PDA

View Full Version : Three ways to play AoS starting this summer



Pages : [1] 2

veterannoob
25-04-2016, 10:08
This is from the Facebook page and I want to give it its own discussion time and not drown in other older threads.

Choice of three ways to play: Open, Narrative, Matched (which like SCGT the events and will even have points) Pick what you like. All of us have the same info now, what's on the FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/?fref=ts

So, thoughts?

MLP
25-04-2016, 10:11
Sounds spot on to me. They are keeping those happy who enjoy the more open and narrative side whilst supporting the competitive tournament and pick up game scene.

Much better than just tacking on a points system.

Also good that they've been developing it with the major UK tournament organisers as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blackcherry
25-04-2016, 10:13
Well this is good. Games Workshop have listened to feedback and are offering options without removing any players ability to play the game how they want.

I'm sure there will be people who STILL aren't happy (this is the internet after all :p ). But it's a positive step.

Andnore
25-04-2016, 10:14
Big props to GW on trying to give the customers what they want (within reason). :) Now I really want to see what those points will look like.

Zywus
25-04-2016, 10:15
Also good that they've been developing it with the major UK tournament organisers as well.
That's a good idea, and something they should have done a long time ago, since GW is incapable of assigning competent point values.

Imagine if they'd have done this while they still had a game people cared about. That could have really rejuvenated a 9th edition of WHFB.

Yrch
25-04-2016, 10:15
Sounds great!
I really enjoy playing the Scenarios from the big books with a buddy and we mainly build our armies around being fluffy and matching the current scenario so the Narrative way is what im really looking forward to but having some sorts of point system to play pickup games is a welcome addition.

wonder how long till people who were asking for a points system start to complain that GW is giving in an adding a point system xD

Shifte
25-04-2016, 10:18
Next step:

1) Fix the turn sequence (no more two turns in a row).

2) Measure from bases (obvious).

3) Balance summoning.

Yrch
25-04-2016, 10:20
Next step:

1) Fix the turn sequence (no more two turns in a row).

2) Measure from bases (obvious).

3) Balance summoning.

im pretty sure #2 and #3 will be in the Matched Play, dunno about #1 but so far it made some of my games very intense and fun.

MLP
25-04-2016, 10:21
Next step:

1) Fix the turn sequence (no more two turns in a row).

2) Measure from bases (obvious).

3) Balance summoning.

1) Not going to happen

2) Not going to happen, although most play this way anyway.

3) Probably likely with matched play

Zywus
25-04-2016, 10:28
"POINTS VALUES WERE NEVER BALANCED. They were actually unfair. Warhammer devolved into an exercise where power-mad dice chuckers would spend every waking moment breaking the latest army book. “Well, the points are equal. Therefore it is fair,” they would say of their latest hell-combo, when quite patently it was not fair, and what they really meant was “This arbitrary system of points attribution provides a cloak of legitimacy to my frightening need to prove my validity as a human being by winning at toy soldiers.”"

-Guy Haley

blackcherry
25-04-2016, 10:31
If Guy said that, he's a much smarter person than most of us.

And given I've met him, I'm willing to believe it.

Shifte
25-04-2016, 10:43
1) Not going to happen

2) Not going to happen, although most play this way anyway.

3) Probably likely with matched play

https://i.gyazo.com/add09e6f0aeb2535d28337cfa70da067.png

Might happen.

Shifte
25-04-2016, 10:46
im pretty sure #2 and #3 will be in the Matched Play, dunno about #1 but so far it made some of my games very intense and fun.

I think it's frustrating. I struggle to see the point in movement characteristics (narratively) if sometimes you are double-quick. :p

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 10:53
"POINTS VALUES WERE NEVER BALANCED. They were actually unfair. Warhammer devolved into an exercise where power-mad dice chuckers would spend every waking moment breaking the latest army book. “Well, the points are equal. Therefore it is fair,” they would say of their latest hell-combo, when quite patently it was not fair, and what they really meant was “This arbitrary system of points attribution provides a cloak of legitimacy to my frightening need to prove my validity as a human being by winning at toy soldiers.”"

-Guy Haley

... and it can still be true? Does the fact they will have a balancing mechanic, automatically mean points are needed? Seems, as mentioned, it's purely for tournament competitive play... "I came here to win". Thankfully, we don't HAVE to play those people with a multiple option system.

Zywus
25-04-2016, 10:59
... and it can still be true? Does the fact they will have a balancing mechanic, automatically mean points are needed? Seems, as mentioned, it's purely for tournament competitive play... "I came here to win". Thankfully, we don't HAVE to play those people with a multiple option system.
But you HAD to play people in a certain way in WHFB?

People are very fond of remanding others that their 8th edition books have not been confiscated by GW. Similarly, no one has ever been and will ever be forced to play anyone using a certain point system. There is always the option of playing someone/something else or not play at all.

WHFB could always be played in these three ways.

People argued that it was a point in AoS' favour that the pointed option was lacking. Now that it's getting put back, it's apparently the other way around.

Immortus
25-04-2016, 10:59
I'm interested to see the Comp rules, will be interesting to see if they can salvage anything. But i doubt they will sway me into buying anything AOS. Too much about AOS fails to interest me

Spiney Norman
25-04-2016, 11:08
Sounds spot on to me. They are keeping those happy who enjoy the more open and narrative side whilst supporting the competitive tournament and pick up game scene.

Much better than just tacking on a points system.

Also good that they've been developing it with the major UK tournament organisers as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My thoughts exactly, cater to the competitive tournement crowd without losing the people that enjoy the more relaxed, looser style of (what is now called) open play.

Lots of cool stuff in this announcement aside from the introduction of points, very excited for the multiplayer rules for open play and the campaign tools for narrative play that are mentioned.

I confess to having a certain morbid curiosity regarding what they will do to the game rules for competitive play, esp now the FAQ has given unlimited chain-summoning the official green light. I struggle to see how they can come up with a set of competitive rules/points that aren't instantly breakable.

WarsmithGarathor94
25-04-2016, 11:10
i await the points system

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 11:10
WHFB could always be played in these three ways.

If you know the player, yes you can have fun. Just as likely you can run into some mug whose definition of "fun" is "I'm going to try to win at any cost".

I mostly played 40K, so it's the only example I can give, but I once played a guy, an all around fun dude, in 4th edition. He was playing Chaos Marines, I borrowed some Astartes because I left Orks at home, etc. Long story short, it was a close game, but my last squad that moved up to try and finish off a squad of Khorne Berzerkers with bolter fire failed, so they were sitting on the objective, I thought it was game set match.

Then he charged them off it at the offending unit.

I pointed out to him, he's throwing away a win in exchange for a draw when all he has to do is not move them. He just smirked and told me, they're Khorne Berzerkers and they're in charge range. Objectives and winning be damned, Khorne only cares for blood!

So we resolved that and shook hands. Probably the best player I ever got to face, wish more people were interested in playing their armies in the spirit of the lore... which I felt AoS encouraged. Points tend to be obsessed by players who only define if they had fun or not by "if I won". When it shouldn't be.

Zywus
25-04-2016, 11:17
If you know the player, yes you can have fun. Just as likely you can run into some mug whose definition of "fun" is "I'm going to try to win".

I mostly played 40K, so it's the only example I can give, but I once played a guy, an all around fun dude, in 4th edition. He was playing Chaos Marines, I borrowed some Astartes because I left Orks at home, etc. Long story short, it was a close game, but my last squad that moved up to try and finish off a squad of Khorne Berzerkers with bolter fire failed, so they were sitting on the objective, I thought it was game set match.

Then he charged them off it. I pointed out to him, he's throwing away a win in exchange for a draw when all he has to do it not move them. He just smirked and told me, they're Khorne Berzerkers and they're in charge range. Objectives and winning be damned, Khorne only cares for blood!

So we resolved that and shook. Probably the best player I ever got to face, wish more people were interested in playing their armies in the spirit of the lore... which I felt AoS encouraged. Points tend to be obsessed by players who only define if they had fun or not by "if I won". When it shouldn't be.
I don't get your point?

Do you feel AoS encouraged playing their armies in the spirit of the lore because it didn't have point values? If so, then it doesn't do that anymore to the same extent.

WarsmithGarathor94
25-04-2016, 11:20
If you know the player, yes you can have fun. Just as likely you can run into some mug whose definition of "fun" is "I'm going to try to win at any cost".

I mostly played 40K, so it's the only example I can give, but I once played a guy, an all around fun dude, in 4th edition. He was playing Chaos Marines, I borrowed some Astartes because I left Orks at home, etc. Long story short, it was a close game, but my last squad that moved up to try and finish off a squad of Khorne Berzerkers with bolter fire failed, so they were sitting on the objective, I thought it was game set match.

Then he charged them off it at the offending unit.

I pointed out to him, he's throwing away a win in exchange for a draw when all he has to do is not move them. He just smirked and told me, they're Khorne Berzerkers and they're in charge range. Objectives and winning be damned, Khorne only cares for blood!

So we resolved that and shook hands. Probably the best player I ever got to face, wish more people were interested in playing their armies in the spirit of the lore... which I felt AoS encouraged. Points tend to be obsessed by players who only define if they had fun or not by "if I won". When it shouldn't be.

while i am all for having fun and trust me im far from a competitive player however i believe points will be good for the game. You can still have those narritive games but now both forces will be atleast a bit more equal

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 11:22
I don't get your point?

Do you feel AoS encouraged playing their armies in the spirit of the lore because it didn't have point values? If so, then it doesn't do that anymore to the same extent.

I feel points and list building encourage a game to be viewed as competitive, for a player to face a evenly matched opponent and try to come out on top. Some of the worst at any cost, taking units that are known to be unbalanced points-wise and over effective. A person only concerned with having a good time, where winning is a good secondary to getting to play with the stuff he painted and modeled because he loves the lore and wants to recreate the background on the tabletop or make his own, won't care his army might be slightly weaker or stronger, because he didn't come here to win, but to play. People that scream for points, are because they can't stand the idea, they might have to face a player with a slightly stronger army, which means they prioritize winning.


while i am all for having fun and trust me im far from a competitive player however i believe points will be good for the game. You can still have those narritive games but now both forces will be atleast a bit more equal

Well it's why I'm glad it's not forced to be one or the other. You can choose what type of game, which means you know already the type of player will gravitate towards. It's a shame because I preferred the Old World's lore, that they didn't make something with that...

Sete
25-04-2016, 11:25
Great news and great move by GW.

ScruffMan
25-04-2016, 11:25
Yeah, we can probably all stop bickering now. We're all being catered too, possibly even those who flat out hate the rules with these more advanced rules that are coming.

WarsmithGarathor94
25-04-2016, 11:27
Agreed rogue star i play pick up games alot so atleast having some kind of safety net of balance will help me out no end

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 11:29
People that scream for points, are because they can't stand the idea, they might have to face a player with a slightly stronger army, which means they prioritize winning.

Or maybe they prioritise fairness.

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 11:32
Or maybe they prioritize fairness.

Because you want a fair chance at winning, no? I mean that's fair to you, but it's the reason, is it not?

I just don't believe you'd be suggesting you need the game to be fair for fairness' sake... the game involves dice rolling. Which is luck based. You can both be equally skilled players with 1000pt armies, you keep rolling 1's, you're going to quickly lose (but perhaps not fail leadership tests ;)), which is why I don't see the benefit. I equally, don't want to play a one sided game where I'm the punching bag, but I don't think the armies need to be tested and extracted to the perfection of this perfect balance everyone desires.

You want to prove your superior skills? Play identical armies. Then it's just down to planning... and again a lot of luck.

You want to prove beyond doubt you're the better planner, strategist, etc? You play chess. No dice there. :p

ScruffMan
25-04-2016, 11:33
Or maybe they prioritise fairness.
As the cliche goes there is no wrong way to have fun when playing games of toy soldiers. Hopefully this doesn't lead to both camps just telling eachother how wrong they are constantly! :P

Zywus
25-04-2016, 11:33
Well it's why I'm glad it's not forced to be one or the other. You can choose what type of game, which means you know already the type of player will gravitate towards. It's a shame because I preferred the Old World's lore, that they didn't make something with that...
And you never were forced to play any game one way or the other! At least not any more than what you are now with AoS.

If every potential player/opponent now wants to play with points, then you are "forced" to do so as well if you want to play. If no one wants to play with points, then you are equally "forced" to play it that way. It's the same as it has always been.

People were arguing that AoS was superior because people playing it were "forced" to leave any list-building or powergaming attitude behind. Now the game is no different than any other in that regard and I find people (not necessarily you in particular) to be inconsistent when they one day praise the game for excluding one mode of playing and the other day praising it for reintroducing the same mode.

Spiney Norman
25-04-2016, 11:42
And you never were forced to play any game one way or the other! At least not any more than what you are now with AoS.

If every potential player/opponent now wants to play with points, then you are "forced" to do so as well if you want to play. If no one wants to play with points, then you are equally "forced" to play it that way. It's the same as it has always been.

People were arguing that AoS was superior because people playing it were "forced" to leave any list-building or powergaming attitude behind. Now the game is no different than any other in that regard and I find people (not necessarily you in particular) to be inconsistent when they one day praise the game for excluding one mode of playing and the other day praising it for reintroducing the same mode.

