-based link, but there are also pronounced differences, for example the Seraphon a very different to the lizardmen of old...

Sorry spiney but I can't see how this is true?. The seraphon are the lizardmen of old, not only are they exactly the same models and as such exactly the same aesthetic, but fluffwise didn't they escape the old WHW in their ships, I assume floated about until they died natural deaths apart from the slann, the slann now conjure the deamon like soul/memories of these dead LM into existence as Seraphon?? ... as far as I can tell (I haven't read the Seraphon Army Book).

The new AoS world IS a continuation of the old WHW, just with a very poor transition. Sigmar, Nagash, Skaven, as well as other named characters prove that.

Of course my understanding may just be wrong.

duffybear1988
11-01-2016, 10:44
There is no spoon.

Yowzo
11-01-2016, 11:03
As you well know 9th age is specifically named and intended to be a rip off, it isn't my opinion. KOW is pitching itself specifically to be as close to the old edition of WHFB as possible. This is a fact.

Yet it's AoS who has ripped off some KoW game mechanics, like fixed to-hit and to-wound values (with modifiers)

Not that they were KoW original in the first place, but if anything it's AoS moving in the direction of KoW and not the other way around.

ntw3001
11-01-2016, 11:44
I think your assertion that poker is more popular than go fish could use some qualifying data, go fish is a popular game among high school students who have a decent chance of outnumbering adult gamblers, when I was at high school we spent a lot of time playing games like go fish, cheat, Pontoon, but never poker.

My point is there is always a demographic to whom simpler games appeal, just as there is a demographic to whom AoS appeals.

I agree with this. I doubt poker players make up a tenth of the players of those lighter games. I don't really know why anyone would disagree. I think the playerbase of those games is largely kids and families, but that's kind of the point; it's a demographic which may be invisible to the people who are more interested in poker.

I don't think that there's much of a parallel to be drawn between those kinds of games, though. The money and time investment that goes into even something like Frostgrave is surely enough to eliminate the super-casual demographic that plays these card games.

One thing that's come up in this thread (and every AoS thread) is the discussion of whether WFB was successful. I don't really see the point of arguing that it was secretly a decent money-maker; I don't imagine it was unprofitable but I think the general line that 'it did well but not well enough for GW's standards' looks like conjecture. I'm happy to believe that it was going through a sharp decline. I don't agree, though, that that decline was an adequate reason to end support.

I think the correct move for GW would have been to work on the obvious issues and correct the ship. I don't believe that any drop in WFB sales was indicative of a lack of interest in the genre; it was indicative of growing discontent with GW's rules and prices, both of which they had control over. They did need to do something, but what they needed to do wasn't to ditch a venerable line, it was to release good products at a price people would pay. But that's just not the GW business model.

Vazalaar
11-01-2016, 11:58
Yet it's AoS who has ripped off some KoW game mechanics, like fixed to-hit and to-wound values (with modifiers)

Not that they were KoW original in the first place, but if anything it's AoS moving in the direction of KoW and not the other way around.

This is my biggest issue with AoS and KoW.

For some reason I really liked the Warhammer stat line.

Having a fixed to hit and to wound value kills for me the immersion.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 12:02
I don't have any figures to back this up, but my suspicion is that warhammer wasn't making a loss, it was just making progressively less money than it used to, (so it's possibly more accurate to say it was 'failing' rather than a 'failure'. If GW waited until the game was actually loss-making to do something about it then their business practices would be a lot worse than any of us think.

8th edition was a slump for WFB, it lost a lot of players locally and there was a lot of anger at the rule changes after release, which gradually died down as people left the hobby. The colossal barrier to entry meant that those gamers who left weren't replaced and also meant that existing players were unlikely to start new armies because of the requisite unit sizes and the resulting expense.

One of the reasons why I'm not interested in 9th age is because I think they based it off the wrong edition, using 7th or even 6th as a starting point would have given them a much stronger foundation to work on, maybe bringing in some of the improvements from 8th, like random charge distances and step up, but avoiding the pitfalls that made 8th frustrating and impractical like the horde rule, and steadfast.

On the other hand I guess 9th isn't trying to create a growing game or sell models, it's trying to give former WFB players something to do with their models, so lowering the entry barrier wasn't really a concern.


This is my biggest issue with AoS and KoW.

For some reason I really liked the Warhammer stat line.

Having a fixed to hit and to wound value kills for me the immersion.

Personally I think the whole idea of two fighters taking it turns to hit each other determined by initiative order is pretty ridiculous, Lotr has a much more immersive and realistic way of determining combat (opponents roll off to see which combatant gets the upper hand, then the winner gets to roll to see if he lands a blow). At the end of the day the process is completely abstract at every level so arguing about whether we have static to hit rolls or apply modifiers based on who you're hitting is a bit pointless.

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 12:08
AoS being simple rule-wise isn't really a problem: WHFB wasn't much more elaborated and certaintly WH40K isn't a refined/complicated wargame.
Considering that GW launched AoS trying to recruit more gamers, hitting the shelves with an easy to discuss/present/demo/play wargame is an asset, not a problem. The real problems of AoS are completely different: price tags, for starters. Community management, obviously. Lore/setting development rate, also. For people with certain tastes in rules, another big problem is the lack of innovation...but rules being simple? Nah. The market seems to request quick and easy to play skirmish games, lately.

I will agree that a simple rules set isn't necessarily a problem. It's just that AOS's rules are pretty substandard and mediocre as they are, and I'm sure that's part of the problem it's suffered, as evidence by the numerous comp/house rule packets which have sprung up since its inception. Practically no one likes the rules at face value, not even its biggest defenders. All those other things, from price to lore is definitely as big if not a bigger problem, though. You could have the best wargame in the world, but it wouldn't matter if you priced your potential customers out of your customer base or if they despise the setting.


I applaud your persistence Spiney but boy did I have to laugh at this post. Personally my own anecdotal evidence from high school is the complete opposite.

To be clear, my laughter is not meant as derogatory, I just found it charmingly innocent.

Yeah, when I played cards in high school, we played Poker and Blackjack, not Go Fish. But who knows. Maybe Spiney lives in Mayberry?

ScruffMan
11-01-2016, 12:09
I don't have any figures to back this up, but my suspicion is that warhammer wasn't making a loss, it was just making progressively less money than it used to, (so it's possibly more accurate to say it was 'failing' rather than a 'failure'. If GW waited until the game was actually loss-making to do something about it then their business practices would be a lot worse than any of us think.

8th edition was a slump for WFB, it lost a lot of players locally and there was a lot of anger at the rule changes after release, which gradually died down as people left the hobby. The colossal barrier to entry meant that those gamers who left weren't replaced and also meant that existing players were unlikely to start new armies because of the requisite unit sizes and the resulting expense.

One of the reasons why I'm not interested in 9th age is because I think they based it off the wrong edition, using 7th or even 6th as a starting point would have given them a much stronger foundation to work on, maybe bringing in some of the improvements from 8th, like random charge distances and step up, but avoiding the pitfalls that made 8th frustrating and impractical like the horde rule, and steadfast.

On the other hand I guess 9th isn't trying to create a growing game or sell models, it's trying to give former WFB players something to do with their models, so lowering the entry barrier wasn't really a concern.



Personally I think the whole idea of two fighters taking it turns to hit each other determined by initiative order is pretty ridiculous, Lotr has a much more immersive and realistic way of determining combat (opponents roll off to see which combatant gets the upper hand, then the winner gets to roll to see if he lands a blow). At the end of the day the process is completely abstract at every level so arguing about whether we have static to hit rolls or apply modifiers based on who you're hitting is a bit pointless.
Yep, I haven't 'pre-ordered' a single thing despite the GW website/AoS app being one of the first places I go on a saturday to check out any new models or warscrolls. I've got plans to buy some Judicators, and all three of the Khorne elite units as well as whatever Elf models I like the look of but won't be doing so until I've finished painting what I need to do (a fair amount).

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 12:18
Yeah, when I played cards in high school, we played Poker and Blackjack, not Go Fish. But who knows. Maybe Spiney lives in Mayberry?

Mayberry? Gambling was quite strictly forbidden in my high school, we played go fish, cheat, rummy and a game that was almost but not quite called 'pooh head', oh and slam if you were feeling particularly vindictive ;)

Tyelacoirii
11-01-2016, 12:27
Maybe at my school we were all cheap but very few seemed willing to gamble with cash. Also I think the school frowned on it.
You quickly find that Poker with tokens or skittles just doesn't work (since you never have any stress over going all in all the time).

On the fixed to hit and wound rolls - I imagine if I had been used to that system it would be fine. As it is though it feels weird for say regular humans to hit goblins as easily as they would hit a Bloodthirster.

Really though my core problem with AoS is points. Its a hill I am willing to die on. If they could bring in a system for making armies (even if its just some codification of the "take 100 wounds" rule thrown about) and then vaguely balance with that in mind then I could give it a chance - especially once a greater range of models have been released. Without this too much of it is made up - as people have said it is only a step away from running action figures into each other.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 12:29
Maybe at my school we were all cheap but very few seemed willing to gamble with cash. Also I think the school frowned on it.
You quickly find that Poker with tokens or skittles just doesn't work (since you never have any stress over going all in all the time).