At the end of the day if you and your opponent both have such differing expectations of the gaming experience that one of you has to 'force' the other to play their way then no amount of rules are going to give both of you a positive experience. In this context more choice is a good thing, some people have been asking for points values because the only way they can enjoy a game is to play competitively, they can now do that, for the folks that like the current system the way it is, they can continue to do that. Is it still encumbent on you to find an opponent willing to play you the way you want? Absolutely, but that has always been the case, if you only play warmachine and I hate it with a passion what are you going to do, force me to play it, or go and find someone who likes playing warmachine?

I'm not principally opposed to points, but I'm wildly enthusiastic about bad points systems where the points don't accurately reflect the abilities of the models (see 40k).

Zywus
25-04-2016, 11:51
At the end of the day if you and your opponent both have such differing expectations of the gaming experience that one of you has to 'force' the other to play their way then no amount of rules are going to give both of you a positive experience..
Of course. And in this context, being "forced" to play a certain way does obviously not entail any coercion of anyone. Simply that if everyone wants to play a certain way you are "forced" to either do so yourself or not play at all.

To have enjoyable games, you need a certain level of similar expectations. My point is that Guy Haley and others claimed that AoS lacking points was a good thing since it allegedly made everyone playing have similar expectations of the game. Now when points are getting brought in, I see some of the same people praising that as a good thing, giving alternatives to he players. I think that is ludicrous and show that it was just about defending AoS, no matter what.

Choombatta
25-04-2016, 11:52
I think Rogue Star is talking about the players who follow the Camp Patton motto (from Meatballs).
"We do not play for fun!"

duffybear1988
25-04-2016, 11:54
I can't help but think that if they had listened to the players in the first place we would have ended up with an improved Fantasy instead of AoS.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 11:55
This for me just looks like a cry of "please someone buy this game", we've now gone from an official standpoint of the game being a narrative non competitive encounter to build a story and just have a nice time with likeminded people, to now having three ways to play, It just feels like a scattershot desperation move to me. What's next for AoS rules on how to use it as subbuteo? to try and flog it to that crowd as well. It just reinforces that GW have no idea of the target market for this product, and now they're broadening their sights in a vain attempt to get someone to play.

I'll give it one thing though, AoS is certainly proving an interesting ride.

ScruffMan
25-04-2016, 11:56
Of course. And in this context, being "forced" to play a certain way does obviously not entail any coercion of anyone. Simply that if everyone wants to play a certain way you are "forced" to either do so yourself or not play at all.

To have enjoyable games, you need a certain level of similar expectations. My point is that Guy Haley and others claimed that AoS lacking points was a good thing since it allegedly made everyone playing have similar expectations of the game. Now when points are getting brought in, I see some of the same people praising that as a good thing, giving alternatives to he players. I think that is ludicrous and show that it was just about defending AoS, no matter what.

I don't remember it giving everyone similar expectations being a commonly used argument, many openly admitted it that it was unsuitably for pick up games with total strangers. I'm sure there were some who said it, hell I might of myself at some point (though I don't think so), I often contradict myself but really who cares?

ScruffMan
25-04-2016, 11:57
This for me just looks like a cry of "please someone buy this game", we've now gone from an official standpoint of the game being a narrative non competitive encounter to build a story and just have a nice time with likeminded people, to now having three ways to play, It just feels like a scattershot desperation move to me. What's next for AoS rules on how to use it as subbuteo? to try and flog it to that crowd as well. It just reinforces that GW have no idea of the target market for this product, and now they're broadening their sights in a vain attempt to get someone to play.

I'll give it one thing though, AoS is certainly proving an interesting ride.

I, like everyone else, have no idea of the numbers but this idea that no one is playing AoS is ridiculous. It has a big online following alone.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 11:58
I can't help but think that if they had listened to the players in the first place we would have ended up with an improved Fantasy instead of AoS.

THIS good sir is the whole point I am trying to make. Thank you.

BoronYeltsin
25-04-2016, 12:00
And you never were forced to play any game one way or the other! At least not any more than what you are now with AoS.

If every potential player/opponent now wants to play with points, then you are "forced" to do so as well if you want to play. If no one wants to play with points, then you are equally "forced" to play it that way. It's the same as it has always been.

People were arguing that AoS was superior because people playing it were "forced" to leave any list-building or powergaming attitude behind. Now the game is no different than any other in that regard and I find people (not necessarily you in particular) to be inconsistent when they one day praise the game for excluding one mode of playing and the other day praising it for reintroducing the same mode.

Of course, people were never forced to play with points in WHFB, however the only officially endorsed game type used points. Don't underestimate the power of official endorsement when it comes to which system a community decides to use. For all intents and purposes, points-based was the only type of game available.

What AoS offered was an officially endorsed system that did not include an overt balancing mechanic. They are now offering three options.

The key difference is they started without points as a balancing mechanic, then added it in later alongside the original option (no points) + narrative play. The majority of current AoS players have played the game without points - they will have grown used to it, maybe even preferring it to a points system. A lot of these players won't utilize Matched Play. GW set no-points as the 'default' game type by doing this.

The game is definitely not 'no different from any other', because all the other games started with points. By doing so, these other games set the default moving forward, essentially cementing points-based play as the norm.

It is not the same as it has always been - all three options are equally valid and equally endorsed. Pointsless play may have a slight advantage because that's the type the game started with, but there'll be a lot of players used to using points in other games to balance that out. If you're concerned about your local community deciding on a playstyle (pointed or unpointed) that you disagree with, then that's something you'll need to resolve with that community - GW has given you all the options you need.

Finally, I do not see people praising this announcement purely because it provides points to the system, I see people praising this announcement because it offers options for every type of player, whether casual, narrative, or competitive.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 12:00
I, like everyone else, have no idea of the numbers but this idea that no one is playing AoS is ridiculous. It has a big online following alone.

AoS was conceived because WFB didn't raise as much profit as GW would have liked, WFB was ranked the 4th best selling tabletop game in the world, where is AoS ranked?? So we do have some idea of the numbers......... i.e. not as many players/buyers as there was for WFB.

Have you read many posts about how poorly AoS is selling? If it was flying off the shelves do you think GW would in UNDER A YEAR be looking to radically change the rules AND try to appeal to more players???? wise up.

Commodus Leitdorf
25-04-2016, 12:01
AKA, what they should have done in the first place. I am interested to see what they plan on introducing though.

Sete
25-04-2016, 12:01
There are people that you cant just please.
Again. Ppl hate AoS not because of what it is, but because of what it replaced.
GW could be giving you 50 quid with each Stormcast box and some would say "they are just buying you to play the game".
:/

ScruffMan
25-04-2016, 12:04
AoS was conceived because WFB didn't raise as much profit as GW would have liked, WFB was ranked the 4th best selling tabletop game in the world, where is AoS ranked?? So we do have some idea of the numbers......... i.e. not as many players/buyers as there was for WFB.

Have you read many posts about how poorly AoS is selling? If it was flying off the shelves do you think GW would in UNDER A YEAR be looking to radically change the rules AND try to appeal to more players???? wise up.

I'd appreciate if you'd use a more civil tone please.

I didn't say it was "flying off the shelves" or anything of the sort. I said it is ridiculous that no one is playing it. It has a good following for a young game. I expect the points thing was a new development but for the rest of it it could have been planned from the beginning. I certainly imagine the campaigns were, so possibly advanced rules as well.

Dosiere
25-04-2016, 12:07
If matched play includes a re write of some of the rules - like the way initiative works with the turn sequence, and summoning - it may actually be something worth checking out. If it's just Open Play + Points (or whatever they end up doing), I doubt it will actually cater to people looking for competitive play experiences, although it might work just fine for casual pick up games/ laid back organized play like leagues that way. I guess we'll just have to see, but I am cautiously optimistic that with a few sensible rule changes it might be something I am willing to play again if others do as well.

I still think that a game can't be everything to everyone though. Without some fundamental changes in the mechanics of the game between the different "modes" it'll just end up not completely satisfying anyone by virtue of not focusing on being great at any one thing. Look at 40K right now, because I think that games issues are related to this trend as well. I would rather AoS stay like it is than turn into that.

veterannoob
25-04-2016, 12:08
I, like everyone else, have no idea of the numbers but this idea that no one is playing AoS is ridiculous. It has a big online following alone.
@ Scruff Hey, it...it...probably should just that one go;) Go back to playing your AoS game and put it far from your mind that no one (even you) is playing AoS.:angel:

Yrch
25-04-2016, 12:10
AoS was conceived because WFB didn't raise as much profit as GW would have liked, WFB was ranked the 4th best selling tabletop game in the world, where is AoS ranked?? So we do have some idea of the numbers......... i.e. not as many players/buyers as there was for WFB.

Have you read many posts about how poorly AoS is selling? If it was flying off the shelves do you think GW would in UNDER A YEAR be looking to radically change the rules AND try to appeal to more players???? wise up.

oh so you have read the rules an know how RADICALLY changed they are?
no matter what GW does, people will always try to find something negative...

blackcherry
25-04-2016, 12:16
To play devils advocate, with a new CEO on board, GW could just be listening to the community. Who have been screaming bloody murder that AoS is the worst thing to happen ever.

Now they can't go back on this decision (looks bad to shareholders and they probably have a production pipeline for the next year or so in place for AoS so can't just scrap it because of the loss in income) but they can make the best of it. This looks like them listening to the fans as best they can.

Of course, many are just following the rumour that if you post "I need WFB back now and I hate AoS because its different" 2 million times, the magical GW fairy will grant your wish ;)

Ol'shas'ka
25-04-2016, 12:16
I think that the thing I'm most curious to learn is how GW stores themselves will approach these changes. My local runs a wounds-based campaign at the moment, which obviously brings its own balancing challenges, so I'll be curious to learn whether they'll prioritise one of these systems over the others or start using points for their campaigns post-summer.

duffybear1988
25-04-2016, 12:20
oh so you have read the rules an know how RADICALLY changed they are?
no matter what GW does, people will always try to find something negative...

I prefer the term realistic.

GW are on record claiming that points are dead as they are completely unnecessary and detract from the game. They then back track and stick points in. What possible reason could there be for reintroducing points if AoS is so wonderful?

Could it be that GW didn't anticipate such a large swathe of the community chucking in their support for the company? Maybe the stories about the worst sales ever are true - they certainly seemed quick to put a statement out that shareholders shouldn't expect sales to be great.

It's desperation and people claim it's genius.


To play devils advocate, with a new CEO on board, GW could just be listening to the community. Who have been screaming bloody murder that AoS is the worst thing to happen ever.

Now they can't go back on this decision (looks bad to shareholders and they probably have a production pipeline for the next year or so in place for AoS so can't just scrap it because of the loss in income) but they can make the best of it. This looks like them listening to the fans as best they can.

Of course, many are just following the rumour that if you post "I need WFB back now and I hate AoS because its different" 2 million times, the magical GW fairy will grant your wish ;)

I think a good points system and support for all the armies they killed with Fantasy would be a good start.

It would be great if they could actually get all the new races out as well. It's kind of boring when everybody is a sigmarine or a khorne zerker. Nobody plays nappy dwarfs.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 12:34
If they are advanced rules, they must be significantly different to the 4 pages current published and provided with the game, so I would say radically changed would be a fair description. Also the addittion of a points systems is a RADICAL change to the format of AoS where points/balance was not part of the process. I don't see your issue with my use of the word radical.

I will ask if you have even known GW release ANY ruleset then change it within a year before?

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 12:36
I just don't believe you'd be suggesting you need the game to be fair for fairness' sake... the game involves dice rolling. Which is luck based. You can both be equally skilled players with 1000pt armies, you keep rolling 1's, you're going to quickly lose (but perhaps not fail leadership tests ), which is why I don't see the benefit. I equally, don't want to play a one sided game where I'm the punching bag, but I don't think the armies need to be tested and extracted to the perfection of this perfect balance everyone desires.

Yes the game involves rolling dice and if you roll all 1's you're going to lose no matter how well you play. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here. You can have bad luck so points are a worthless way of trying to bring some balance to the game? The 'perfect balance' idea is a fallacious one at best. No one is looking for that.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 12:39
Maybe the stories about the worst sales ever are true - they certainly seemed quick to put a statement out that shareholders shouldn't expect sales to be great.

They are true, I have already reported (which was widely ignored) AoS is not selling well anywhere.


It's desperation and people claim it's genius.

Precisely my point. This 3 ways to play is purely a despearate attempt to widen the customer base. No points was awesome and the future according to GW, now a year on they're reintroducing a points system? and people honestly can't see why? It certainly isn't because the fans want it!

UlrikTheslayer
25-04-2016, 12:41
Incredible people saying they are "genius"...Some should stop being so protective of GW...

They are just coming back to the WHFB system... You could do : narrative/open play/points in WHFB... They are not genius, they just lost so many customers and money AND it is the first time they change their point of view within a year.
Some people believe that GW are virtually bankrupt but i do not believe that.

This game is not played and every FLGS i go to it is despised and it is actually starting to be the same for 40K. I do believe that GW is tanking and they need to put the plane back up because the abyss is coming...And yes, i would love for them to go bankrupt!

Kaptajn_Congoboy
25-04-2016, 12:45
Unless this points system was planned from the get-go, they've had, what, 6 months to plan and playtest it? That sounds like a stressful work environment if they want it to be good...

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 12:47
It's desperation and people claim it's genius.

To be fair people who have bought into the game probably don't care what GW do as long as they keep supporting AoS. Points, no points. FaQ, no FaQ. It doesn't matter.

sephiroth87
25-04-2016, 12:49
This is a positive step. I will await the rules and temporarily stop dancing around the aos dumpster fire.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

ScruffMan
25-04-2016, 12:53
If they are advanced rules, they must be significantly different to the 4 pages current published and provided with the game, so I would say radically changed would be a fair description. Also the addittion of a points systems is a RADICAL change to the format of AoS where points/balance was not part of the process. I don't see your issue with my use of the word radical.

I will ask if you have even known GW release ANY ruleset then change it within a year before?


They aren't changing it, they are adding options as they have been doing since the game was released. I'm not saying you're wrong by the way but you're so desperately hateful of GW that your opinion is not worth that much anymore on its own I'm afraid.

blackcherry
25-04-2016, 12:54
I don't think anyone is claiming it's genius. Just that its nice to see a company listen to feedback and respond to what it's player base want (within reason).

As a company should do.

Now, even if it is an attempt to widen the sales base, why is that bad? Does it make you feel better and warm inside?

You would think this is politics, the amount people lambaste GW for listening and changing how they operate...

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 12:54
To be fair people who have bought into the game probably don't care what GW do as long as they keep supporting AoS. Points, no points. FaQ, no FaQ. It doesn't matter.

But it does matter.

AoS is selling worse than WFB did, it's popularity is much lower, if GW don't reach out and get someone to start buying/playing do you think GW will support AoS for very long if it is actually making them less money than WFB did???

That's what this 3 ways to play is all about, they have got to try and appeal to a bigger market, because the market they selected (picked at random) is not spending enough money. Hence the very very early warning to sharholders despite having 2 very popular launches (BaC and DW:O) AND some well received 40k releases..... this should at least be some kind of indication of how much AoS tanked even for the most ardent fan of it.

KariP
25-04-2016, 12:55
I wonder if Tomb kings and Bretonnia will be there too.

Lexington
25-04-2016, 12:55
They are true, I have already reported (which was widely ignored) AoS is not selling well anywhere.
Amusingly, when I've seen you quoted on this (or quoted it myself), the response has often been "he just said it wasn't doing great! That doesn't mean it's doing badly!"

Hope does funny things to a man's mind. :p

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 12:58
They aren't changing it, they are adding options as they have been doing since the game was released. I'm not saying you're wrong by the way but you're so desperately hateful of GW that your opinion is not worth that much anymore on its own I'm afraid.

That is fine, I will accept "additions". But don't think these "additions" are because the player base wants them. These are necessary to try and win back/actually get some form of customer base for their fantasy IP.

My annoyance is the fact that people are like "yay GW are awesome for bringing back points" whilst conveniently forgetting they actually removed them in the first place.

duffybear1988
25-04-2016, 12:59
They aren't changing it, they are adding options as they have been doing since the game was released. I'm not saying you're wrong by the way but you're so desperately hateful of GW that your opinion is not worth that much anymore on its own I'm afraid.

Hastings has been one of the best and most accurate info suppliers on Warseer for a long time. If he says it's tanking then I tend to believe it's tanking, regardless of whether he likes the game or not.

ewar
25-04-2016, 12:59
I can't help but think that if they had listened to the players in the first place we would have ended up with an improved Fantasy instead of AoS.

It's called 9th Age :)

I love that a couple of amateurs with some community support have managed to balance such an intricate points system.

As for this news for AoS - it's meaningless to me, I still have no interest in playing He-Man with 100 models (at least, not outside 40k :shifty:). Rank and file all the way.

Herzlos
25-04-2016, 13:03
It has a good following for a young game.

It has an awful following for a young game. It's in it's honeymoon period and still barely registering to most players.

At least, here, games tend to jump into fashion on launch, sell well, be played everywhere and then just stop when the next shiny thing comes along. You might get 2 or 3 years out of it before they vanish into obscurity. In my recent gaming career my local club has seen the rise and fall of a few games, but AoS didn't move the needle.

Frostgrave is a great comparison; it launched about the same time. It's trivial to get a game of Frostgrave, and nearly impossible to get a game of AoS.

Crimson Reaver
25-04-2016, 13:03
Essentially, I'm going to take another look once the changes come through to see whether it makes any sense to see who else in my area wants a game. I think that ship has probably sailed given that we've all given up GW stuff for other games off the back of several years of poor decisions. Nice to see they're going in a better direction, but still not convinced as yet.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 13:04
Amusingly, when I've seen you quoted on this (or quoted it myself), the response has often been "he just said it wasn't doing great! That doesn't mean it's doing badly!"

Hope does funny things to a man's mind. :p

Indeed, I posted it in a thread where someone claimed it was performing better in other parts of the world, when in actual fact it isn't. It's selling badly worldwide. I got that info directly from my sources that people have been happy to trust before (with things like execution force, Betrayal at Calth etc.) yet the news of poor sales of AoS - even when backed up with lots of details that can be linked (shareholder warning despite other good launch products, GWs fantasy dropping totally out of the top selling games worldwide, the division of the previous fanbase even just on warseer should at least be some indication that around 80% of previous GW fantasy "fans" are not onboard with AoS etc. etc.) seems hard for some people to accept. Bizarre.

Herzlos
25-04-2016, 13:07
Unless this points system was planned from the get-go, they've had, what, 6 months to plan and playtest it? That sounds like a stressful work environment if they want it to be good...

People have been house-ruling point systems from without about 5 minutes of the AoS rules going live. If they are leveraging a local group, then they'll have a better start than they've ever done.

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 13:07
Indeed, I posted it in a thread where someone claimed it was performing better in other parts of the world, when in actual fact it isn't. It's selling badly worldwide. I got that info directly from my sources that people have been happy to trust before (with things like execution force, Betrayal at Calth etc.) yet the news of poor sales of AoS - even when backed up with lots of details that can be linked (shareholder warning despite other good launch products, GWs fantasy dropping totally out of the top selling games worldwide, the division of the previous fanbase even just on warseer should at least be some indication that around 80% of previous GW fantasy "fans" are not onboard with AoS etc. etc.) seems hard for some people to accept. Bizarre.

I'm curious how badly? Also do the sources have any idea what GW will do if AoS is cancelled?

williamsond
25-04-2016, 13:08
I can't help but think that if they had listened to the players in the first place we would have ended up with an improved Fantasy instead of AoS.

I'm with duffybear on that one.

But back to the OP, I will wait and see and withhold judgement until then, hopefully we get some in-depth rules too.

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 13:08
But it does matter.

AoS is selling worse than WFB did, it's popularity is much lower, if GW don't reach out and get someone to start buying/playing do you think GW will support AoS for very long if it is actually making them less money than WFB did???

I think you missed my point. IMO people who have bought into AoS have spent a lot of time and money on the game and are heavily invested in it. If GW didn't produce an FaQ it just proves that the game is great as it is. If GW does produce an FaQ it shows how great GW are for clarifying any confusion. If there are no point in the game then it proves how cool and revolutionary the game is compared to other skirmish wargames on the market. If GW re-introduce points then it's an excellent move to bring a sense of balance into the game. It matters but they don't care that it matters. AoS is fine, the game is selling well, there's a large but silent majority of AoS players etc etc.

Tyelacoirii
25-04-2016, 13:08
I feel bringing back points is a step in the right direction.

AoS has been an expensive experiment for GW and some of their choices were bound to result in a more limited player base. I hope they are starting to realise this and are recalibrating accordingly.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
25-04-2016, 13:09
People have been house-ruling point systems from without about 5 minutes of the AoS rules going live. If they are leveraging a local group, then they'll have a better start than they've ever done.

And no system has gained wide acclaim, as far as I understand it. Balancing a wargame properly is quite a lot of work, and considerably more so if you cannot change model rules in the process...

Chikout
25-04-2016, 13:10
A lot of impassioned debate with both sides being as intrenched opinions as usual. So to join in the fun, here are mine.
It is clear that AOS has not been the rip roaring success that GW hoped. The simple rules and the pick what you want army building system has appealed to a select group, but ultimately been a bit of a miss. From checking out the Facebook page and Twitter for a while the number one request (by far) has been to reintroduce points. There are some who don't like the setting, some who don't like the models, plenty who don't like the price, but it is clear from the Facebook page, Dakka, from here and from the various blogs out there that people want points and that almost everyone who is playing and enjoying AOS is using some kind of comp system.

On on to the announcement then. The good:
Gw has shown that they are not too arrogant to change a stupid decision when popular opinion is against them.
Gw is listening. There was a time when I thought we would never see evidence of this again
Gw is playtesting rules. It seemed like they had given on this completely
Gw is collaborating with the community. It is all to easy in a closed group like the design team, to start to believe your own ********. Fresh eyes are desperately needed on this kind of project. I think a large part of why AOS has been a failure, is Jervis being allowed too much power, and no one like Rick priestly to call him on his BS. ( apologies to Jervis if this is not true, but I suspect it is)
The bad:
I was really hoping this was the Warhammer Quest announcement.
Balance is hard. Unless you are designing symmetrical games, it is almost impossible to have perfect balance. You only have to look at the billion dollar video game companies who are constantly putting out balance patches to see how difficult this is.
It brings back into the fold, the win at all costs ultra competitive types, who drain the fun out of any gaming experience.
Even though there will be a choice, I worry that those who prefer the no points style of play will find it harder to get games.
It feels like a bit of a band aid on a victim of a shark attack.
I still see the potential in AOS, but I think it needs a second edition to really find its feet. I hope it has that chance.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 13:16
I'm curious how badly? Also do the sources have any idea what GW will do if AoS is cancelled?

Badly enough to change the "rules" and offer several ways to play within a year of launch :D

As myself and Harry spoke about around 3- 4 years ago at one point WFB was going to be dropped altogether, in fact let's be honest apart from a large part the model range getting new namez it has been in all reality.

I imagine the same fate will befall AoS. Then GW will finally be the one trick pony that Kirby wanted them to be, and that will be his legacy to the tabletop gaming community, the destruction of a once great, innovative and fun quality tabletop wargames manufacturer into a company that lives by the tendering out of its Space Marine IP to IoS game manufacturers, that produces expensive monopose plastic models for a setting that no one feels any investment in, a company that GAVE it's competitors the opportunity to pick up the things that GW deemed surplus and not making enough money and allowed them to build their own fanbase, a company that though it knew better what it's customers wanted than they did themselves, a company that thought it was actually a plus point to tell investors that they did no market research. That is what I imagine will happen.

Of course now we have three ways to play Age of Sigmar it will all be fine :D

Crimson Reaver
25-04-2016, 13:22
They aren't changing it, they are adding options as they have been doing since the game was released. I'm not saying you're wrong by the way but you're so desperately hateful of GW that your opinion is not worth that much anymore on its own I'm afraid.

Looking for a lack of bias doesn't get anyone anywhere. However if you want a bit more analysis, try this:

GW previously had WHFB 8th Edition, which had a comprehensive points system. This was dispensed with for AoS, in a clear tonal shift from previously. GW indicated that AoS was intended to appeal to a different demographic and was not designed for the level of balanced tournament play previously in evidence. Whether WHFB ever managed sufficient balance is another debate, but there was seen to be some formula in place.

Fast-forward a year and now they are looking to be bringing out some form of tournament balancing mechanic. Yes, you're correct when you say that it adds an option, but it does also represent a fundamental change in the way that we as customers look at AoS and how GW are treating it. Either their plan was to have a balancing mechanic from Day 1, but they didn't convey this to customers due to bad communication, or they didn't plan it, and expected AoS to stand by itself when released. Disappointing sales figures are the most likely explanation behind then moving back to having a balancing mechanic.

Positives to take from this, GW do listen and may make further changes based on sensible suggestions, and this indicates that they're prepared to work to make AoS a better game. On the downside, if you dislike/hate/burn your models at the mention of AoS, it isn't going anywhere, WHFB isn't coming back and this won't earn back goodwill from players who have seen their armies put on life support, and seen a fantastic range of models chucked out alongside that.

So yes, I'm prepared to give it another chance, but if I'm looking at anyone here to gauge how GW are getting on, it would be someone like hastings, because his opinion is far closer to the mark where I have to try and get games than anything else.

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 13:25
I think you missed my point. IMO people who have bought into AoS have spent a lot of time and money on the game and are heavily invested in it. If GW didn't produce an FaQ it just proves that the game is great as it is. If GW does produce an FaQ it shows how great GW are for clarifying any confusion. If there are no point in the game then it proves how cool and revolutionary the game is compared to other skirmish wargames on the market. If GW re-introduce points then it's an excellent move to bring a sense of balance into the game. It matters but they don't care that it matters. AoS is fine, the game is selling well, there's a large but silent majority of AoS players etc etc.

Doubt it was directed at me, I don't feel I've sang AoS's glorious, just pointed out I like certain aspects of it, a game mode focused more on narrative over competitive is greatly desired, as I have little interest in playing a guy that wants to demonstrate he is the reincarnation of Napoleon with a game of toy soldiers and dice, the set-up system has merits for me, I place a unit, you place one, until someone wants to stop. Not just the chance to invoke sudden death, it lets you tailor your army, if you brought multiple units (the benefit of keeping it small games) rather than turning up with meta-list A, which is great at defeating Meta-list B, but then opponent puts down his Meta-list C, which is designed to break A, etc. Also not a fan of ranked up games, personal taste, why I got more into Mordheim than WHFB, but there's that.

I do find the lore lacks a lot of the depth of the Old World, and the unit names range from alright to downright tacky sounding... I also think GW was very foolish if they think the Stormcast Eternals would meet the same appeal to a fantasy fan as a Space Marine, as the look of Astartes' is half their appeal, it's how ingrained with the 40K setting that makes them work.