Not only that but I'm sure that 'house-ruling' poker to cut out the gambling would be just as frowned upon as house-ruling AoS to balance your armies with points ;)

Also it probably should be easier to hit a bloodthirster than a goblin, there is more to aim at ;)

As I see it the resilience of a model (which was variously represented in WFB by elements of its weapon skill, toughness and wounds characteristics) are now rolled into 1 stat, it's wounds, while the stopping power of its armour or other more magical protection is represented by a save. That seems neater to my mind than the older system, it also means that the reducing-effectiveness-with-wounds became a possibility, let's face it nobody would have wanted to fight a 14-wound blood thirster in the old system, even if it did lose effectiveness as it took damage.

ihavetoomuchminis
11-01-2016, 12:41
The new stats are, probably, the only one thing i like about AoS. Said that, it would be better if there were more modifiers depending on the enemy you are attacking, magic, actions taken, terrain.. etc. That would make the game more tactical beyond gamey formations and gamey removal of casualties.

Allen
11-01-2016, 12:51
The seraphon are the lizardmen of old, not only are they exactly the same models and as such exactly the same aesthetic, but fluffwise didn't they escape the old WHW in their ships, I assume floated about until they died natural deaths apart from the slann, the slann now conjure the deamon like soul/memories of these dead LM into existence as Seraphon?? ... as far as I can tell (I haven't read the Seraphon Army Book)

The Seraphon are memories of the lizardmen conjured by the Slann. Not generic memories, apparently, each seraphon is the recollection of a particular saurus or skink that really existed in the past and met the Slann who's remembering it. Pretty strange, but also quite cool concept - at least IMHO.


The new AoS world IS a continuation of the old WHW, just with a very poor transition. Sigmar, Nagash, Skaven, as well as other named characters prove that

I don't know...honestly, I'm starting to think a lot of the grief over AoS lore is caused by the stupid way GW is handling the background. If you take some time to read stuff with an open mind roughly 70% seems quite interesting and/or at least with potential. GW, in its infinite wisdom, decided however to disperse the new background in an endless stream of moneygrabbing novels and audiobooks...and, on top of that, to release it piecemeal - one little bit at a time. That's really not helping potential players to having an idea of what is going on, who's who and who is doing what.

UlrikTheslayer
11-01-2016, 12:51
Thats another worst point of view i have ever seen. Let's face that i would have LOVED to fight a 14-wound Blood thirster in the old system that lost effectiveness...Big monsters were easier to hit already in the old system (by not giving them cover etc), what a shame that you have so bizarre idea and try to "push" it into the people.

as the old system was really more narrative driven than now.
What ? you do not agree either ? Well thats a shame...the old system was a lot more scenario/background focused and wide than now.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 13:08
The Seraphon are memories of the lizardmen conjured by the Slann. Not generic memories, apparently, each seraphon is the recollection of a particular saurus or skink that really existed in the past and met the Slann who's remembering it. Pretty strange, but also quite cool concept - at least IMHO.

So far from Spiney saying they're different they are actually in fact the very same saurus and skinks that met Slann A, B or C during their time either on the old WHW or aboard their ships (or at least souls/memories of them). I agree it is quite cool, in a LotR army of the dead kind of way.


I don't know...honestly, I'm starting to think a lot of the grief over AoS lore is caused by the stupid way GW is handling the background. If you take some time to read stuff with an open mind roughly 70% seems quite interesting and/or at least with potential. GW, in its infinite wisdom, decided however to disperse the new background in an endless stream of moneygrabbing novels and audiobooks...and, on top of that, to release it piecemeal - one little bit at a time. That's really not helping potential players to having an idea of what is going on, who's who and who is doing what.

Plus factor in the quality of writing is dreadful.

The lore could have potentially been ok, but even after 6 months none of the realms has been fleshed out, we know nothing about normal people, agriculture, industry, religion, architecture, in fact all we have is a continuation of the naming protocal but instead of units these are attached to items, e.g. bridge of seven sorrows, falls of rot, etc. but none of these mean anything as there is really nothing beyond a name, no history etc. and before anyone says WFB fleshed this out over many years it appears AoS has not even attempted to do anything to remedy this over six months. All we have a a bunch of names, how are you meant to have any attachment to that?

It's poor writing, and poor fluff in general IMO rather than pore LORE. The lore can't really be considered poor as AoS is a continuation of WFB (i.e. WFB happened in AoS' past) the lore from WFB still stands as canon.

Tokamak
11-01-2016, 13:29
I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

Strange, because that's exactly what someone would say if one wished to re-surface the same arguments again.

Herzlos
11-01-2016, 13:35
I don't think there's anything in AoS that hasn't been done (better) elsewhere. Alternate movements, war scrolls, no points, lightweight rules.

It's just the implementation of it is terrible.

Nubl0
11-01-2016, 13:41
You know just going through this thread made me wonder. Was fantasy the right game for you if you didn't like massed ranked infantry? Like that's a key part to the epic battles, to me nothing looks cooler than a fat spear wall of empire dudes facing down a horde of skellies, with a maybe one or 2 monsters dotted about. I mean imagine if the battle of plea or fields just consisted of 12 odd trolls vs 12 ents? Yeah they are all super cool big tough guys but it just doesn't these the epic scope and feel of a proper battle.

Plus when your army consists of nothing but super special snowflakes... Well none of them are so special anymore are they? You need those swarms of goblins so your nasty block of trolls stands out and looks "special" and besides the huge horde of goblins is impressive in its own way?

Herzlos
11-01-2016, 13:49
The thing is WHFB was always pretty terrible at handling proper mass battle games, because the rules were still based around individual figures that happened to be ranked up.

It's also possible to like both formats.

Allen
11-01-2016, 13:56
Plus factor in the quality of writing is dreadful

Yes, but...well, GW writing quality being dreadful is an age-old problem. Again, we have to consider that GW could expect to publish crappy fiction and uninspiring plot twists when they were dealing with WHFB (people loved and still love it out of memory sake, not because there were real quality products or fiction)…but when you try to market a new setting you better unleash the heavyweights.

Generally speaking, AoS ideas are quite interesting: I agree with a forum member that said AoS have some sort of epic fantasy undertones (something like the Silmarillion). That, compared to a more traditional fantasy theme, could be another issue for some players. But yeah…quality writing is still at GW levels, and that means pretty bad.




The lore could have potentially been ok, but even after 6 months none of the realms has been fleshed out, we know nothing about normal people, agriculture, industry, religion, architecture, in fact all we have is a continuation of the naming protocal but instead of units these are attached to items, e.g. bridge of seven sorrows, falls of rot, etc. but none of these mean anything as there is really nothing beyond a name, no history etc. and before anyone says WFB fleshed this out over many years it appears AoS has not even attempted to do anything to remedy this over six months. All we have a a bunch of names, how are you meant to have any attachment to that?

Something was fleshed out in the novels...but again, it's a rather unfair business practice locking a good deal of the new background down in a bunch of novels and audiobooks; on the other hand it's pretty stupid business practice releasing the aforementioned background bits after bits, without a clear effort to give us the bare minimum of info about everything before presenting in-depth novels about X or Y. About the "common people": as I said, I think AoS is more "mythical fantasy" than "standard fantasy" - that could be good for someone and bad for others, but we should stop having irrealistic expectations. Considering the theme of the narrative effort everything considered "normal" or "peasant-level" probably will never be described.

jimmyzimms
11-01-2016, 13:59
We covered that a bit later. It is new to GW.

I don't think AoS does anything really innovative. I think AoS is almost a social media experiment to see what would happen if a large scale company made a game that defied all of the FLGS population expectations (cost, tournament support, points) and see what happened.

I think going pointless COULD be considered kind of "innovative" in that it makes you approach the game totally different, in a way that I started way back with historicals in the games I Played in the 80s, but those games had Game Masters. I don't think the modern world is ready or wants to be ready for no points personally. Though the facebook groups I am in really really don't like people talking about points and seem very happy with no points and no list building.


This isn't even "innovative" in GW games. I'll point everyone to the fact that 40k originated without points way back with Rogue Trader. I'm absolutely certain WHFB started the same but I wasn't really into it so don't know when the changes were likely to of occurred. HK nails it about the implicit GM role that oftentimes made no points and relaxed structure work well (in no way required however).

Again, I need to remind the whipper-snappers ;) that including the rules/stats for a unit or model when you buy it isn't new to GW either. Time once was that if you bought, say, a Leman Russ tank, the box had all the rules printed right on it, ready to go. GW, ages ago realized that they could make a killing with codex and army books on constant churn which put an end to that nonsense.

Way back (sorry not gong to fish it out to quote now) someone even mentioned keywords as being innovation. The fact that similar things exist in other lines such as WM, it's, AGAIN, not even new in GW games as EA is completely dependent on the same concept to distinguish abilities and build synergies between units/formations.

So where's this innovation at?

Oh wait there is one thing that GW really was innovative about (though this wasn't for AoS) was somehow indelibly linking in people's minds that models and rules are intrinsically coupled, as MohRokTah pointed out just a couple of pages back and dragonelf seems to a great example of (rough paraphrase: I think KoW rules are well written but I don't like the setting).

Now, if you like playing AoS then awesomeness for you! There's no wrong way to have fun for the most part. I'm rather bothered that people seem so hellbent on trying to somehow "be right" about how to have fun more so than the other party. But let's be absolutely serious here: there's little innovation in the game or releases in TT wargamming in general nor GW games in specific.

75hastings69
11-01-2016, 15:32
Plus when your army consists of nothing but super special snowflakes... Well none of them are so special anymore are they? You need those swarms of goblins so your nasty block of trolls stands out and looks "special" and besides the huge horde of goblins is impressive in its own way?

That's why you now have an army of blood deathkillblood trolls and a 100 GBP centrepiece model. In fact the new dwar... duardin seem to be almost troll sized anyway :)

Comrade Penguin
11-01-2016, 16:17
Sorry to say OP, but there is next to nothing innovative about this game. All of their hallmark "ideas" have already been done better by other game systems. For example:

Hero focused skirmish: Warmahordes did it first and better. Heck, even 40k does a better job of this.