Basically, I would have preferred "Super Mordheim" but AoS doesn't offend me with it's existence, it's fun enough to play... mostly I don't come down on it like a lot of others because I feel they believe, if/when AoS fails, GW will be forced to bring back Warhammer Fantasy... which I think is a very far fetched hope.


As myself and Harry spoke about around 3- 4 years ago at one point WFB was going to be dropped altogether, in fact let's be honest apart from a large part the model range getting new namez it has been in all reality.

I imagine the same fate will befall AoS. Then GW will finally be the one trick pony that Kirby wanted them to be, and that will be his legacy to the tabletop gaming community, the destruction of a once great, innovative and fun quality tabletop wargames manufacturer into a company that lives by the tendering out of its Space Marine IP to IoS game manufacturers, that produces expensive monopose plastic models for a setting that no one feels any investment in, a company that GAVE it's competitors the opportunity to pick up the things that GW deemed surplus and not making enough money and allowed them to build their own fanbase, a company that though it knew better what it's customers wanted than they did themselves, a company that thought it was actually a plus point to tell investors that they did no market research. That is what I imagine will happen.

Bolded relevant parts... like I said, I think anyone who thinks AoS demise equals the return of the old Warhammer, is deluding themselves...

Chikout
25-04-2016, 13:27
Hastings, your posts vary so wildly between being thoughtful and considered, and the ramblings of a crazed prophesier of the end of times ( see what I did there) that I find it baffling. I was a lot more pessimistic a year ago, but I am starting to feel more and more, (and not because of this announcement specifically but rather the specialist studio stuff, the Facebook stuff, the plethora of board games coming out, the start collecting deals etc) , that Kirby's legacy will be as the CEO who ALMOST destroyed Games Workshop.

Haravikk
25-04-2016, 13:33
I don't think it's surprising that AoS isn't selling tremendously well, as there's still too much uncertainty about a lot of the armies. Consider it's launch; there were two armies, both of which may appeal to various players, to not to the majority, so while some people bought in and love them, others do not. That's hardly unexpected though as we're talking about going from WHFB's rich set of armies down to two, with everything else a question mark, so aside from people buying up WHFB models while they can, AoS was never going to beat sales.

Even at this point we've seen more Stormcast and Khorne, some reboxing of stuff that's definitely (probably?) sticking around, some with awesome discounts, plus two new factions in the Fyreslayers and Ironjaws. Even so, we're still talking about four small factions compared to a heap of large armies, so again, no-one should expect AoS to be outselling WHFB yet, and I doubt GW will be either. They know they're rebooting an entire setting, that doesn't come without risk, but what matters will be growth as players gain more confidence in where their favourite old and new factions will be in the setting.

I'm not saying AoS will definitely succeed, but even if we had exact sales figure data it's the future revenue that matters, as there was no way AoS was going to replace even dwindling WHFB sales overnight. GW's made a bunch of mistakes IMO with the releases so far, but at least stuff is starting to appear for factions that WHGB players care about, but there's still a ways to go yet.

I'm hoping for something letting the Fyreslayers and Ironjaws duke it out, as I do think that they would have been a better choice for the starter set as a bridge between two popular WHFB armies and a good one to attract new players as they're more classic fantasy fare but with a decent dose of Warhammer charm to them. Storm Cast have some decent models, but they're just not super compelling IMO, as they're more of an element for bringing the factions of Order together, that and I think wasting so many weeks of releases on re-releasing Stormcast as multi-part boxes was a mistake; if they had to be in the starter set, then their box releases should have come later, as they didn't need both that early on.


Anyway, I'm interested to see how the tournament rules play out, even if it's just an effort to get people in store to play small scale tournaments and bring AoS players together, rather than to hit the full tournament scene. It's still early days yet for AoS, I mean, how many armies did WHFB start out with in the beginning? How long did it take to really gather momentum? There's also a lot more competition these days, so AoS doesn't have an easy road of it, but if GW are still pushing forward with it then I don't think it's out of stubbornness, they have to have known it would take a while for things to really get going, and presumably have a plan that spans the next couple of years.

ik0ner
25-04-2016, 13:42
The good: Narrative play, depending on how much customization it'll have, e.g. creating your own heroes and xp and suchlike. That would at least make me curious and might give it another go.

The bad: Well, it is still the same background and aesthetics so the the good part is of limited value to me.

The Meh: Points. Never was a concern.

Sete
25-04-2016, 13:46
Damn people are reading so much into it.
It failed because it had no point system. It fails now because they are adding one.
I think the problem is not wih the game itself...
Despite all claims of selling well or not, I dont see anyone presenting hard numbers, so I will just assume its "opinions" and not facts.
What is a fact is that WHFB is still alive and I pre ordered it. Comes out 26th of May.
But I don't think it has a point system. ;)

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 13:50
Basically, I would have preferred "Super Mordheim" but AoS doesn't offend me with it's existence.

I think that counts for most people, myself included, however that is what happens when you are proud of doing no market research, you miss the point of what your customer actually wants.

AoS doesn't offend me either. The fact that a dreadfully written background replaced something so rich and alive as the old world does however, even more so when GW make their "fun" comments about the floating islands of the shimmertarn and horses being so 2015 etc.. BUT AoS does not offend me at all. In fact as I have said before I really think it had some genuinely good ideas, just they aren't seen through to fruition. I could have happily seen it play out this way........

rewind to the end game of the ET campaign, Sigmar is struck down and vanishes..... etc. etc. Then just as it seems all is lost Sigmar resplendent arrives with his army of sigmarines to save the world and put chaos on the back foot ALONGSIDE all the existing good races, hell he could have even brought Orukks etc with him if needs be. I would have then explained WHERE Sigmar went (to the realms of whatever) and how he made his army, and how he returned to the old world in seemigly a very short time. THEN I would have release AoS as an alternate way to play, a basic starter level skirmish game that follows his adventures (an indeed searches for misplaced magic items) in the realms he visited. It could have existed alongside WFB and also been an entry level to WFB. I would have made Sigmarines playable in WFB (I would have stuck with square bases but still had them as an elite skirmishing army - as the base shape/size doesn't matter in AoS I am still baffled as to why it comes with round bases???). This would have killed two birds with one stone. A new entry level fantasy game that is easier to play than WFB and doesn't cater for the power gamer types. By making the AoS useable in WFB it also provides a base army to expand on but which is fully useable in both systems. I would have also made rules for using WFB stuff in AoS, possibly to simulate those forces that went through the gate/portal/whatever from where Sigmar arrived on the old world. The two systems could have easily coexisted and I think genuinely BOTH would have benfitted from this. But still, no market research etc.

Oh and just for the record I am NOT saying GW deciding to have AoS played in 3 ways is a bad thing (regardless of WHY they decided to do it!) what I find baffling is people saying well done to them for bringing back points out of desperation is somehow the equivalent of GW listening to them and GW being really good for doing it, whilst conveniently forgetting it was GW that took the points system away, and I might add dissing the points system in favour of the new narrative/non competetive/bring a photo of your cat style of play.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 13:57
Despite all claims of selling well or not, I dont see anyone presenting hard numbers, so I will just assume its "opinions" and not facts.

Funny I was never asked to present hard facts about Betrayal at Calth or Execution Force or anything else over the years, yet now because I report from the VERY SAME SOURCES that AoS is not selling well I require numbers to back that up?

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 13:57
Doubt it was directed at me, I don't feel I've sang AoS's glorious, just pointed out I like certain aspects of it, a game mode focused more on narrative over competitive is greatly desired,

It's not directed at you.

It's also not to say that AoS didn't come with some good ideas but I think GW made a lot of mistakes and this has had a disasterous effect on the fantasy community. The fact that GW is trying to make AoS more inclusive than exclusive is a good move IMO (in that they are trying to encourage people who liked the idea of a points system to come back into the game). Ultimately I think AoS is a good object lesson in why cutting corners in the developement stages can do serious damage to a product before it hits the market. GW, IMO, decided to save money when it came to developing the rules, play testing, doing market research, creating a background for the system and I honestly think it shows with the final product. Now GW seem to have woken up to the fact that there are serious issuses with the game and are taking steps to address them.

I have to admit that I have plenty of issues with AoS (which I don't like) but I also have issues with games that I do like. What I'm always concerned about are people who aren't prepared to admit that there are problems or issues with any product when there clearly are.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 14:07
It's not directed at you.

It's also not to say that AoS didn't come with some good ideas but I think GW made a lot of mistakes and this has had a disasterous effect on the fantasy community. The fact that GW is trying to make AoS more inclusive than exclusive is a good move IMO (in that they are trying to encourage people who liked the idea of a points system to come back into the game). Ultimately I think AoS is a good object lesson in why cutting corners in the developement stages can do serious damage to a product before it hits the market. GW, IMO, decided to save money when it came to developing the rules, play testing, doing market research, creating a background for the system and I honestly think it shows with the final product. Now GW seem to have woken up to the fact that there are serious issuses with the game and are taking steps to address them.

I have to admit that I have plenty of issues with AoS (which I don't like) but I also have issues with games that I do like. What I'm always concerned about are people who aren't prepared to admit that there are problems or issues with any product when there clearly are.

An excellent post that I can totally agree with. I highlighted a few bits that really hit the spot with me.

Chikout
25-04-2016, 14:10
I don't think anyone sensible is denying that GW has been in a bad place for a while, but them doing something to improve is good whether it is from desperation or for any other reason. If I hit someone, that is bad, if I then apologise that is good, even though it does not make up for the initial mistake. Sorry if this seems a little trite but we need to praise any inkling of good behaviour in order to encourage more of it. As I said before I hope this is another step along the road to redemption. I hope that in 10 years time everyone is praising AOS third edition as a great game with well balanced rules. The alternative is AOS getting canned, Horus Heresy getting repositioned as the second tier game, and me hoping that Kow can live up to its potential, and hopefully hire some good designers and artists.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 14:17
I don't think anyone sensible is denying that GW has been in a bad place for a while, but them doing something to improve is good whether it is from desperation or for any other reason. If I hit someone, that is bad, if I then apologise that is good, even though it does not make up for the initial mistake. Sorry if this seems a little trite but we need to praise any inkling of good behaviour in order to encourage more of it. As I said before I hope this is another step along the road to redemption. I hope that in 10 years time everyone is praising AOS third edition as a great game with well balanced rules. The alternative is AOS getting canned, Horus Heresy getting repositioned as the second tier game, and me hoping that Kow can live up to its potential, and hopefully hire some good designers and artists.

A good analogy Chickout, however would it not have been better not to hit them in the first place than to be praised for apologising? Assuming you did the market research to find out your victim didn't particularly want to be hit in the face? Does apologising always make things right? or do some people then go on to associate the praise with the feigned remorse for the initial vulgar act? and hence to receive more praise commit more vulgar acts and then feign apology for each?

Turgol
25-04-2016, 14:21
I think both parties are right, but not on the extremes:

-Denying that having no way to officially balance the game and some bad rules is an issue with AoS, is wrong. Even if it is possible to address these issues with external systems, that does not mean that the decision not to polish better rules and not to have some kind of balancing system was not wrong.
-The fact that they are doing this now shows that the original decision was bad; it is good though that they are doing it now.
-The AoS setting has issues, even it has some cool ideas. Main issue is execution, not even design. Hopefully they can bring their good ideas to fruition by changing part of its execution. I mean: their campaign books are terribly written, but the same stories in the hand of BL writers are usually quite good. Change execution and provide orientation and I'am quite sure we could see a lot of progress here.


I do not think this will solve all of the problems the community had with GW and AoS:

-Problem 1: rules: being addressed. Nice!
-Problem 2: communication: change is there, nice!
-Problem 3: fluff. No sign of change, but time can be given here. There will never be an announcement on change on this regard.
-Problem 4 (probably main problem): price. No, it will not change.

Sete
25-04-2016, 14:24
Ah god dammit. Deleted my comment.
Basically what chikout said.
Its a game still in the crib and ppl already want to put a pillow on its face xD
The game is evolving. This change out of desesperation or community engagement is a step in the right direction.
I still dont like flying islands and 8 realms, but its a step away from tolkien background that saturated the market.

williamsond
25-04-2016, 14:24
Funny I was never asked to present hard facts about Betrayal at Calth or Execution Force or anything else over the years, yet now because I report from the VERY SAME SOURCES that AoS is not selling well I require numbers to back that up?

I remember a couple of years back, after talking to a guy I know who had been working in Nottingham for a certain games company (while he was drunk and chatty) I reported the rumour that there was "three versions of fantasy in development and they didn't know which they would go with yet" and that big changes were a foot and that "round bases were a strong possibility" I was pretty much shouted down immediately as it wasn't what people wanted to hear. I think its just the way of things, people only want to believe the stuff they like.

Zywus
25-04-2016, 14:29
Damn people are reading so much into it.
It failed because it had no point system. It fails now because they are adding one.
Nah, it failed because it's a horrible game with horrible background. And it fails now despite them adding a points system. (although I am surprised at the positive reactions to points. Does people forget that regardless of points values, the base game is still AoS).