Alternating activation: Countless games have done this in the past, GW is late to the show. Xwing/Armada are my go-to's for this.

Simple rules: This could have been where AOS excelled, but they could not even create a compelling simple beer and pretzels. X-wing is an example of a fun simple game that has tactical depth once you delve into it.

Measuring from the model: I believe this is unique to this game, and man is it horrible. I can imagine the arguments to be had over whether my spearman's spear is 1/2 and inch from that goblin's head. Talk about a clunky rule.

Fixed stat-line: Kings of War did it first and with rules that actually make sense. Why is it just as easy to wound a goblin as it is to wound a dragon?

No army construction: As others have pointed out this was present in older editions of Warhammer. Great if you feel like slapping a silly assortment of figures on the table but immediately excludes anyone looking to play a fair game. And no, I don't want to make a third player sit and GM my game nor will I GM someone else's game.

Free rules: Infinity, Warmahordes, Xwing, Armada, Kings of War all say hi.

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 16:25
No army construction: As others have pointed out this was present in older editions of Warhammer. Great if you feel like slapping a silly assortment of figures on the table but immediately excludes anyone looking to play a fair game. And no, I don't want to make a third player sit and GM my game nor will I GM someone else's game.

The Throne of SKulls event thread on this forum perfectly encapsulates the silliness of this whole thing. From what I saw on that thread, people who won every single battle came in dead last while a guy who lost every single battle came in third. Meanwhile, the guy who came in first purposefully handicapped himself in-game by making stupid decisions because making the obviously smart tactical move would've resulted in a short and boring game. That sounds like the most miserable experience ever. You're apparently playing a "strategy" game not as a test of wits, but as a popularity contest. How wasteful is it to play a game which you know is flawed but having to restrain yourself throughout the entire game because otherwise the flaws of that game can potentially ruin the gaming experience within minutes?

Tyranno1
11-01-2016, 16:41
The Throne of SKulls event thread on this forum perfectly encapsulates the silliness of this whole thing. From what I saw on that thread, people who won every single battle came in dead last while a guy who lost every single battle came in third. Meanwhile, the guy who came in first purposefully handicapped himself in-game by making stupid decisions because making the obviously smart tactical move would've resulted in a short and boring game. That sounds like the most miserable experience ever. You're apparently playing a "strategy" game not as a test of wits, but as a popularity contest. How wasteful is it to play a game which you know is flawed but having to restrain yourself throughout the entire game because otherwise the flaws of that game can potentially ruin the gaming experience within minutes?

Geez. It sounds like a game invented by Tumblr....

Lexington
11-01-2016, 17:32
Yes, but...well, GW writing quality being dreadful is an age-old problem.
I'll grant that it's an age-old problem, but only so long as said "age" is the one marked by Alan Merrit's tenure as IP director. For all the knocks it receives as being derivative and uninspired, the Warhammer World developed in the old 4th and 5th Edition army books is surprisingly interesting, dynamic and vast. They read like good history texts, and describe just enough to get a reader's imagination going, and they do so in a way that's got the same rough, non-linear feel that real history has, but deliver the themes and ideas that ground the place wonderfully. The old guard, they had some talent to them.

There were definitely some downwards eras since then - Gav Thorpe's ill-advised attempt to transform Warhammer into a limp Game of Thrones clone comes to mind - but Warhammer didn't become truly dreadful until Merrit got his hands around the world's neck and strangled the life out of it sometime around 2008 or 2009. That's when the bad times started, concentrated since on grandiose, heroic nonsense vs. a palpably bland evil, all clearly bent towards a goal of pushing model sales. The universe of AoS is definitely Merrit's creation, which goes a long way towards explaining the fact that even most AoS fans can't muster up a defense of its qualities.

Comrade Penguin
11-01-2016, 17:33
@ Buddy Bear

Wow that sounds horrible. I would feel personally insulted if someone was intentionally pulling punches against me. It seems very condescending to meet someone in a competition and purposely make poor plays to extend the game length, almost like you are taunting you opponent.

The GW I used to go to would include sportsmanship scores in their tournament, which would then factor into your overall score and could decide the tournament. For the most part though players would shake hands and give their opponent's full points. This one tourney I was at the top table and we ended the game in a draw. I gave the guy full points for sportsmanship and he gave me a zero even though we had an amicable game. This resulted in him winning the tournament. Needless to say I stopped playing in tournaments were players can actively sabotage their opponents on a whim.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 17:39
So far from Spiney saying they're different they are actually in fact the very same saurus and skinks that met Slann A, B or C during their time either on the old WHW or aboard their ships (or at least souls/memories of them). I agree it is quite cool, in a LotR army of the dead kind of way.

No, in warhammer the lizardmen were flesh and blood beings with real lives, a language and culture, now they are magically conjured daemons of order, it's only the slann that are the same as before, your average Saurus is now equivalent to a blood letter or daemonette only fighting for the good guys, at least to me that's quite different and really not the same as the army of the dead in Lotr which at let had some connection to their former life (they were the spirits of former warriors not conjured daemonic facsimiles).


The Throne of SKulls event thread on this forum perfectly encapsulates the silliness of this whole thing. From what I saw on that thread, people who won every single battle came in dead last while a guy who lost every single battle came in third. Meanwhile, the guy who came in first purposefully handicapped himself in-game by making stupid decisions because making the obviously smart tactical move would've resulted in a short and boring game. That sounds like the most miserable experience ever. You're apparently playing a "strategy" game not as a test of wits, but as a popularity contest. How wasteful is it to play a game which you know is flawed but having to restrain yourself throughout the entire game because otherwise the flaws of that game can potentially ruin the gaming experience within minutes?

Or perhaps he was just role playing his army well? I don't think AoS was ever designed to be the 'test of wits' type of game and works a lot better when people are committed to role playing their forces rather than gouging for the win, spikes vs timmies I guess.

NoobLord
11-01-2016, 17:40
@ Buddy Bear

Wow that sounds horrible. I would feel personally insulted if someone was intentionally pulling punches against me. It seems very condescending to meet someone in a competition and purposely make poor plays to extend the game length, almost like you are taunting you opponent.

The GW I used to go to would include sportsmanship scores in their tournament, which would then factor into your overall score and could decide the tournament. For the most part though players would shake hands and give their opponent's full points. This one tourney I was at the top table and we ended the game in a draw. I gave the guy full points for sportsmanship and he gave me a zero even though we had an amicable game. This resulted in him winning the tournament. Needless to say I stopped playing in tournaments were players can actively sabotage their opponents on a whim.

But who had the more impressive facial hair? That should have been the tie-breaker :shifty:

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 17:51
That doesn't strike me as good role playing, either. You're a Lizardman general, you see an opportunity to decapitate the enemy force, send the enemy fleeing from the field, and preserve the lives of your troops. So you don't take the shot, allow the battle to continue, an action which costs countless lives for a pointless reason? How is that role playing the scenario?

Incidentally, where in the rules does it state anywhere that Age of Sigmar is a roleplaying game?

Dosiere
11-01-2016, 17:57
Wouldn't good role-playing in a battle game mean you try to defeat the opposing force? Playing to lose really breaks the immersion, that's why GMs often roll behind a screen or just go fiat with stuff in an actual role playing game.

Mikosan
11-01-2016, 18:01
Meanwhile, the guy who came in first purposefully handicapped himself in-game by making stupid decisions because making the obviously smart tactical move would've resulted in a short and boring game. That sounds like the most miserable experience ever.

Except from everything I have read those in attendance had a great time.... including the guy who made "stupid" in game decisions. Only on Warseer can a room full of 30 odd people enjoying playing with painted minis be called a "miserable time"

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 18:05
In spite of the game, not because of it, as evidenced by the fact that the players did everything they could to avoid having the game ruin the fun.

Asmodios
11-01-2016, 18:19
@Buddy Bear
The whole event struck me as very odd. For people that claim that the game isn't about who wins the whole feel of the game seems to be about who wins. When i went to my last 8th tournament i lost my first game to a shaven player because i had just terrible rolls the first two turns and couldn't recover. It was still a very fun game and my opponent got a full sportsmanship score from me. What would have lost that score would be him deliberately handicapping his own army to make it a closer game. If the goal of a game isn't winning then when you win because something goes your way, you shouldn't have to feel bad about it. My last game against Chaos dwarfs my mangler squib tore his entire army apart because of some lucky directional rolls. My opponent had a great time (he especially liked it because his other army was also goblins). It didn't matter who one or lost but i know for a fact if my war machines just stopped shooting because i was winning too hard he would have been pissed that i was playing down a level just because his army was crumbling.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
11-01-2016, 18:21
Also from that write up, I would guess the author smugly believes folks playing to win have zero fun, where after being to a couple in the past they where tons of fun, win or loose, aye you'll have the odd grouch who wants to win and gets a strop on if luck goes against them, but for the most part folks are enjoying the games, battles.

I'm also as far from a tournie player as you could want btw, I went to enjoy the experience, lost around 60% of the battles over two tournies probably as the armies I picked where not 'optimal' :D .. but it was a lot of fun, just an observation I had both times I was at Lenton.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 18:35
Wouldn't good role-playing in a battle game mean you try to defeat the opposing force? Playing to lose really breaks the immersion, that's why GMs often roll behind a screen or just go fiat with stuff in an actual role playing game.

Without more accurate information on the forces involved it's hard to say, but there are plenty of role play reasons why you might not take the most obvious tactical route to victory, it might be more sensible to hang back your forces and attack together in concert, but a general who is role playing his Khorne warband well might charge his blood thirster off ahead of his main advance. Likewise a dwarf slayer character might charge off to attack a dragon even though it would be more tactically sound to tar pit it with a unit of dwarf warriors and use the slayer's talents elsewhere.

Obviously if the guy concerned won the event he got a lot of favourite game votes so whatever he was doing it clearly improved his enjoyment and that of his opponents

eron12
11-01-2016, 18:37
Or perhaps he was just role playing his army well? I don't think AoS was ever designed to be the 'test of wits' type of game and works a lot better when people are committed to role playing their forces rather than gouging for the win, spikes vs timmies I guess.

Could you provide some examples of when choosing options that go against your army's chances of winning would be role-playing an army well? I would think almost all army commanders are trying to win battles, not drag them out.

HelloKitty
11-01-2016, 18:42
When playing khorne if you declare a charge against a foe that should beat you and cost you the game but you charge anyway because blood for the blood god, that would be an example of roleplaying your army.

Holding a khorne army back to win on points would to many people be against the spirit of the army but for the spirit of winning, which can sometimes but not always contradict each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 18:44
Could you provide some examples of when choosing options that go against your army's chances of winning would be role-playing an army well? I would think almost all army commanders are trying to win battles, not drag them out.

I gave a couple above, but another example could include a bretonnians Lord charging out to seek an honourable duel with the enemy general even though it would make sense to hang back and let his Knights hammer the enemy first or tarpit him with peasants. I guess it depends on the forces involved and how you want to role play them.

eron12
11-01-2016, 18:47
When playing khorne if you declare a charge against a foe that should beat you and cost you the game but you charge anyway because blood for the blood god, that would be an example of roleplaying your army.

Holding a khorne army back to win on points would to many people be against the spirit of the army but for the spirit of winning, which can sometimes but not always contradict each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But in those cases the option should be consistently chosen. If you rush in to a bad fight one game, but hold back the next game because you don't want to wipe you opponent off the board on turn 3, you reallying aren't role playing your army either time.

Mikosan
11-01-2016, 18:55
Also from that write up, I would guess the author smugly believes folks playing to win have zero fun

Really:(
If you read the thread he says that he would happily play 40K or 8Ed and expect to win. The ToS event was a simply a change of pace and it was fun. Thats it. Why on earth is it so hard for some folks to accept that some people(granted a minority) enjoy playing this game? Half my gaming group dropped out with the release of AoS, so I certainly accept that there are those that don't enjoy it. Heck I don't even roll from thread to thread telling people that don't like it how they are doing it wrong. There is no right or wrong here. If you have fun great! Whether it is AoS or 9 Age or 8th or KoW is totally irrelevant. We all paint models and roll dice for pete's sake.

HelloKitty
11-01-2016, 18:59
But in those cases the option should be consistently chosen. If you rush in to a bad fight one game, but hold back the next game because you don't want to wipe you opponent off the board on turn 3, you reallying aren't role playing your army either time.

Sure but i didnt mention doing it sometimes and not the other, i just gave a scenario that shows rp vs tactical tournament type playing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Ultra
11-01-2016, 19:01
I have let the dust on AOS and returned to these boards and sadly the negativity is still flowing. I am really struggling to understand both the depth of feelings and the content of the objections.

I don't want to re-surface the same arguements but I have come to the conclusion that AOS may be ahead of its time and that's why people are opposed to it.

Apparently everyone wants the same ranked system, the same points system, the same world and the same mythology.

The idea of providing people with a framework of a game, and a flexible approach to army selection seems to be met with anger. I do take the criticism of the new settings on board in so far as it is poorly written. But there's no way a 30 year old mythology (that by the way was very derivative, didn't move forward at all in terms of the story and had become stale) can be replaced in 6 months. But there is no doubt that the writing and story development could be much better.

But I see AOS as having many more positives. It empowers players, is much more accessible, the models by and large have been stunning (with the exception of the space marines) and the scenarios add a much greater dimension to the game.

I hope it starts to turn a corner and I really look forward to new models for the previously established races.

If you want to keep using antiquated designs then by all mean rant and play soulless games like KOW or 9th age. If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

Congratulations, that's the most passive-aggressive defence of aoS I've ever read. Wow.

Philhelm
11-01-2016, 19:03
I gave a couple above, but another example could include a bretonnians Lord charging out to seek an honourable duel with the enemy general even though it would make sense to hang back and let his Knights hammer the enemy first or tarpit him with peasants. I guess it depends on the forces involved and how you want to role play them.

Doing something "fluffy" in game, even if not the best use of a model, is a far cry from not shooting at the enemy's general a second time since it would kill the general.

In 40K 2nd Edition, I once performed a kamikaze with an Ork buggy against a Land Raider. The weapons were damaged and I had no hope of even piercing the Land Raider's army, but it was just the right thing to do, and the Ork died spectacularly. I was still trying to win the game though. Trying to win a game does not equal trying to win at all costs through cheesy army lists and such. Intentionally making poor decisions out of pity is not the right way to play the game unless it's your five year old son.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 19:08
When playing khorne if you declare a charge against a foe that should beat you and cost you the game but you charge anyway because blood for the blood god, that would be an example of roleplaying your army.

Holding a khorne army back to win on points would to many people be against the spirit of the army but for the spirit of winning, which can sometimes but not always contradict each other.


It could be, but it doesn't have to be.

Not all Khorne forces charge headlong into already lost battles. Some do lose themselves to their bloodlust and throw themselves into charges they can't win or against defended walls and die, but those are the ones who are overcome by their bloodlust (represented in game by those who fail their Frenzy and do such), but nothing in writing explains this has to be the case, as, if it were, there would BE no armies dedicated to Khorne, as every member would just fall upon the others (as they were unable to do anything other than follow their need to kill regardless of concern for the situation and larger goals) and prevent any two followers of the Blood God working together.


I understand the example you're TRYING to give, and it IS fun to yell "Blood for the Blood God, Skulls for the Skull Throne!" and just go for victory, but it's in NO WAY required to be said to be playing your army "correctly" or to it's character.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
11-01-2016, 19:28
Really:(
If you read the thread he says that he would happily play 40K or 8Ed and expect to win. The ToS event was a simply a change of pace and it was fun. Thats it. Why on earth is it so hard for some folks to accept that some people(granted a minority) enjoy playing this game? Half my gaming group dropped out with the release of AoS, so I certainly accept that there are those that don't enjoy it. Heck I don't even roll from thread to thread telling people that don't like it how they are doing it wrong. There is no right or wrong here. If you have fun great! Whether it is AoS or 9 Age or 8th or KoW is totally irrelevant. We all paint models and roll dice for pete's sake.

Just the tone it which is was written in places, comes across that way to me, smug btw just means smug, I'm not banner waving hatred to AoS. I've actually played it, the rules are okay for what they are, but I dumped it as my boys where not enjoying the game, prefer 40K, and there are definite balance issues I don't have the time or inclination to sort out.
At least with WFB it was sorta balanced, I stress sorta, but my eldest lad kept getting hammered by his middle brother as some of the mid tier (what would be heroes) Chaos figures he had from the older range where much to good against equivalent Sigmarines. If I have two hours to set up a game between my two lads, between work, caring for their younger brother, I'm not wasting any of it trying to figure out what balances up against what to give them a fair fight, which trust me at their age if they don't get, they get bored.. hence the eldest asking me to concentrate on 40K.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 19:30
Congratulations, that's the most passive-aggressive defence of aoS I've ever read. Wow.

Yep.

"Is AoS too different (from Fantasy)?" would be an honest thread title.

"Is AoS too innovative?" is about the most pre-loaded question I've read online in the last week or so.

Words matter. Their use shows either the authors intent, or the authors ignorance of their meaning.

HelloKitty
11-01-2016, 19:37
It could be, but it doesn't have to be.

Not all Khorne forces charge headlong into already lost battles. Some do lose themselves to their bloodlust and throw themselves into charges they can't win or against defended walls and die, but those are the ones who are overcome by their bloodlust (represented in game by those who fail their Frenzy and do such), but nothing in writing explains this has to be the case, as, if it were, there would BE no armies dedicated to Khorne, as every member would just fall upon the others (as they were unable to do anything other than follow their need to kill regardless of concern for the situation and larger goals) and prevent any two followers of the Blood God working together.


I understand the example you're TRYING to give, and it IS fun to yell "Blood for the Blood God, Skulls for the Skull Throne!" and just go for victory, but it's in NO WAY required to be said to be playing your army "correctly" or to it's character.

Having participated in pretty much this very conversation a dozen times i knew that someone would post "but it doesnt have to be" ;)

Thats why the old rules for frenzy existed and why i always read strong tournament players never use units that had frenzy because they werent reliable.

There is no playing correctly. We just play for whatever reason.

However most recognize the difference between tactical player and rp style player overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pojko
11-01-2016, 19:41
Or perhaps he was just role playing his army well? I don't think AoS was ever designed to be the 'test of wits' type of game and works a lot better when people are committed to role playing their forces rather than gouging for the win, spikes vs timmies I guess.

I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around this. I'm not a tournament player. I'm not even a competitive player. I like to roleplay and invest time in developing characters and worlds. But AoS is a game between two armies. You and your opponent are trying to kill each other to achieve victory. The very nature of any game or competition should be to at least want to come out as the winner.

You don't have to be vicious and cutthroat, you don't have to be a rules lawyer or a cheesy player. But both people should at least be trying to win, at the very least to give meaning behind the supposedly narrative game where the mortal realms are under siege by the forces of Chaos. Shouldn't both people be roleplaying in order to achieve victory? You shouldn't pull punches, you shouldn't sabotage yourself.

If you're not trying to win, either for narrative or competitive reasons, it might as well be Age of Little League where everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad.