Hastings raise an interesting point. Never do I see anyone demanding hard numbers and then discard his information when it comes to anything other than AoS selling badly. (something that's corroborated by a multitude of circumstantial evidence). We have not seen any hard numbers on Dreadfleet sales either. Would it be wrong to assume that one wasn't exactly a great hit?

eron12
25-04-2016, 14:31
Ah god dammit. Deleted my comment.
Basically what chikout said.
Its a game still in the crib and ppl already want to put a pillow on its face xD
The game is evolving. This change out of desesperation or community engagement is a step in the right direction.
I still dont like flying islands and 8 realms, but its a step away from tolkien background that saturated the market.

If anything it shows why Tolkien has saturated the market. You can't just wave a hand and reproduce the Professor's quality. My gaming group used to say that the Warhammer world was like a DnD setting created by a bright high school student. The AoS setting is more like the work of an average middle schooler.

Chikout
25-04-2016, 14:32
A good analogy Chickout, however would it not have been better not to hit them in the first place than to be praised for apologising? Assuming you did the market research to find out your victim didn't particularly want to be hit in the face? Does apologising always make things right? or do some people then go on to associate the praise with the feigned remorse for the initial vulgar act? and hence to receive more praise commit more vulgar acts and then feign apology for each?

Yes to the first question of course, but you can't go back in time and unhit someone. Regarding the later points, if this is the first time someone has ever apologised, it should be jumped on as a chance to change their behaviour for the better, while being aware of the danger of false contrition.

Ok I think I have extended that metaphor far enough. Getting back to AOS, I think it is fair to say that it has hit rock bottom, reception wise and sales wise. The initial rush of starter set sales will have worn off by now. Everyone who was going to stop playing will have stopped or switched to another game. Those who were completing their regular collections will have done so by now after all the last chance to buy stuff. The only way from here is up or dead. I hope they continue to release new factions at a healthy rate, it is still their best chance of building a decent community. The fact that the Maw Crusha sold out briefly shows that if GW put out good models people will buy them.

Sete
25-04-2016, 14:36
Ah getting back to that.
Yeah I would like to see some hard data.
I haven't been around here for long, so I always take things with a bit of salt.
Using my common sense, Plastic HH ofc it would sell. Its extremely popular.
Execution force did it sell well? No idea.
Is AoS selling badly?
Probably. And ofc it wont match WHFB sales in 1 years.
But wasn't WHFB dead in the water? Not my words mind you.
With the broken magic stuff and ugly elf models?
Again not my words.
So dont take it personally when I ask to see numbers :)
I dont know your street rep around here, but people seem to listen to you.

Whirlwind
25-04-2016, 14:36
It is unlikely that adding points to AoS is going to be the panacea for GWs current woes. It might bring a few people back into the fold but some may leave (again) if things get too competitive (again). But realistically those already enjoying AoS are just going to see it is a good thing; and those already in the 'don't like' camp are unlikely to come back into the fold. Most people play or don't play games because the enjoy or don't enjoy it; that there is/isn't points is only used to further re-enforce the individual's views rather than be the deciding factor. A good game would have been forgiven if there were no points. So realistically GW are still barking up the wrong tree on this one. They need to try and encourage new blood into the game if they are to offset those that they have lost (on the assumption that AoS won't be re-invented back into the WFB again). However the sticker shock for all of their games is now way too high for many new players (when you can buy a console and several games for the same price) and could become worse with a points system as a game size becomes standardised (as it did in WFB). For an example of this you just need to look at the package 'deals' they did based off the SCGT winners.

As such unfortunately points only really cater to the existing players in the majority. It solves none of the existing problems GW has. They may be listening to the community but it is very simplistic market research and likely to be self affirming which is always the danger of giving the customer what it wants because you are only listening to the loudest of your current consumer base rather than your overall potential consumer base. Subsequently GW are flopping around like a wet fish in a Mordheim fanatics hand; it means they are not really solving their internal issues. GW needs to realise that they no longer exist in early '90s and that in all likelihood their target market is not the same anymore (and nor is their desires).

I also don't see the point of debating how well AoS is doing financially for GW at the moment (which is really the only thing that matters to GW). The financial year report will be due in three months and that is going to give a much better indication of how well AoS is doing given that the Jan - Apr new model sales have almost been solely AoS (and look like to continue this through May and June). If sales are significantly deflated then it will be a significant argument that AoS is not doing well from a new sales perspective (even if it is doing reasonably well from a gaming perspective this is no use to GW if everyone is just using old armies or buying ebay models). I wonder that if AoS is doing poorly that this announcement is to try and head off some of the criticism (and show they are doing something) that GW will inevitably receive that they released a new flagship product that (relatively) few of the existing player base wanted.

Yowzo
25-04-2016, 14:36
-Problem 1: rules: being addressed. Nice!
-Problem 2: communication: change is there, nice!
-Problem 3: fluff. No sign of change, but time can be given here. There will never be an announcement on change on this regard.
-Problem 4 (probably main problem): price. No, it will not change.

That is pretty much the problem. GW burned many bridges in the past, but sheer size of community kept it going (in player base if not sales numbers).

Now addressing points 1 and 2 without fixing point 4 and with a good chunk of the player base gone gaming with their GW minis to greener pastures (9th, KoW, etc.) it's almost impossible for it to work. Sure AoS will see some boost of the player base but nowhere near the size to support GW's acceptable level of (sales) performance.

Mikosan
25-04-2016, 14:38
A good analogy Chickout, however would it not have been better not to hit them in the first place than to be praised for apologising? Assuming you did the market research to find out your victim didn't particularly want to be hit in the face? Does apologising always make things right? or do some people then go on to associate the praise with the feigned remorse for the initial vulgar act? and hence to receive more praise commit more vulgar acts and then feign apology for each?

A little early to label this as feigned remorse isn't it? GW was able to gloss over a bunch of internal problems through the years while things sold well and when the sales dried up they made a tone deaf change and rightly had their hand slapped by the community. It shouldn't have come to this but here we are. Hopefully the whole thing will have a net-positive effect on the way they do business and approach the game. I think we are seeing some of these things now- community engagement, start collecting boxes, etc.... Frankly, crap sales as a catalyst for positive change is the only way GW was going to make these moves, glad it is this instead of outright abandoning fantasy.

veterannoob
25-04-2016, 14:39
I'm interested in this Narrative option especially since it is singled out from open play, which makes sense if they are going to let that b a focus. I have t gone through all the RGW campaign books yet so maybe this is already started. Loved the way they did End Times campaign books, from units names, colors, heraldry, description, to key narrative points during the battle. Would love more of that. And I don't see myself or any gaming group I play with or event I attend to not continue to use the basic comp rules of measuring from the base so I can't see at this point anything getting worse, only better. Who knows, we all have the same info, just don't see this as a loser for anyone. If you don't want to play, don't. If you do, or are at least curious, you've got choices to use or modify to taste. Quite nice.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 14:42
....
Its a game still in the crib and ppl already want to put a pillow on its face xD......

Normally new systems get a sales spike, and last a few years, not require change inside of a year to try and broaden the appeal. This is not the fault of AoS though, moreso the lack of an original target audience. It wasn't intended for the existing fantasy crowd as they weren't buying enough, yet no research was done as to who would buy such a product, and even worse no external advertising was done to bring in any new blood, they were effectively advertising the product to a market of existing customers who they had just lost well over half of.

So we can also suggest that as BaC was only in it's "crib" it shouldn't have sold well either? When you have over 30 years experience and are considered the market leader the "in it's crib" argument doesn't stand up.

I hope GW do turn things around though, but with poor sales of AoS AND a very early shareholders warning I think it is too late.

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 14:44
Its a game still in the crib and ppl already want to put a pillow on its face xD

The problem with this is the fact that it's a game that's been made by a company that has something like 30 years experience in the market, has produced plenty of other wargames and claims to be the industry leader. Age of Sigmar should have been able to stand by itself when it was first released. The fact that people view AoS as a newborn baby nearly a year on from its release speaks volumes IMHO.

* edit - Damn ninja'd by Hastings!

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 14:45
A little early to label this as feigned remorse isn't it? GW was able to gloss over a bunch of internal problems through the years while things sold well and when the sales dried up they made a tone deaf change and rightly had their hand slapped by the community. It shouldn't have come to this but here we are. Hopefully the whole thing will have a net-positive effect on the way they do business and approach the game. I think we are seeing some of these things now- community engagement, start collecting boxes, etc.... Frankly, crap sales as a catalyst for positive change is the only way GW was going to make these moves, glad it is this instead of outright abandoning fantasy.

It probably is indeed to early to deem this feigned remorse, however it's not the first time GW have punched someone in the face (finecast, dropping whole systems after people have invested a lot of time/money, dropping ranges - most recently brets and TK after saying they wouldn't squat anymore races, Finecast... etc. etc.) so it does look like they are now getting praise for an apology for yet more face punching, that was what I meant.

I agree on your last point though, crap sales as a catalyst for chage was for sure the only way it was going to happen.

herjan1987
25-04-2016, 14:48
I wonder if Tomb kings and Bretonnia will be there too.

Are they making money of those minis?

As for Aos is not hitting the mark it obvious. A few days ago more people searched for Warhammer Fantasy then for Age of Sigmar. So saying that its has better online representasion is false. Maybe they are more hipsters who are on facebook or Twitter, but on second thought I saw a hungarian facebook page for WFB that had ~34k likes as oppose to 8.3k like of the Age of Sigmar and keep in mind 20% of WFB player sticked around according to hastings. That means if we assume that there were 34k WFB players in total then the 20% of that is 6.8k people. Which means Age of Simgar managed to gain 1.5k people in a year, if we go by facebook numbers. Thats a really big flopp.

This points system is a desparate attempt to regain the veterans.

Mikosan
25-04-2016, 14:50
I'm interested in this Narrative option especially since it is singled out from open play, which makes sense if they are going to let that b a focus. I have t gone through all the RGW campaign books yet so maybe this is already started. Loved the way they did End Times campaign books, from units names, colors, heraldry, description, to key narrative points during the battle. Would love more of that.

After sitting out the first couple I bought Godbeasts and am quite happy that I did. The battleplans look pretty good, giving a couple a go this weekend hopefully, and a few have a little section on how to make them 3 or 4 player games. Def. narrative scenarios rather than just capture/hold terrain. I can totally see this type of gaming being a full on thing for a lot of players, you know between cut throat tourney weekends:)

Chikout
25-04-2016, 14:51
It probably is indeed to early to deem this feigned remorse, however it's not the first time GW have punched someone in the face (finecast, dropping whole systems after people have invested a lot of time/money, dropping ranges - most recently brets and TK after saying they wouldn't squat anymore races, Finecast... etc. etc.) so it does look like they are now getting praise for an apology for yet more face punching, that was what I meant.

I agree on your last point though, crap sales as a catalyst for chage was for sure the only way it was going to happen.
It is the first time in recent memory that they have said, "oh I didn't notice all this face punching was actually hurting you"

Sete
25-04-2016, 14:52
Uff angry mob! Right then.
Im on the mobile so im doing this the fast way.
Dreadfleet? Dont know. Cant really talk about it.
But you dont need to be a wizard to notice that BaC sold well.
AoS I see a lot of divided opinions. So it makes harder for me to assume if it sold well or not.
And from what I have seen of hastings posts about AoS, he clearly does not like it so I take it with a pinch of salt.
You talk about an amount of circumstancial evidence. Yet I see nothing. Your opinions hardly count, like mine does, on how good/bad the game is selling.
Hastings claims to have inside info. And from what I gather he was/is a good source. But again no circumstancial evidence. But that does not mean the game is selling well.
Now is it not selling?
Its selling poorly?
Is it selling well?

ScruffMan
25-04-2016, 15:00
Uff angry mob! Right then.
Im on the mobile so im doing this the fast way.
Dreadfleet? Dont know. Cant really talk about it.
But you dont need to be a wizard to notice that BaC sold well.
AoS I see a lot of divided opinions. So it makes harder for me to assume if it sold well or not.
And from what I have seen of hastings posts about AoS, he clearly does not like it so I take it with a pinch of salt.
You talk about an amount of circumstancial evidence. Yet I see nothing. Your opinions hardly count, like mine does, on how good/bad the game is selling.
Hastings claims to have inside info. And from what I gather he was/is a good source. But again no circumstancial evidence. But that does not mean the game is selling well.
Now is it not selling?
Its selling poorly?
Is it selling well?

An objective post like this will be lost on the bigger mouths that make this forum so quiet mate.

Mikosan
25-04-2016, 15:01
Uff angry mob! Right then.
Im on the mobile so im doing this the fast way.
Dreadfleet? Dont know. Cant really talk about it.
But you dont need to be a wizard to notice that BaC sold well.
AoS I see a lot of divided opinions. So it makes harder for me to assume if it sold well or not.
And from what I have seen of hastings posts about AoS, he clearly does not like it so I take it with a pinch of salt.
You talk about an amount of circumstancial evidence. Yet I see nothing. Your opinions hardly count, like mine does, on how good/bad the game is selling.
Hastings claims to have inside info. And from what I gather he was/is a good source. But again no circumstancial evidence. But that does not mean the game is selling well.
Now is it not selling?
Its selling poorly?
Is it selling well?

Dude, if he says it's not selling well, it's not selling well. I just hope he is wrong in his opinion that AoS is doomed and it's too late. Why do any of this if it is?

@Hastings, from your earlier post on face punching, I don't think any of the other things you mentioned involved this level of push back(well maybe failcast) did it? Sales while slowing, were still good enough to not make changes this big, so I am not sure they were face punches on the level of AoS, lol. They certainly didn't result in positive change like this.