Mr. Ultra
11-01-2016, 19:47
If you're not trying to win, either for narrative or competitive reasons, it might as well be Age of Little League where everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad.

That's, in fact, one of the best definitions of AoS I've read. It defines perfectly the purpose behind the game.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 19:48
Having participated in pretty much this very conversation a dozen times i knew that someone would post "but it doesnt have to be" ;)

Because it doesn't have to be.



Thats why the old rules for frenzy existed and why i always read strong tournament players never use units that had frenzy because they werent reliable.

Indeed, the old rules for Frenzy were given to the Khorne Warriors because it fit their potentially blood-mad and occassionally uncontrollable nature. However, the second half of the above sentence is simply not reality. I know you want to try and shoe-horn in some kind of "competitive" vs "rp/narrative/ect" statement, but this one doesn't work.



There is no playing correctly. We just play for whatever reason.

Well, there obviously IS a playing "correctly", but I understand what you mean in that the GOAL of the players is up to them, and usually involves attempting to win and also enjoying their experience.




However most recognize the difference between tactical player and rp style player overall.

The difference would have to be one of perception and degree.

My army is based on an "rp" idea, but decisions within that are still made on a tactical basis. Khorne Warriors are a poor choice (as Warriors are a poor tactical choice in 8th and Khorne is not the strongest choice even then), but I have included them in my all-khorne Warrior army regardless. I have NOT however given them 2xHW, even though SOME would argue it's more true/"rp"/"narrative" to do so. I haven't done this because it's a poor choice tactically, but I'd also gladly disagree with anyone who says that it is THE "rp"/"narrative" option for them because they are Khorne.

Many "tournament" level armies are extremely thematic and are a great representation of history and that faction's fluff. The old debate about "role vs roll" play is, with any serious inspection, on that is not based on a solid foundation.

Zywus
11-01-2016, 19:57
I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around this. I'm not a tournament player. I'm not even a competitive player. I like to roleplay and invest time in developing characters and worlds. But AoS is a game between two armies. You and your opponent are trying to kill each other to achieve victory. The very nature of any game or competition should be to at least want to come out as the winner.

You don't have to be vicious and cutthroat, you don't have to be a rules lawyer or a cheesy player. But both people should at least be trying to win, at the very least to give meaning behind the supposedly narrative game where the mortal realms are under siege by the forces of Chaos. Shouldn't both people be roleplaying in order to achieve victory? You shouldn't pull punches, you shouldn't sabotage yourself.
Not in AoS apparantly. The game isn't really a 'game' as much as putting down models and looking at what happen when they fight. GW's Warhammer world event pack suggest to 'just throw on some extra stuff on the table' mid game if one side takes a early lead. It's a slog between the models. You aren't supposed to be commanding them, just looking at them doing their thing.

MagicAngle
11-01-2016, 20:02
If you want a living breathing game with few limits and an unpredictable and exciting future, then look no further than AOS.

Unpredictable indeed! Is it going to be canned in 2017, or will it limp all the way into 2018? I'm pretty excited to find out.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 20:13
I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around this. I'm not a tournament player. I'm not even a competitive player. I like to roleplay and invest time in developing characters and worlds. But AoS is a game between two armies. You and your opponent are trying to kill each other to achieve victory. The very nature of any game or competition should be to at least want to come out as the winner.

You don't have to be vicious and cutthroat, you don't have to be a rules lawyer or a cheesy player. But both people should at least be trying to win, at the very least to give meaning behind the supposedly narrative game where the mortal realms are under siege by the forces of Chaos. Shouldn't both people be roleplaying in order to achieve victory? You shouldn't pull punches, you shouldn't sabotage yourself.

If you're not trying to win, either for narrative or competitive reasons, it might as well be Age of Little League where everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad.

And here we have the classic Spike's take on wargaming, it's winning that matters, how you get there is unimportant, if you're not trying your hardest to win your in the 'little league' where nothing matters. Honestly I'd rather lose a game by acting in-character than win a game by gaming the rules, you don't get it, I know, it might be helpful to google 'Spikes, Timmies and Johnnies' and read something by Mark Rosewater on the subject.

The thing is armies don't always win battles, even when they're in the tactically superior position, Lord so-and-so refuses to disengage his infantry to make way for a cavalry charge as ordered because he has caught sight of his hated rival baron thingymabob and has decided to push on and kill him, as a result his infantry is wiped out, the flank crumbles and ultimately the army breaks.

There were even examples of this kind of thing in the warhammer lore, one story in the empire book had a young elector count refuse to give command of his army over to a more experienced Knight Grandmaster, as a result the grandmaster withdrew his entire knightly order allowing the elector counts army to be wiped out and the province ravaged. The elector wasn't acting in the best interests of his army, he wasn't making a tactically sound choice, he was a victim of his own hubris.

Now of course you go into the game with the intention to win, but sometimes making the best choice available in a given situation means doing something you know your forces would absolutely not do in-character. I would choose the in-character option even if it would lose me the game, not because I'm stupid or couldn't see it, but because creating the experience is more important than being able to say 'yep, I won' at the end of the game.

And like I said above for the event in question the winner wasn't decided based on most victories, it was decided based on the highest number of 'best opponent' votes, so creating a great experience for your opponent was the best tactic for winning.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 20:18
And here we have the classic Spike's take on wargaming, it's winning that matters, how you get there is unimportant, if you're not trying your hardest to win your in the 'little league' where nothing matters.

Seems an honest summary of a fairly short post...


I like to roleplay and invest time in developing characters and worlds. But AoS is a game between two armies. You and your opponent are trying to kill each other to achieve victory. The very nature of any game or competition should be to at least want to come out as the winner.



You don't have to be vicious and cutthroat, you don't have to be a rules lawyer or a cheesy player. But both people should at least be trying to win, at the very least to give meaning behind the supposedly narrative game where the mortal realms are under siege by the forces of Chaos.



If you're not trying to win, either for narrative or competitive reasons, it might as well be Age of Little League where everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad.


Oh no, wait...

Folomo
11-01-2016, 20:18
Does it really matter how many seraphon died by prolonging the battle?
There no difference in battle if no skink died or if every single lizard except he slann died. The are all figments of his imagination. So toying with the enemy and prolonging the battle may be in character for the pseudo-demonic hordes of the seraphon.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 20:22
Does it really matter how many seraphon died by prolonging the battle?
There no difference in battle if no skink died or if every single lizard except he slann died. The are all figments of his imagination. So toying with the enemy and prolonging the battle may be in character for the pseudo-demonic hordes of the seraphon.

That's an interesting question, since they are magical beings that are conjured into existence prior to the battle I guess probably not. On the flip side if it were a Khorne army, prolonging the battle to achieve a greater number of casualties on both sides probably IS an in-character thing to do, after all, Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows.

Seriously if the guy chose to prolong the game so it would be less boring and more fun, can you really fault him? I mean the whole point of playing these games is to have fun right? Can we at least agree on that?

MagicAngle
11-01-2016, 20:26
This is all a little puzzling. The AoS rules are explicit in making it clear that victory is decided not by how warm and fuzzy everyone felt at the end of the game, but with some cold hard numbers.

I understand that this is not necessarily how the game is being played out in the real world, but if we're at least trying to remain vaguely on-topic, doesn't it all reflect terrible game-design rather than amazing innovation?

Ayin
11-01-2016, 20:32
That's an interesting question, since they are magical beings that are conjured into existence prior to the battle I guess probably not. On the flip side if it were a Khorne army, prolonging the battle to achieve a greater number of casualties on both sides probably IS an in-character thing to do, after all, Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows.


Of course one side isn't seeing any casualties or blood flowing, as there are no truly living beings being slain if the opposite side is composed of dream-lizards.

Asmodios
11-01-2016, 20:34
That's an interesting question, since they are magical beings that are conjured into existence prior to the battle I guess probably not. On the flip side if it were a Khorne army, prolonging the battle to achieve a greater number of casualties on both sides probably IS an in-character thing to do, after all, Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows.

Seriously if the guy chose to prolong the game so it would be less boring and more fun, can you really fault him? I mean the whole point of playing these games is to have fun right? Can we at least agree on that?
I guess i think of it more like my opponent has been playing the game and has now set up a flank charge on my important unit (i know there are no flanks in AOS I'm just making a situation up). Now if my opponent flank charges me my unit will break and the game will be over. He instead wants the game to go the full six turns so his unit just stands there until the last turn so we could have a longer "more fun" game. To me holding back like this isn't fun, fluffy, kind or anything other then annoying. To me winning is not really important but instead its the fun behind the little dice rolls that end up swinging a game one way or the other. If every time one of these rolls tips the scales so the other army holds back it would ruin my immersion into the game. Im not worried about winning or losing I'm worried about the journey that take us there... by this i mean that i want to see an honest outcome between two relatively balanced forces.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 20:41
I guess i think of it more like my opponent has been playing the game and has now set up a flank charge on my important unit (i know there are no flanks in AOS I'm just making a situation up). Now if my opponent flank charges me my unit will break and the game will be over. He instead wants the game to go the full six turns so his unit just stands there until the last turn so we could have a longer "more fun" game. To me holding back like this isn't fun, fluffy, kind or anything other then annoying. To me winning is not really important but instead its the fun behind the little dice rolls that end up swinging a game one way or the other. If every time one of these rolls tips the scales so the other army holds back it would ruin my immersion into the game. Im not worried about winning or losing I'm worried about the journey that take us there... by this i mean that i want to see an honest outcome between two relatively balanced forces.

From what I read of the event your flank charge example is not really a good charactisation of what happened. I think that's the point though, we're attempting to analyse the game based on incomplete post-match data, obviously whatever this guy was doing his opponent responded well to it because otherwise he wouldn't have gotten the full complement of best opponent votes and won the event. It's a bit pointless saying things like 'if I were in that situation I would've felt really patronised and hated it' because you weren't in that situation (and if you were you might have felt very differently).

It's not like the event pack didn't spell out very clearly what the procedure was for determining the winner of the event, I think a system of victory that encourages players to have a good time and give their opponents a good time too is better than one that simply rewards the person who brought the jankiest army list.

Comrade Penguin
11-01-2016, 20:50
As others have said, there is a huge difference between making a fluffy decision and purposely withholding an attack to extend the game. I prefer the first option in friendly games, and have personally charged my warboss into hopelessly one-sided duels because dats wot boyz do! But I would never "forget" my shooting or assault phase to spare an opponent and extend a game. And I would be very insulted if someone did this to me.

Altsain
11-01-2016, 20:52
Meanwhile, the guy who came in first purposefully handicapped himself in-game by making stupid decisions because making the obviously smart tactical move would've resulted in a short and boring game. That sounds like the most miserable experience ever.

As opposed to... a short and boring game?


You're apparently playing a "strategy" game not as a test of wits, but as a popularity contest.

No, I am playing it to have fun. No other reason.


I would feel personally insulted if someone was intentionally pulling punches against me. It seems very condescending to meet someone in a competition and purposely make poor plays to extend the game length, almost like you are taunting you opponent.


It is about attitude. I don't want to mock anyone. I just want a fun game.


Playing to lose really breaks the immersion,

With respect, I have never played to lose.


Also from that write up, I would guess the author smugly believes folks playing to win have zero fun,

Okay, you are putting words in my mouth and I would thank you not to do that.

There is an open invitation for anyone to come to our offices and play me at 40k or 8e. I think you will find me most competitive. I am not too shabby at these games.

I don't think 40k or 8e are any more or less than AoS, and I enjoy all three. It really is okay to like one, two or all three of these games, as they all scratch a different itch.

It is less okay to knock other people for liking a different game to the ones you enjoy.



If you're not trying to win, either for narrative or competitive reasons, it might as well be Age of Little League where everyone gets a trophy so no one feels bad.

That sounds awfully like you are saying why I am playing AoS - and you don't get to do that. I am happy to explain why I enjoy AoS, and I am happy for you to enjoy whatever games you like to play. It is not cool to tell other people why they should not be enjoying the games they are playing.

There is enough room in the gaming world for everyone.


The game isn't really a 'game' as much as putting down models and looking at what happen when they fight. GW's Warhammer world event pack suggest to 'just throw on some extra stuff on the table' mid game if one side takes a early lead. It's a slog between the models. You aren't supposed to be commanding them, just looking at them doing their thing.

That... with a less negative spin, is not a bad description.

There is an RP/immersive element to AoS, there is an element of Warhammer heroes doing Warhammer things, and I can very well see that someone with little interest in the full background behind the models (if, just for example, the novels are not your thing, the fluff sections are the last part of a Codex to get read, and so on) will not find much in AoS. There is nothing wrong in that approach, but I can see that it would erode interest in AoS.

Just a theory, why a game is played is down to the individual player.

Ultimately, it is about fun and not requiring the total competitive edge to achieve that. It is not for everyone, but then, not every game is.


Does it really matter how many seraphon died by prolonging the battle?
There no difference in battle if no skink died or if every single lizard except he slann died. The are all figments of his imagination.

You monster.

#SeraphonLivesMatter


The AoS rules are explicit in making it clear that victory is decided not by how warm and fuzzy everyone felt at the end of the game, but with some cold hard numbers.

The designers do, I believe, make the presumption that having fun is the ultimate goal.

Tyelacoirii
11-01-2016, 20:59
Having a good time is inescapable subjective though.

For example the most one sided game I think I have ever had was shortly after 6th edition. Some guy playing Lizardmen was facing my High Elves. For two or three turns he advanced at me getting shot by bows, bolt throwers and magic. On my third turn I charged all down the line. I proceeded to win the three combats and routed more or less his entire army.

He probably didn't enjoy the game. At the same time however this was what my army was designed to do. That is how old Warhammer worked. The charge was everything. I don't see how I could have made it more fun for him without actively playing badly.

I remember another game in a tournament where I got really pissed off - it wasn't my opponent but I couldn't seem to roll to my save my life. One of those games where you never make an armour save and every attack roll is below average. I can't ask my opponent to take sympathy on me due to crap luck.

So moving into current day - in 8th I don't abuse magic as much I could. I play a Lizardman player regularly for fun with a mainly goblin army. The thing is if I 6 dice a Curse of da Bad Moon into his lines and effectively annihilate a Saurus block then the game is almost certainly over there and then. There are various things he could do to me. Its not fun for him and its not fun for me. Barring this however we are both trying to win. I am not throwing things around the table just to see what happens.

Gonefishing
11-01-2016, 21:01
And here we have the classic Spike's take on wargaming, it's winning that matters, how you get there is unimportant, if you're not trying your hardest to win your in the 'little league' where nothing matters. Honestly I'd rather lose a game by acting in-character than win a game by gaming the rules, you don't get it, I know, it might be helpful to google 'Spikes, Timmies and Johnnies' and read something by Mark Rosewater on the subject.



Erm, the poster your quoting did not mention gaming the rues, nor was he saying that he has to win - quite the opposite in fact and I think you totally misquoted him there.


From my perspective its all about the game, I could not give a flying monkeys chuff if I win or lose the game, (for me) the fun is in trying to win it, and playing against an opponent who is trying his hardest to win it as well. IMO this makes a fun, challenging game - which does fit into the magic the gathering coined world of Timmy, Johnny and Spike, but not in the way you interpret it - because those personifications are absolutes, and what's more - they are all personifications of the ways people play to WIN. In the tale of Timmy, Johnny and Spike not one of them is trying to lose, or roleplaying (MTG is not really a role playing game after all), or pulling punches - not one of them says "its all about taking part" - if it does, say it - Well, I cant see it - but I invite you to quote it from the article. http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

Timmy is a Power Gamer - he wants to WIN big.
Spike is a competitive gamer - He wants to WIN all the time.
Johnny is a creative gamer - He wants to WIN with style.

What's the thing they all have in common? Trying to win .....which is exactly what Pojko said. IE. In a game with two opposing forces, both of those forces should be trying to win...for that you call him a Spike, but the reality is he could be any of the three playing types (or combination of them).

If someone's not trying to win the game? What's the point? At that stage it does become age of little league, which is clearly something neither Timmy, Johnny or Spike want to play.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 21:01
There is an open invitation for anyone to come to our offices and play me at 40k or 8e. I think you will find me most competitive. I am not too shabby at these games.

Or AoS? Where are your offices?

Philhelm
11-01-2016, 21:05
Unpredictable indeed! Is it going to be canned in 2017, or will it limp all the way into 2018? I'm pretty excited to find out.

Sounds like the sort of response one would expect from a bitter Averlander from the grassy fields of Averland. I think you need to Shimmer down.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 21:09
Sounds like the sort of response one would expect from a bitter Averlander from the grassy fields of Averland. I think you need to Shimmer down.

Well played good Sir, well played.

Andnore
11-01-2016, 21:10
No, I am playing it to have fun.

The designers do, I believe, make the presumption that having fun is the ultimate goal.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're making it sound like playing to win and playing because it's fun are diametrically opposed, which should imply a poorly designed game, or at least poorly designed balancing mechanics.

Altsain
11-01-2016, 21:11
Having a good time is inescapable subjective though.

Yes it is. Which is why we should all be more tolerant towards one another :)


Or AoS? Where are your offices?

Swindon, UK. Games are always running on Tuesday nights and most Saturdays, but I will fit in most days if someone is making a special trip. And yes, AoS is always welcome!

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 21:14
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're making it sound like playing to win and playing because it's fun are diametrically opposed, which should imply a poorly designed game, or at least poorly designed balancing mechanics.

I wouldn't say they were diametrically opposed, but they are certainly not synonymous. The trick is to get them to overlap as much as possible, the problem is that when someone becomes too focused on the playing to win part, it tends to take away from his opponents fun.



Swindon, UK. Games are always running on Tuesday nights and most Saturdays, but I will fit in most days if someone is making a special trip. And yes, AoS is always welcome!

Swindon is a little far for me to go for an evening's gaming, but if I ever going to be down your way... Likewise if you ever find yourself in the Sheffield area feel free to flick me a pm.

ScruffMan
11-01-2016, 21:15
Woops, wrong thread sorry. :P

Asmodios
11-01-2016, 21:16
From what I read of the event your flank charge example is not really a good charactisation of what happened. I think that's the point though, we're attempting to analyse the game based on incomplete post-match data, obviously whatever this guy was doing his opponent responded well to it because otherwise he wouldn't have gotten the full complement of best opponent votes and won the event. It's a bit pointless saying things like 'if I were in that situation I would've felt really patronised and hated it' because you weren't in that situation (and if you were you might have felt very differently).

It's not like the event pack didn't spell out very clearly what the procedure was for determining the winner of the event, I think a system of victory that encourages players to have a good time and give their opponents a good time too is better than one that simply rewards the person who brought the jankiest army list.
I don't see a difference in my flank charge example and the (I could shoot my dino laser at his general and win the game but chose not to because then i would have won the game). Both of them have a clear tactical choice of what to do to win the game, not taking that choice simply because you don't want to win fast is imo one of the worst sportsmanship violations i can think of. I have been slow building a lizardmen force I bought years ago but never got around to. My first game against my brothers skaven he decimated me. Just because his warp lightning cannon killed a conosaur fist turn didn't mean he stopped shooting my big monsters each subsequent turn. His Warp Lightning Cannon decimated me but i would have been insulted if he didn't point it at the biggest immediate threat to his army each and ever turn.