Sete
25-04-2016, 15:03
Forgot to add, im a huge tolkien fan. But seeing something fairly new once in a while is okay too.
Now I know that AoS is completely different than WHFB.
It started poorly due to many factors.
And I don't like everything about the game.
I dont like the setting, and the lack of points.
And I never bought into WHFB because I dont like tray and regiment stuff but liked the lore.
I just dont like to be pessimist. And im willing to give the game a go. (And had fun, since im burned out of 40k)
I understand that people have different views and opinions, but dont get all defensive if someone wants the game to suceed. :)

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 15:06
Uff angry mob! Right then.
Im on the mobile so im doing this the fast way.
Dreadfleet? Dont know. Cant really talk about it.
But you dont need to be a wizard to notice that BaC sold well.
AoS I see a lot of divided opinions. So it makes harder for me to assume if it sold well or not.
And from what I have seen of hastings posts about AoS, he clearly does not like it so I take it with a pinch of salt.
You talk about an amount of circumstancial evidence. Yet I see nothing. Your opinions hardly count, like mine does, on how good/bad the game is selling.
Hastings claims to have inside info. And from what I gather he was/is a good source. But again no circumstancial evidence. But that does not mean the game is selling well.
Now is it not selling?
Its selling poorly?
Is it selling well?

There's no angry mob.

I was simply saying that as THE market leader and with 30 years of experience if GW cannot release a tabletop game succesfully there is a problem. The in it's crib argument means nothing. GW have the experience and the "talent" for a succesful product launch..... unless however the best and brightest of the talent has already left and you end up releasing a game without knowing who is actually going to buy it. That was my only point, no personal argument or anything.

I don't like AoS but that doesn't mean I'm going to make up that it isn't selling well because I don't like it! As I posted before my brother bought it and does quite like it (although struggles to find a game). I am reporting back on poor sales of the product, and there is LOTS of evidence that supports that, here are some examples:-

Any polls run on this or other sites come back with the same/similar results 80% negative to AoS.
The game and indeed in some places 40k have been dropped at clubs all over and replaced by KoW etc.
Many stockists still have much of their original launch stock of AoS.
Limited Edition books fail to sell out even in very small print runs WORLDWIDE, WFB sold out bigger print runs sometimes in hours.

there are obviously more coincidental occurences but I really can't be bothered to justify that I am reporting accurately that AoS is not selling well.

I think I'm done here.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-04-2016, 15:08
I'm not really surprised to see GW trying to fix AoS (good luck with that) but i'm amazed to see there's still people saying they are playing it right now... maybe 2 times per month with their little sister when it's a rainy day.
Anyway points value are not gonna change the (crap) lore, the (crap) aesthetic of the miniatures, the (crap) rules from the battlescrolls or the (crap) 2 pages of rules : after this summer you may bring only two nagash instead of 12 ? Ok, whatever.

Sete
25-04-2016, 15:09
Well Priests say Jesus turnes water into wine ;)
Not selling well and it is doomed are 2 completely different things.
On which ground are we on?
I believe its not selling as good as GW expected. Because they were dumb. But hey chaos players rejoice. Chaos won :P
But is it doomed? I dont believe that. Got a shaky start true. Lets see where the journey takes us.

Mikosan
25-04-2016, 15:12
Forgot to add, im a huge tolkien fan. But seeing something fairly new once in a while is okay too.
Now I know that AoS is completely different than WHFB.
It started poorly due to many factors.
And I don't like everything about the game.
I dont like the setting, and the lack of points.
And I never bought into WHFB because I dont like tray and regiment stuff but liked the lore.
I just dont like to be pessimist. And im willing to give the game a go. (And had fun, since im burned out of 40k)
I understand that people have different views and opinions, but dont get all defensive if someone wants the game to suceed. :)

Oh I want the game to succeed, I have fun with the various comp systems and scenarios, not to mention the money laid out for a new sigmarine army that nobody but me likes:). But I have lurked around here for years and Hastings has a source inside, you and I do not. Source, trumps no source.

I think the game can sell better, it would be hard not to but will it sell enough? Some of my buddies haven't bought models in years, way before AoS because they had too many armies as it was. Maybe this pushes a few into new models, maybe not. Either way I intend on having fun until they lock the doors and turn the lights out!

Herzlos
25-04-2016, 15:14
Well Priests say Jesus turnes water into wine ;)
Not selling well and it is doomed are 2 completely different things.
On which ground are we on?
I believe its not selling as good as GW expected. Because they were dumb. But hey chaos players rejoice. Chaos won :P
But is it doomed? I dont believe that. Got a shaky start true. Lets see where the journey takes us.

Not selling well is the same as it being doomed, when it's controlled by a company with a track record of dropping things that don't sell well.

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 15:14
Dreadfleet? Dont know. Cant really talk about it.
But you dont need to be a wizard to notice that BaC sold well.

How do we know BaC sold well? I would imagine it would all the people online talking about the fact that they picked up a set, their mate picked up a set, the rest of the guys at their club picked up a set. Plenty of anecdotes about stores selling out, people unable to get a copy due to demand etc. We didn't get this with AoS. On one hand we had people saying that their gaming club had gone 'all in' on AoS while other people reported nobody picking up the new system and storekeepers unable to shift what stock they had. Obviously opinion is divided over AoS in a way that it wouldn't be for something like BaC because one was a whole gaming system while the other was a cheap way to get hold of HH stuff that was compatible with a system that was already out.


You talk about an amount of circumstancial evidence. Yet I see nothing. Your opinions hardly count, like mine does, on how good/bad the game is selling.

Well about 80% of Warseer posters who took part in the last Avian poll weren't supportive of AoS. This is good evidence (at least as far as this site goes) as to how well recieved the game has been.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?416206-Your-reaction-to-the-Age-of-Sigmar-(six-months-on)

I suppose the question to ask is that based on this data do we think that AoS is selling well? (at least in relation to how well WFB was selling)

Holier Than Thou
25-04-2016, 15:16
Well Priests say Jesus turnes water into wine ;)
Not selling well and it is doomed are 2 completely different things.
On which ground are we on?
I believe its not selling as good as GW expected. Because they were dumb. But hey chaos players rejoice. Chaos won :P
But is it doomed? I dont believe that. Got a shaky start true. Lets see where the journey takes us.

WFB was dropped because it wasn't profitable ENOUGH. It was profitable, just not enough.

By all accounts AOS is selling worse than WFB and you think AOS is safe because.......?

Drakkar du Chaos
25-04-2016, 15:17
How do we know BaC sold well? I would imagine it would all the people online talking about the fact that they picked up a set, their mate picked up a set, the rest of the guys at their club picked up a set. Plenty of anecdotes about stores selling out, people unable to get a copy due to demand etc. We didn't get this with AoS. On one hand we had people saying that their gaming club had gone 'all in' on AoS while other people reported nobody picking up the new system and storekeepers unable to shift what stock they had. Obviously opinion is divided over AoS in a way that it wouldn't be for something like BaC because one was a whole gaming system while the other was a cheap way to get hold of HH stuff that was compatible with a system that was already out.



Well about 80% of Warseer posters who took part in the last Avian poll weren't supportive of AoS. This is good evidence (at least as far as this site goes) as to how well recieved the game has been.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?416206-Your-reaction-to-the-Age-of-Sigmar-(six-months-on)

I suppose the question to ask is that based on this data do we think that AoS is selling well (at least in relation to how well WFB was selling)?


That's not just this poll, every poll on Warseer got 80% negativity toward AoS and same thing with at least one poll on Dakka.

Shifte
25-04-2016, 15:18
"UNless you have figures you can't comment!"

I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence IS evidence. Especially when it comes from many sources. The figures are not published, true, but we can make educated guesses about the direction of travel. Special edition rulebook sales speak volumes.

Sete
25-04-2016, 15:18
Angry Mob its a joke :)
Mind you im not calling you a liar hastings.
I agree with most of your post. GW messed up hard. Especially with the WHFB veterans.
The lore feels bland compared to the Old World true.
And most of the books around are about stormcast.( which seems like I reading a SM book. But the artwork is great in the battletomes at least. Imho.)
But how well was WHFB selling before the end times? Not couting the decades it was around, last year lets say.
Was it selling well?

scruffyryan
25-04-2016, 15:23
They aren't changing it, they are adding options as they have been doing since the game was released. I'm not saying you're wrong by the way but you're so desperately hateful of GW that your opinion is not worth that much anymore on its own I'm afraid.

How long before the no points people are bemoaning the fact that the few people they can find who want to play AoS only want to play the tournament format?

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 15:24
That's not just this poll, every poll on Warseer got 80% negativity toward AoS and same thing with at least one poll on Dakka

Might be interesting to run a joint poll on several websites asking people who played Warhammer whether they transitioned over into Age of Sigmar. It might provide some idea as to how much of the original fan base GW managed to hang on to. Maybe add in an option for people who decided to take up AoS as well so we could see how many new players the system had picked up as well. Although it wouldn't be perfect it might give us some idea as to how well AoS has sold.

Yowzo
25-04-2016, 15:26
Are they making money of those minis?

As for Aos is not hitting the mark it obvious. A few days ago more people searched for Warhammer Fantasy then for Age of Sigmar. So saying that its has better online representasion is false. Maybe they are more hipsters who are on facebook or Twitter, but on second thought I saw a hungarian facebook page for WFB that had ~34k likes as oppose to 8.3k like of the Age of Sigmar and keep in mind 20% of WFB player sticked around according to hastings. That means if we assume that there were 34k WFB players in total then the 20% of that is 6.8k people. Which means Age of Simgar managed to gain 1.5k people in a year, if we go by facebook numbers. Thats a really big flopp.

This points system is a desparate attempt to regain the veterans.

What's worse. I'm on the biggest Spanish language group for AoS and the traffic is abysmal.

Last post is from Apr21st, about one guy showing his chaos minis (still in square bases), on the same day that someone was trying to sell a box of judicators (no public response)

You have to go back to April 18th for some vaguely game-related content (what's your favourite Aelf unit) which garnered a grand total of 4 replies (2 replies with one sub-reply each).

The fb group is basically a giant billboard for people offering their painting services.

Recently Ben from bad dice podcast launched a question on twitter about AoS in countries other than the US & UK and IIRC only there were a single tweet about a Polish FB group without much traffic and a little community in Norway.

A few days later he asked again specifically about Italy and again not a single reply.

I think GW has lost the battle on the continent. Whether the UK alone (with a bit of help from some US/Au/NZ) can support GW's desired level of profitability will be seen in the following months.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-04-2016, 15:26
Angry Mob its a joke :)
Mind you im not calling you a liar hastings.
I agree with most of your post. GW messed up hard. Especially with the WHFB veterans.
The lore feels bland compared to the Old World true.
And most of the books around are about stormcast.( which seems like I reading a SM book. But the artwork is great in the battletomes at least. Imho.)
But how well was WHFB selling before the end times? Not couting the decades it was around, last year lets say.
Was it selling well?

WHFB was selling very well under 6th edition (regularly Top5 in the US market which is not very fantasy friendly) but started to sell less toward the years : GW was pushing 40K more every year, WHFB 7th edition was a joke and 8th edition a big NOOOO from part of the community... if WHFB was 50% of GW's revenues 15 years ago, it dropped significantly in the last 5 years (assumed number between 20-30%) : so GW decided to launch AoS to have a fantasy 40K for 6 years old players with Stormcast as new Space Marines : greed got the best of them like always under Kirby, AoS was dead on arrival.

scruffyryan
25-04-2016, 15:27
Angry Mob its a joke :)
Mind you im not calling you a liar hastings.
I agree with most of your post. GW messed up hard. Especially with the WHFB veterans.
The lore feels bland compared to the Old World true.
And most of the books around are about stormcast.( which seems like I reading a SM book. But the artwork is great in the battletomes at least. Imho.)
But how well was WHFB selling before the end times? Not couting the decades it was around, last year lets say.
Was it selling well?

It was the 3rd or 4th best selling wargame on the market.

theunwantedbeing
25-04-2016, 15:27
WFB was dropped because it wasn't profitable ENOUGH. It was profitable, just not enough.

By all accounts AOS is selling worse than WFB and you think AOS is safe because.......?

It's possible to sell less and be more profitable.

eg.
100 to make something, sold for 150. You made 50, which is 50% profit.
50 to make something else, sold for 80. You made 30, which is 60% profit.

Sold less, more profitable.

veterannoob
25-04-2016, 15:27
After sitting out the first couple I bought Godbeasts and am quite happy that I did. The battleplans look pretty good, giving a couple a go this weekend hopefully, and a few have a little section on how to make them 3 or 4 player games. Def. narrative scenarios rather than just capture/hold terrain. I can totally see this type of gaming being a full on thing for a lot of players, you know between cut throat tourney weekends:)
Excellent, glad to hear it thanks. We've done 3-way battles twice now and I'm meaning to go through Godbeasts to see how close they are. But this is good news you bring:)

Sete
25-04-2016, 15:28
Thats the thing I dont know how WHFB was selling. And never did I say if you dont have evidence you cant comment. Since im questioning whats being said you assume im ignoring people. You assume wrongly.
I dont know if it is safe. I hope it is.
Thats why im questioning around.
Hastings has info, reliable it seems, so im asking him stuff. :)

herjan1987
25-04-2016, 15:30
Angry Mob its a joke :)
Mind you im not calling you a liar hastings.
I agree with most of your post. GW messed up hard. Especially with the WHFB veterans.
The lore feels bland compared to the Old World true.
And most of the books around are about stormcast.( which seems like I reading a SM book. But the artwork is great in the battletomes at least. Imho.)
But how well was WHFB selling before the end times? Not couting the decades it was around, last year lets say.
Was it selling well?