Pojko
11-01-2016, 21:17
And here we have the classic Spike's take on wargaming, it's winning that matters, how you get there is unimportant, if you're not trying your hardest to win your in the 'little league' where nothing matters. Honestly I'd rather lose a game by acting in-character than win a game by gaming the rules, you don't get it, I know, it might be helpful to google 'Spikes, Timmies and Johnnies' and read something by Mark Rosewater on the subject.

Well apparently you decided to ignore the part about where I said you don't have to be vicious and cutthroat. Or the part where I said that things matter, like roleplaying and developing characters. You'd just rather paint me as a ruthless competitive player after I went out of my way to point out I wasn't.

Are you just being "in-character" by doing that, or is it actually how you feel?

Gonefishing
11-01-2016, 21:19
I wouldn't say they were diametrically opposed, but they are certainly not synonymous. The trick is to get them to overlap as much as possible, the problem is that when someone becomes too focused on the playing to win part, it tends to take away from his opponents fun.


Or...Add to it, by resulting in a fun challenging game.

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 21:19
As opposed to... a short and boring game?

...which is a result of a poorly written, shoddily produced game. When people play a game, the game should facilitate the fun. It shouldn't hinder it, which is clearly the case here, as the player in question was making illogical decisions so that the situation which the poorly produced game created wouldn't end their fun prematurely.


No, I am playing it to have fun. No other reason.

Wouldn't it be nice if the game was constructed in such a way to facilitate a fun experience, rather than making you work against it to preserve your fun?

Andnore
11-01-2016, 21:23
I wouldn't say they were diametrically opposed, but they are certainly not synonymous. The trick is to get them to overlap as much as possible, the problem is that when someone becomes too focused on the playing to win part, it tends to take away from his opponents fun.


A sentiment I can agree with (Timmy-Vorthos in the land of Johnny/Spike-Melvins), but at the same time, when you're deliberately sabotaging yourself because otherwise, the game would be over too quickly/not fun for you, isn't that a sign that there's something wrong with how the game is designed? You shouldn't have to make poor decisions for yourself in order for the game to be fair/enjoyable, right?

Gonefishing
11-01-2016, 21:24
...which is a result of a poorly written, shoddily produced game. When people play a game, the game should facilitate the fun. It shouldn't hinder it, which is clearly the case here, as the player in question was making illogical decisions so that the situation which the poorly produced game created wouldn't end their fun prematurely.


Wouldn't it be nice if the game was constructed in such a way to facilitate a fun experience, rather than making you work against it to preserve your fun?

Very true - I play DZC now...probably about 90% of the games I have played have come down to the very last turn of the game, and I've never come close to tabling an opponent. Why, because that's the way the game is designed.

Philhelm
11-01-2016, 21:24
I don't see a difference in my flank charge example and the (I could shoot my dino laser at his general and win the game but chose not to because then i would have won the game). Both of them have a clear tactical choice of what to do to win the game, not taking that choice simply because you don't want to win fast is imo one of the worst sportsmanship violations i can think of. I have been slow building a lizardmen force I bought years ago but never got around to. My first game against my brothers skaven he decimated me. Just because his warp lightning cannon killed a conosaur fist turn didn't mean he stopped shooting my big monsters each subsequent turn. His Warp Lightning Cannon decimated me but i would have been insulted if he didn't point it at the biggest immediate threat to his army each and ever turn.

It's fluffy for Skaven players to win at all costs, including outright cheating.

MagicAngle
11-01-2016, 21:26
The designers do, I believe, make the presumption that having fun is the ultimate goal.

That would be a great retort if I had mentioned the ultimate goal of the game at any point. The victory conditions are clearly defined in the rules and have nothing to do with any roleplaying aspects or general happy feelings. If the intention of the designers was to encourage semi-cooperative play of the kind being discussed, the rules at no point encourage this. If anything they encourage gaming of the system in the least fluffy ways possible (deploying minimal high-power minis to get sudden death, etc).

Any perceived "innovation" in AoS appears to have developed in spite of the rules, rather than due to intentional games design.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 21:31
Well apparently you decided to ignore the part about where I said you don't have to be vicious and cutthroat. Or the part where I said that things matter, like roleplaying and developing characters. You'd just rather paint me as a ruthless competitive player after I went out of my way to point out I wasn't.

Are you just being "in-character" by doing that, or is it actually how you feel?

I don't think I ever used the word 'ruthless' but the fact that you can't countenance an in-character action that detracts from your chances of winning the game just because it is what your character would do, tells me a lot.

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 21:35
Very true - I play DZC now...probably about 90% of the games I have played have come down to the very last turn of the game, and I've never come close to tabling an opponent. Why, because that's the way the game is designed.

Exactly. The game should be constructed in such a way that it provides a fun experience, with bad play experiences being weird corner case situations. AOS, however, seems to be constructed in such a way that a bad play experience is to be expected, hence these "tournaments" where people are actually playing against the bad game system in order to create a fun experience rather than playing against each other.

Asmodios
11-01-2016, 21:39
It's fluffy for Skaven players to win at all costs, including outright cheating.
With Skaven if their not cheating their not trying =p

Pojko
11-01-2016, 21:45
I don't think I ever used the word 'ruthless' but the fact that you can't countenance an in-character action that detracts from your chances of winning the game just because it is what your character would do, tells me a lot.

No, there's nothing wrong with being in character when playing a game. There's nothing wrong with roleplaying. I never said anything of the sort. But apparently to you unless you're 100% roleplaying, you're "gouging for the win" or "gaming the rules".

What this whole conversation stemmed from was from the Throne of Skulls event, about a player who "purposefully handicapped himself in-game by making stupid decisions because making the obviously smart tactical move would've resulted in a short and boring game".

By this account and your personal feelings I get the hint that Age of Sigmar isn't even a game so much as it is a playtime with your models and your friends while telling a story. I did that with my Legos and GI Joes when I was 10. But hey, whatever makes you happy I guess.

HelloKitty
11-01-2016, 21:52
There are literally hundreds of papers and online discussions on roll vs roleplay. The divide is very real.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gonefishing
11-01-2016, 21:52
I don't think I ever used the word 'ruthless' but the fact that you can't countenance an in-character action that detracts from your chances of winning the game just because it is what your character would do, tells me a lot.

No you used the word Spike, which in the context used certainly implied it (although as covered, the Johnny/Timmy/Spike terminology isn't remotely relevant to the discussion).

That aside spiny, you may not agree with him, but your rebuttal to his post was wildly inaccurate in terms of the context of what he actually said...for that alone I would say you owe him an apology not another comment criticising (I think somewhat unjustly) the type of player you perceive him to be. I think the difference is that he does not see AOS as a roleplaying game, and neither do GW market it as such.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 21:54
What this whole conversation stemmed from was from the Throne of Skulls event, about a player who "purposefully handicapped himself in-game by making stupid decisions because making the obviously smart tactical move would've resulted in a short and boring game".

But that was my point, decisions that you regard as 'stupid' might have been made in-character, (or he may genuinely not have realised his mistake). Either way people have done a lot of extrapolating and characaturing from a single second hand account of a game. And the point still stands - if he did what he did to make the game more interesting and fun then it perhaps wasn't such a 'stupid' decision after all.


By this account and your personal feelings I get the hint that Age of Sigmar isn't even a game so much as it is a playtime with your models and your friends while telling a story. I did that with my Legos and GI Joes when I was 10. But hey, whatever makes you happy I guess.

yes you think I'm childish because I like Age of Sigmar, I get it, and people wonder why these threads go south...

Philhelm
11-01-2016, 21:56
There are literally hundreds of papers and online discussions on roll vs roleplay. The divide is very real.

I prefer R'hollplay.

Buddy Bear
11-01-2016, 22:00
I prefer R'hollplay (TM).

Corrected that for you.

Gonefishing
11-01-2016, 22:04
yes you think I'm childish because I like Age of Sigmar, I get it, and people wonder why these threads go south...

Again, that's not what he said but you seem fairly determined to misrepresent everything he posts - so enjoy :)

dragonelf
11-01-2016, 22:04
I have actually enjoyed the discussion, because for the most part it has been constructive, with a few exceptions. I am over being accused of being a troll, a GW employee, I've even been called passive aggressive!

A few little points....I don't think that anyone can argue with others about what is fun on a subjective basis. What is fun for me might not be fun for you. It is obvious that the majority of posters on this thread do not get as much fun out of AOS as those that do. Competition is clearly enjoyable for many people and a game like AOS without tight rules, a points system etc. diminishes the enjoyment for them, as well as the mythology and all the things that people have talked about.

I want to move the discussion on, and try and be a bit constructive with a simple question....Is this game salvagable?

Could GW bring people back to it with some serious modification. For example if they were to release 'Advanced Rules for Age of Sigmar' which included a balancing system and more coherent army selection system? How many people would be pulled back in? Or do we think that the loss of a ranked block wargame is still a major factor.

GW aren't stupid, they will have to do something if no one is buying their product, that's why AOS happened in the first place...

Morathi's Darkest Sin
11-01-2016, 22:05
Okay, you are putting words in my mouth and I would thank you not to do that.

There is an open invitation for anyone to come to our offices and play me at 40k or 8e. I think you will find me most competitive. I am not too shabby at these games.

I don't think 40k or 8e are any more or less than AoS, and I enjoy all three. It really is okay to like one, two or all three of these games, as they all scratch a different itch.

It is less okay to knock other people for liking a different game to the ones you enjoy.


Actually need to hold my hand up, somehow missed your 4th point. As to AoS, I have no issue with the actual game, just parts of the new setting need a lot of work, and the extra work I am expected to do when rival games have a much quicker points system I can work with.. oh and as I've noted in the other thread, Aelf's will make or break the game for me.

Asmodios
11-01-2016, 22:13
I have actually enjoyed the discussion, because for the most part it has been constructive, with a few exceptions. I am over being accused of being a troll, a GW employee, I've even been called passive aggressive!

A few little points....I don't think that anyone can argue with others about what is fun on a subjective basis. What is fun for me might not be fun for you. It is obvious that the majority of posters on this thread do not get as much fun out of AOS as those that do. Competition is clearly enjoyable for many people and a game like AOS without tight rules, a points system etc. diminishes the enjoyment for them, as well as the mythology and all the things that people have talked about.

I want to move the discussion on, and try and be a bit constructive with a simple question....Is this game salvagable?

Could GW bring people back to it with some serious modification. For example if they were to release 'Advanced Rules for Age of Sigmar' which included a balancing system and more coherent army selection system? How many people would be pulled back in? Or do we think that the loss of a ranked block wargame is still a major factor.

GW aren't stupid, they will have to do something if no one is buying their product, that's why AOS happened in the first place...
I honestly don't think it can be salvaged. The issue is that they burned so many people with its release that i doubt they would come back even for a proper 9th ed. There was a thread on here called "the AOS effect" which really captured my thoughts on this. I was a big GW fanboy up until AOS and had never purchased a model (or even paint) from another company. But after now purchasing some great models (at amazing prices) and being exposed to other game systems, i don't think i could ever go back to a company that so easily thew a large portion of players overboard. GW literally added in stupid rules to embarrass players using old models and thats not the type of company i give my money to.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 22:17
I want to move the discussion on, and try and be a bit constructive with a simple question....Is this game salvagable?

Could GW bring people back to it with some serious modification. For example if they were to release 'Advanced Rules for Age of Sigmar' which included a balancing system and more coherent army selection system? How many people would be pulled back in? Or do we think that the loss of a ranked block wargame is still a major factor.

GW aren't stupid, they will have to do something if no one is buying their product, that's why AOS happened in the first place...

If you're asking could GW make the game better, then I'd say yes, there is a whole load of things they could do to expand the game and enhance its appeal in successive editions etc.

As for winning people back, I don't know, a lot of former players have gone a step beyond leaving the game, they've taken the change personally which is unfortunate. As you mentioned you've drawn some personal criticism just for expressing a positive opinion of the game, the bitterness and vitriol levelled at the company as a whole is significantly more potent and will be difficult to overcome.

I suspect GWs best course is to recruit a new generation of gamers and leave the bitter old veterans to stew, which seems to have been the plan with AoS all along.

Soundwave
11-01-2016, 22:20
I honestly don't think it can be salvaged. The issue is that they burned so many people with its release that i doubt they would come back even for a proper 9th ed. There was a thread on here called "the AOS effect" which really captured my thoughts on this. I was a big GW fanboy up until AOS and had never purchased a model (or even paint) from another company. But after now purchasing some great models (at amazing prices) and being exposed to other game systems, i don't think i could ever go back to a company that so easily thew a large portion of players overboard. GW literally added in stupid rules to embarrass players using old models and thats not the type of company i give my money to.
Yes the AOS appears to be a full on curse as it involved the killing of the game that made the company. A serious hot mess, I do see G.W making some serious attempts to save it by the end of the year. How many people this will salvage back into the fold is anyone's gues. (Not many though).

Gonefishing
11-01-2016, 22:21
I want to move the discussion on, and try and be a bit constructive with a simple question....Is this game salvagable?

Could GW bring people back to it with some serious modification. For example if they were to release 'Advanced Rules for Age of Sigmar' which included a balancing system and more coherent army selection system? How many people would be pulled back in? Or do we think that the loss of a ranked block wargame is still a major factor.

GW aren't stupid, they will have to do something if no one is buying their product, that's why AOS happened in the first place...

Anything's possible but they have burned a lot of bridges. The problem they have is that they have lost vast swathes of people, and the game has not (so the sales figures tell us) recruited new players. So if they radically overhaul the game now that might upset the few remaining players they have, without reclaiming the players they have lost. I think it more likely if AOS remains unsuccessful then GW will just kill the range entirely.

dragonelf
11-01-2016, 22:24
I think that is sad and disappointing attitude if what you say about GW is true. Veteran gamers have demonstrated longevity and loyalty to their brand, and if anything GW should be trying to re-patriate them rather than tossing them aside. Whatever my personal disagreement, there is no getting away from the fact that AOS is a very disappointing effort from the game design point of view from an established company. It has been resuscitated by a community desperate to make it work and with no help or contribution by GW.

I hope they reflect and try a repair some of the damage because the community is the lifeblood of games like this, otherwise it becomes nothing more than another corporate product fashioned by sales figures.

Spiney Norman
11-01-2016, 22:30
I think that is sad and disappointing attitude if what you say about GW is true. Veteran gamers have demonstrated longevity and loyalty to their brand, and if anything GW should be trying to re-patriate them rather than tossing them aside. Whatever my personal disagreement, there is no getting away from the fact that AOS is a very disappointing effort from the game design point of view from an established company. It has been resuscitated by a community desperate to make it work and with no help or contribution by GW.

I hope they reflect and try a repair some of the damage because the community is the lifeblood of games like this, otherwise it becomes nothing more than another corporate product fashioned by sales figures.

The reality is, it needs to be both, GW should be doing more helping to grow the community, no question, but the game also needs to be a corporate product that makes money, GW is a Plc, not a charity, it's not unreasonable that they give some thought to their share-holders and profit margins, to say otherwise would be like suggesting I should be so committed to the company I work for that I should do my job without being paid.

Lexington
11-01-2016, 22:35
I want to move the discussion on, and try and be a bit constructive with a simple question....Is this game salvagable?
Maybe, maybe not. I think the more useful question is "can Games Workshop salvage this game," which I'm more doubtful on. AoS is close to the purest expression of Games Workshop in its current configuration. They got the chance to make a game of their own, almost completely unencumbered by the company's past, and AoS is what they came up with - a game that's as close to a frictionless sales tunnel as you could imagine. No points values to keep model sales artificially low, no barriers between armies to keep players from buying the miniatures they want, and a game world that focuses exclusively on elements that can be cast in plastic and put on a shelf. It's their dream game, and I think it'd take a pretty mighty change in the company's direction to change that.

Kahadras
11-01-2016, 22:42
AoS is close to the purest expression of Games Workshop in its current configuration. They got the chance to make a game of their own, almost completely unencumbered by the company's past, and AoS is what they came up with - a game that's as close to a frictionless sales tunnel as you could imagine. No points values to keep model sales artificially low, no barriers between armies to keep players from buying the miniatures they want, and a game world that focuses exclusively on elements that can be cast in plastic and put on a shelf. It's their dream game, and I think it'd take a pretty mighty change in the company's direction to change that.

This.

I suppose GW are scratching their heads at the moment trying to figure out why AoS tanked. It's probably as close to a perfect as GW thought it could be. Obviously GW has been pulling in the opposite direction to a large percentage of its community for some time now but I suppose that its not a suprise as they don't bother with market research. There is a bit of hope on the horizon with these new army starter sets and the return of Specialist Games but I suspect this is more the board randomly throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

MagicAngle
11-01-2016, 22:50
Maybe, maybe not. I think the more useful question is "can Games Workshop salvage this game," which I'm more doubtful on. AoS is close to the purest expression of Games Workshop in its current configuration. They got the chance to make a game of their own, almost completely unencumbered by the company's past, and AoS is what they came up with - a game that's as close to a frictionless sales tunnel as you could imagine. No points values to keep model sales artificially low, no barriers between armies to keep players from buying the miniatures they want, and a game world that focuses exclusively on elements that can be cast in plastic and put on a shelf. It's their dream game, and I think it'd take a pretty mighty change in the company's direction to change that.

!00 % agreed. I think AoS could be potentially recast as a proper rules-light RPG, or alternately into a tight well-balanced skirmish game, if the right developers were working on it. But I don't think GW know how to make good games anymore so I doubt it'll actually happen.

I do, however, think that if they made a really great game, people would return to it. Quality wins, in the end.

Ayin
11-01-2016, 22:51
Maybe, maybe not. I think the more useful question is "can Games Workshop salvage this game," which I'm more doubtful on. AoS is close to the purest expression of Games Workshop in its current configuration. They got the chance to make a game of their own, almost completely unencumbered by the company's past, and AoS is what they came up with - a game that's as close to a frictionless sales tunnel as you could imagine. No points values to keep model sales artificially low, no barriers between armies to keep players from buying the miniatures they want, and a game world that focuses exclusively on elements that can be cast in plastic and put on a shelf. It's their dream game, and I think it'd take a pretty mighty change in the company's direction to change that.

The only two things GW doesn't have is an equally large customer base as their previous game and (any indication of) a plan on how to acquire one, which is rough for the near future of the product.

They had a classic retention strategy included in their new line using the "your previously purchased product is not obsolete and upgrading to the new one is free!", which was a very good decision on their part (not doing that would have been unthinkably stupid), and it's ludicrous to imagine they are hanging the success on their new product either entirely or even MOSTLY in the immediate future on new customers. Where retention seems to have gone wrong for them is betting on the wrong part of WHY their customers were customers, and that being combined with their initial launch being focused on new customers (or transferred sales from their other line) is how they get to where they are now.