I dont know how well did WFB sell, but did it get any attention from GW to begin with.

Looking at Bretonnians who didnt had an update in 12 years.... Or all other armies who didnt had updates in years....

Sete
25-04-2016, 15:33
WHFB was selling very well under 6th edition (regularly Top5 in the US market which is not very fantasy friendly) but started to sell less toward the years : GW was pushing 40K more every year, WHFB 7th edition was a joke and 8th edition a big NOOOO from part of the community... if WHFB was 50% of GW's revenues 15 years ago, it dropped significantly in the last 5 years (assumed number between 20-30%) : so GW decided to launch AoS to have a fantasy 40K for 6 years old players with Stormcast as new Space Marines : greed got the best of them like always under Kirby, AoS was dead on arrival.
Good post, only have beef with the last bit. If you dont like it no need to call fans of it children. Which you did indirectly. But ignoring that.
So bad management overall.
Well if AoS is selling below that. Its bad news. But its unlikely they will drop the game so soon.

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 15:34
WHFB was selling very well under 6th edition (regularly Top5 in the US market which is not very fantasy friendly) but started to sell less toward the years

I honestly put a lot of this down to GW's stupid pricing policy. Due to the numbers of minatures you needed WFB showed the symptoms of GW's constant price hikes (loss of player base, decrease in sales) a lot earlier than 40K did. This became more acute as time went on and the quality of the game started to suffer as GW got rid of it's more talanted developers. AoS is simply the end product of what the management wanted. A game that can be supported on a shoe string, where all the stuff is very expencive and that has almost unlimited opportunity for 'churn and burn'. I don't expect factions like the Sylvaneth, Fyreslayers or Ironjawz to be around for more than a couple of years.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-04-2016, 15:34
I dont know how well did WFB sell, but did it get any attention from GW to begin with.

Looking at Bretonnians who didnt had an update in 12 years.... Or all other armies who didnt had updates in years....

And how many years without updated kits.
The generic Marauders are what ? 15 years old ? They were already ugly under 6th edition and GW hope to sell that crap under 8th edition because "Horde rule" ?
Thankfully Avatar of War delivered recently nice Marauders.

Sete
25-04-2016, 15:37
I had a Black Templar army. I imagine the feeling of bret players. :)
I understand that people dont like the new factions. They are different from the old WHFB.
But I have been enjoying it and I hope it evolves into a better game.
Thats only thing I can add.

herjan1987
25-04-2016, 15:47
By the way anyone read the Faiet document about this?

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/40k-and-aos-rumors-blood-angels.html

In this they state that GW has seen that in the ranked up wargames section there is gap to fill ( Warhammer Fantasy ) and wants to replace it with the War of the Ring. Any info on that hastings?

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 15:58
It's possible to sell less and be more profitable.

eg.
100 to make something, sold for 150. You made 50, which is 50% profit.
50 to make something else, sold for 80. You made 30, which is 60% profit.

Sold less, more profitable.

That is quite true, however now let's look at AOS vs WFB "spending"

let's imagine the costs for development were 5gbp and the cost of production of each box after develpment were 1gbp and a box retails at 10gbp. That means if you only sell one box you have made only 4 gbp, ie sale is 10gbp minus 5gbp for development and 1 gbp for production. If you sell 2 boxes your profit becomes bigger, example 20gbp to buy 2 boxes, minus 5gbp development, minus 2 gbp production costs equals a profit of 13gbp. Obviously the more units you sell the more profit after you have paid for that initial development fee.

This is where GW got greedy, initially not so much, but towards the end of WFB they certainly made starting out in WFB harder.

A basic unit for WFB was say 40 infantry (4 boxes)(certainly under 8th) that would be a total spend of 40gbp, minus 5gbp dev, minus 4 gbp production, that's 31 profit on the 4 boxes, or 7.75gbp per box.

now let's look at AoS, a unit no longer needs to be large, in fact as a skirmish game you are probably looking at say 20 models, that's 2 boxes. So that's 20gbp sales, minus 5gbp dev minus 2 gbp prod, that's a profit of 13gbp, or 6.5gbp per box.

Herin lies the problem, to support the AoS business model you either have to A/ sell in much larger volume, however as a skirmish game it is not promoted in game to buy multiples of each box, it serves no real purpose or B/ increase the sale cost of a box from 10gbp to say 15gbp to account for less sales of each unit.

However GW are reporting reduced sales DESPITE having raising the sales cost, this makes the model unsustainable where the outcome is one of three things. You end up selling very small amounts of units at a very high price or you reduce dev costs to maximise profit but at the expense of quality or you find a way to start selling multiple boxes of the same product again, it's almost a vicious circle and one that outpriced WFB players which in tunr then goes back round to reduced sales. Without the sales volume improving I cannot see how GW will be able to continue supporting AoS, either that or they end up with a very small customer base that will pay whatever they ask . Neither is good for growth or sustainability.

Holier Than Thou
25-04-2016, 15:59
It's possible to sell less and be more profitable.

eg.
100 to make something, sold for 150. You made 50, which is 50% profit.
50 to make something else, sold for 80. You made 30, which is 60% profit.

Sold less, more profitable.

Obviously, but it's reasonable to assume AOS has higher overheads. New moulds, R&D, etc whereas this was already paid for in WFB's case. So, I stand by what I said. AOS is probably selling less AND making less profit when it does.

Yowzo
25-04-2016, 16:07
However GW are reporting reduced sales DESPITE having raising the sales cost, this makes the model unsustainable where the outcome is one of three things. You end up selling very small amounts of units at a very high price or you reduce dev costs to maximise profit but at the expense of quality or you find a way to start selling multiple boxes of the same product again, it's almost a vicious circle and one that outpriced WFB players which in tunr then goes back round to reduced sales. Without the sales volume improving I cannot see how GW will be able to continue supporting AoS, either that or they end up with a very small customer base that will pay whatever they ask . Neither is good for growth or sustainability.

Have you heard of any cost-cutting measures at an HQ level? (other than consolidating overseas regional HQs).

Like people at the studio or manufacturing being made redundant, pay freeze/cuts, etc.

Choombatta
25-04-2016, 16:12
Thankfully Avatar of War delivered recently nice Marauders.

Glad to hear they finally got a good kit out.
I pre-ordered the Vestals when they were made available. Never received them. Finally, after emailing them over and over again, they offered me the choice of a refund (at less than I actually pre-paid due to currency change), or the choice of something else from their catalog.
Ended up with 3 Ogres instead of 30 Vestals.

GrandmasterWang
25-04-2016, 16:13
If you know the player, yes you can have fun. Just as likely you can run into some mug whose definition of "fun" is "I'm going to try to win at any cost".

I mostly played 40K, so it's the only example I can give, but I once played a guy, an all around fun dude, in 4th edition. He was playing Chaos Marines, I borrowed some Astartes because I left Orks at home, etc. Long story short, it was a close game, but my last squad that moved up to try and finish off a squad of Khorne Berzerkers with bolter fire failed, so they were sitting on the objective, I thought it was game set match.

Then he charged them off it at the offending unit.

I pointed out to him, he's throwing away a win in exchange for a draw when all he has to do is not move them. He just smirked and told me, they're Khorne Berzerkers and they're in charge range. Objectives and winning be damned, Khorne only cares for blood!

So we resolved that and shook hands. Probably the best player I ever got to face, wish more people were interested in playing their armies in the spirit of the lore... which I felt AoS encouraged. Points tend to be obsessed by players who only define if they had fun or not by "if I won". When it shouldn't be.
Please tell me Khorne got his blood and the Beserkers carved your feeble Astartes to chunks :)

In a friendly game i will try to play in the character of my army. Seems to make things more fun for both myself and my opponent.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Scammel
25-04-2016, 16:15
"POINTS VALUES WERE NEVER BALANCED. They were actually unfair. Warhammer devolved into an exercise where power-mad dice chuckers would spend every waking moment breaking the latest army book. “Well, the points are equal. Therefore it is fair,” they would say of their latest hell-combo, when quite patently it was not fair, and what they really meant was “This arbitrary system of points attribution provides a cloak of legitimacy to my frightening need to prove my validity as a human being by winning at toy soldiers.”"

-Guy Haley

This attitude seemed to be pretty common amongst the WD team in the 90s. I remember a lengthy and bizarre article about sportsmanship, which among other things told players that they should feel bad for playing lists that featured a preponderance of a given unit for thematic purposes. There was a lot of anger directed at players simply for using a given magic item - not a loophole or obscure combo, just the item itself, in a ruleset presented for balanced play from the very same company that they worked for. It's one thing to ask players not to abuse small balance mistakes, it's another thing entirely to discredit your own product so comprehensively.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 16:18
By the way for those asking I do not have information on how other products sold or why this or why that, I will happily share with you all the two things I was implicitly told:-

1/ WFB was still making profit before end times, just not as much as some people would have liked. This is kind of ironic because IMO the reasons it didn't make more profit is it was largely put on the back burners behind anything that had power armour (i.e. space marines/40k) - and I guess because of popularity that is understandable. And the cost of entry. However the making cost of entry so high is directly the fault of GW, the costs per army towards the end of WFB were beyond crazy, a small unit (one of many in an army) costing between 50 -100gbp is just crazy when there are so many alternatives out there. What is even more unforgiveable and moronic is that there would have been an easier fix to boost sales of WFB, release an entry level/skirmish game, get people buying the very same models you already sell for WFB but in smaller numbers, you've already paid for the development so any extra sales add to profit. Then once people have built a small force under skirmish rules let them add to it for the main WFB, they'll have spent the same amount of money (if not a little more when you take into account the cost of the skirmish game) but it wouldn't be in one big stupid hit!

2/ Sales of AoS are poor, and it doesn't have a strong sales/customer base anywhere world wide. In some countries it is all but dead already, in others there is a small and slowly growing community, however these are not near the levels WFB had before it was decided to be scrapped (and this means sales BEFORE end times spike). The reception of the game from the wider community has been overwhelmingly negative, from the ruleset, to the background material.

75hastings69
25-04-2016, 16:21
Have you heard of any cost-cutting measures at an HQ level? (other than consolidating overseas regional HQs).

Like people at the studio or manufacturing being made redundant, pay freeze/cuts, etc.

Didn't that already happen a few years back?

GrandmasterWang
25-04-2016, 16:25
AoS was conceived because WFB didn't raise as much profit as GW would have liked, WFB was ranked the 4th best selling tabletop game in the world, where is AoS ranked?? So we do have some idea of the numbers......... i.e. not as many players/buyers as there was for WFB.

Have you read many posts about how poorly AoS is selling? If it was flying off the shelves do you think GW would in UNDER A YEAR be looking to radically change the rules AND try to appeal to more players???? wise up.

By several accounts wood elves and some End Time releases were flying off the shelves (sold out in various places).....

Despite this GW still radically changed the rules in UNDER A YEAR in a desperate attempt to try to appeal to more players so who really know what GW is tripping on?

Yowzo
25-04-2016, 16:26
Didn't that already happen a few years back?

I meant recently.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-04-2016, 16:29
Glad to hear they finally got a good kit out.
I pre-ordered the Vestals when they were made available. Never received them. Finally, after emailing them over and over again, they offered me the choice of a refund (at less than I actually pre-paid due to currency change), or the choice of something else from their catalog.
Ended up with 3 Ogres instead of 30 Vestals.

I understand the pain... that's why i never preordered anything, especially from a little company, and only buy from retailers if possible.

As for Avatars of War they keep improving, you had a bad experience with them, that happens, give it another try.

Rogue Star
25-04-2016, 16:35
Please tell me Khorne got his blood and the Beserkers carved your feeble Astartes to chunks :)

Didn't wipe out the squad but they charged through the hail of bolter fire to hack apart about four battle-brothers for one death in return, so Khorne surely smiled upon their fervor. :)


In a friendly game i will try to play in the character of my army. Seems to make things more fun for both myself and my opponent.

But that's what I mean - you have to specify it's a friendly game, sadly some people only play to win, so having the distinction is nice.


1/ WFB was still making profit before end times, just not as much as some people would have liked. This is kind of ironic because IMO the reasons it didn't make more profit is it was largely put on the back burners behind anything that had power armour (i.e. space marines/40k) - and I guess because of popularity that is understandable.

Ah GW, they think throwing a Space Marine analogue in will fix everything, just shows they don't understand what the appeal of Space Marines are.

I'm just sad thinking that if/when AoS goes, that will be the last vestiges of the Old World gone with it... especially when GW seem to be making an effort to turn around.

Niall78
25-04-2016, 16:36
I meant recently.

Is there any fat left to cut after the last cost saving exercise?

Many would claim the past cuts were already too deep.

Niall78
25-04-2016, 16:38
Does this mean those filthy tournament/WAAC gamers are coming back?

Niall78
25-04-2016, 16:42
I'm just sad thinking that if/when AoS goes, that will be the last vestiges of the Old World gone with it... especially when GW seem to be making an effort to turn around.

The WFB IP would still be very valuable to most table-top game publishers so who knows what will happen to the Old World into the future.

herjan1987
25-04-2016, 16:45
It's possible to sell less and be more profitable.

eg.
100 to make something, sold for 150. You made 50, which is 50% profit.
50 to make something else, sold for 80. You made 30, which is 60% profit.

Sold less, more profitable.

Yeah but did you heard about the new Ard case. Its a regular working case for workers bought for 30 pounts on the market and sold by GW for 90. Thats outrageus sorry.

Also Ardboys/Black orc they come in 15/10 models they costs are 32/30. While its good deal to buy them rebase them it outrageus that they sold till now. This clearly indicates that they can sell more models in ther current boxes. Tell me how can Element games sells all boxes 20% off and they still make money on it. Sorry, but these facts dont justify the prices that GW is presenting us and you can imagine that a few year ago they had an ever bigger profit margin ( due to inflation and other stuff adding to their product prices ).

30 pounds ( Orruk Brutes ) for 5 figures is nonsense. I wouldnt be suprised, if we wouldnt see any realeses till the next financial report.

If they would open their eyes on this people would buy more of their products. Which would help them out of this mess.

GrandmasterWang
25-04-2016, 17:03
By the way for those asking I do not have information on how other products sold or why this or why that, I will happily share with you all the two things I was implicitly told:-

1/ WFB was still making profit before end times, just not as much as some people would have liked. This is kind of ironic because IMO the reasons it didn't make more profit is it was largely put on the back burners behind anything that had power armour (i.e. space marines/40k) - and I guess because of popularity that is understandable. And the cost of entry. However the making cost of entry so high is directly the fault of GW, the costs per army towards the end of WFB were beyond crazy, a small unit (one of many in an army) costing between 50 -100gbp is just crazy when there are so many alternatives out there. What is even more unforgiveable and moronic is that there would have been an easier fix to boost sales of WFB, release an entry level/skirmish game, get people buying the very same models you already sell for WFB but in smaller numbers, you've already paid for the development so any extra sales add to profit. Then once people have built a small force under skirmish rules let them add to it for the main WFB, they'll have spent the same amount of money (if not a little more when you take into account the cost of the skirmish game) but it wouldn't be in one big stupid hit!

2/ Sales of AoS are poor, and it doesn't have a strong sales/customer base anywhere world wide. In some countries it is all but dead already, in others there is a small and slowly growing community, however these are not near the levels WFB had before it was decided to be scrapped (and this means sales BEFORE end times spike). The reception of the game from the wider community has been overwhelmingly negative, from the ruleset, to the background material.

Thanks for that, it's a fascinating bit of information.

In an earlier post you brought up people not questioning your BAC and Execution Force sales information, only your AOS information.

This is off topic but how did Execution Force sell? I have always wondered and havent seen your posts on it.

Back on topic... do you have any knowledge of black library book sales at all? Such as how the new AOS novels are selling in relation to the old Fantasy novels. Gw have released lots of AOS books through black library. I havent heard anything good or bad about their sales.

Cheers




Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

UndeadKing
25-04-2016, 17:26
These threads are brilliant. All the love and wanting of fantasy battle now that its gone, dead & buried. Where were you lot before it died? You know when you could have made a difference, its all well and good whining now and rallying against age of sigmar. Problem is aos is here. GW wont drop it, see how long fantasy was dragged out yeah? AoS is here to stay and gw will do as they please to fix it. Meh it has no points costs, meh they're only bringing points back to stop the hate lol. The hate on forums is laughable. AoS isn't selling at all blah, blah and blah. If you go to Newcastle or metro centre you can get a game easily. Its done well up here. Betrayal at calth, deathwatch, knight box didn't sell out either by whineseer logic all of those failed too.
Fantasy is dead, AoS is here. No one forces you to play/ like aos. Like people who actually enjoy aos (yes there are quite a few) no ne forces them to play. We play as we enjoy it. That's life, that's games. If it wasn't for AoS id still not play fantasy which up til aos was a crapfest of a game.

Enjoy what you enjoy. Don't ruin the fun of others cos you cant handle other people enjoying themselves with a game you don't like.

Oh and if you're wondering where these people are who like aos, they are probably avoiding coming here due to the hate the game gets and what the fans get. There are some truly nasty people on here with many agenda's and driving aos fans away is one of them.

Souppilgrim
25-04-2016, 17:31
By the way for those asking I do not have information on how other products sold or why this or why that, I will happily share with you all the two things I was implicitly told:-

1/ WFB was still making profit before end times, just not as much as some people would have liked. This is kind of ironic because IMO the reasons it didn't make more profit is it was largely put on the back burners behind anything that had power armour (i.e. space marines/40k) - and I guess because of popularity that is understandable. And the cost of entry. However the making cost of entry so high is directly the fault of GW, the costs per army towards the end of WFB were beyond crazy, a small unit (one of many in an army) costing between 50 -100gbp is just crazy when there are so many alternatives out there. What is even more unforgiveable and moronic is that there would have been an easier fix to boost sales of WFB, release an entry level/skirmish game, get people buying the very same models you already sell for WFB but in smaller numbers, you've already paid for the development so any extra sales add to profit. Then once people have built a small force under skirmish rules let them add to it for the main WFB, they'll have spent the same amount of money (if not a little more when you take into account the cost of the skirmish game) but it wouldn't be in one big stupid hit!

2/ Sales of AoS are poor, and it doesn't have a strong sales/customer base anywhere world wide. In some countries it is all but dead already, in others there is a small and slowly growing community, however these are not near the levels WFB had before it was decided to be scrapped (and this means sales BEFORE end times spike). The reception of the game from the wider community has been overwhelmingly negative, from the ruleset, to the background material.


First off, thanks for all your input ^ It's good to have you here.

AoS is a game designed by executives and a board of directors. Their primary concerns, which dwarfed all others, were completely bone headed and predictable when you consider the source.

Concern 1: Other companies make miniatures that people use in our games. We will drop the line and remake it with stuff that we can more easily defend our ip.
The problem with Concern 1: GW created this issue with their horrible pricing and no easy way to get into whfb. People loved WHFB so much they still wanted to play even if they couldnt afford plastic soldiers that they needed to buy 50+ of at 5 dollars each.

Concern 2: We heard something about other miniature games existing and taking our market share, Warhordes or something...they are doing well and use skirmish sized games and have scifi elements. They are ripping off 40k! Our cash cow! We will drop whfb and release a skirmishable game that has space marines in it.
The problem with Concern 2: GW gave birth to their own competitors, ridiculous prices, game size bloat (titans in 40k, huge hordes in whfb etc), no easy entry point again, balance issues etc.

GW has never touched the core issue. Release a kick ass skirmish game that is scalable, allow it to explore the great world of WHFB, allow some narrative to move forward with campaign books, get some of the attention that the board game renaissance is enjoying. Lower prices or at least more bang for your buck. Yes you can play AoS at smaller scales but look at how much the models are, they are priced for nothing but top tier painter hobbyists. How are kids going to get into it?! GW has some of the best ip's and they have squandered them. Star Wars is bigger, but what else in the gaming world? Warhammer has got to be in the top 5. Despite all that they have allowed companies to release terrible, terrible video games, and cgi movies with the ip. Yes there are a couple of good ones, but that is the exception. So much missed potential, GW should be able to coast along on licensing rights alone. Instead they nuke their second most popular setting and replace it with something no one cares about outside of whfb converts. People who never touched a mini were familiar with the warhammer world, not anymore....

KariP
25-04-2016, 17:39
I think it is also important to keep in mind that AoS still have bad reputation amongst people. Those who have studied marketing 101 (Seem like Gw havent), know that reputation is really important.
But yes, I'm burned pissed off Bret player for 15 years who saw endless updates of same damn chaos chaos chaos nurgle purgle slanesh orcks whoppey and so on armies again and again while mine was untouched. (this rumor about brets in 9th edition really hurted).

Haravikk
25-04-2016, 17:51
there is a small and slowly growing community, however these are not near the levels WFB had before it was decided to be scrapped
Again, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; even highly optimistic projections could never have expected a game with four small factions released so far to outsell an entrenched game with a bunch of fully fleshed out armies. I can mostly only speak from my own experience, but for me it's the uncertainty that has me hesitant; I need to see more of the Dwarf, Elf and Human factions before I'll be willing to commit, though I may get some Fyreslayers regardless since I have a pretty big slayer contingent in my old army, and they won't go amiss there.

I mean, we have Khorne, which is fine for Khorne players, but does nothing for Tzeentch and Nurgle players (Slaanesh players are probably screwed at this point, and not in the way that Slaanesh devotees might like). Stormcast Eternals are new, but they're not going to be to everyone's liking; they're not a direct replacement to anything either. Fyreslayers are great for anyone that loves slayers and wants to start/grow a force of them, but for Dwarf players who prefer more of a mix it's still not a full picture of the Duardin as a race. Likewise with Ironjaws; they fit the Orruk aesthetic just fine, but for anyone that liked their Orcs & Goblins army they're only a fragment of an army.

So while there are some nice little factions for people looking to build small skirmish forces, AoS still doesn't have the full groundwork for a proper Order or race-specific army, and I think people won't invest heavily until more of those factions are in place. At least a lot of the Khorne and Ironjaws models are easily convertible into 40k models, so are the basic Stormcast Eternals if you want to make Custodes, though that's going to be more work there.


The game is definitely playable with small war bands of the factions released so far, but it's still not so affordable that people will do-so when there's uncertainty about whether it'll be worth sticking with it. I think the monster kits were a mistake personally; while some of them are nice, they don't fit into skirmish sized games, but there isn't enough depth to make an army to justify taking them IMO. I mean they make good centre-pieces so you can just buy them because you want to, but I'd have preferred more time spent on regular units from other factions; we could have had another two or three factions by now if not for the time wasted on monsters and duplicate releases for Stormcast Eternals and Khorne.

Whirlwind
25-04-2016, 18:00
I think it is also important to keep in mind that AoS still have bad reputation amongst people. Those who have studied marketing 101 (Seem like Gw havent), know that reputation is really important.
But yes, I'm burned pissed off Bret player for 15 years.

Yes it's a bit like Skoda, I still remember that they were a 'joke' car make when I was at primary car (that and a Lada). These memories will stay a long time.

On the other hand I do have fond memories of GW too. There were not even game nights when the shops were packed with teenagers, probably 30+ all huddled round a 8x4 board. With so many people you never got chance to play one game everyone just brought one unit and there was a mass battle split into roughly even sides but it was laugh. Now the same store is lucky to have half a dozen players on a games night.

I think this is all too little too late by GW. By the time they put all the pieces back together after Warhammer fell off the wall all the exec board's horses and men are unlikely to be able to put it back together again.

jbeil
25-04-2016, 18:04
Is there any similar case of games being released with incomplete factions? As much as I hate the AoS rules, I can't shake the feeling that if the range of models had been complete on release (I.E. some leaders, some regular guys, some elite guys, and a big stompy monster or two) there would have been better traction in the market. Lots of people seem to be saying that they feel hesitant about buying in to the game because the factions as they stand don't seem to be filled-out; if there were other cases of companies launching games with incomplete ranges, that might go some way to helping us armchair generals see what the causes of the problems might have been.

Dosiere
25-04-2016, 18:09
I honestly don't know if I can ever get around the new setting or general aesthetic of the new models, but I bet there are many players like myself who turned very negative about AoS after trying it out but are still paying attention to what GW does with fantasy. I am intrigued by the new direction from GW, and haven't totally given up that they will release something that will get me putting down my fantasy models again in a GW game. So, it's probably worth a shot especially if the game isn't doing well to try to pull more people into the game that didn't enjoy the first offering.

It's a tougher sell to a smaller audience than if they had just done it when the game was released, sure, but there isn't a huge cost to producing an extra book or two catering to a different audience and seeing if they can turn it around.

Whirlwind
25-04-2016, 18:14
[QUOTE=Haravikk;7620463]Again, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; even highly optimistic projections could never have expected a game with four small factions released so far to outsell an entrenched game with a bunch of fully fleshed out armies. I can mostly only speak from my own experience, but for me it's the uncertainty that has me hesitant; I need to see more of the Dwarf, Elf and Human factions before I'll be willing to commit, though I may get some Fyreslayers regardless since I have a pretty big slayer contingent in my old army, and they won't go amiss there. [\QUOTE]

GW must have expected it otherwise they would have never pushed through with it. No business is going to try and implement something that sells worse for at one or more years and probably several. It would be like BA no longer selling business and economy fairs on their planes and just expecting more first class customers to arrive from thin air. GW must have projected that sales would be better otherwise why even implement it? This isn't a small start up company just starting out that needs to put in some investment so it can expand later. It is a multinational company that has established customers; abandoning an established customer base for what may (or may not) be hiding out in the bush without proper marketing or research is a recipe for commercial suicide. There is a large UK company, BHS, that has gone into administration today (lots of jobs at risk) because simply they did not move with the times and change with customers desires. They use to be a huge high street retail store. Other, more flexible companies, have come in and poached customers leaving them to cater for a small number of customers that still buy from them. There are analogies...

Dosiere
25-04-2016, 18:17
Is there any similar case of games being released with incomplete factions? As much as I hate the AoS rules, I can't shake the feeling that if the range of models had been complete on release (I.E. some leaders, some regular guys, some elite guys, and a big stompy monster or two) there would have been better traction in the market. Lots of people seem to be saying that they feel hesitant about buying in to the game because the factions as they stand don't seem to be filled-out; if there were other cases of companies launching games with incomplete ranges, that might go some way to helping us armchair generals see what the causes of the problems might have been.

Well, technically AoS launched with every WFB faction playable, although admittedly there has been much angst about whether your particular army was in for duration or going away. All the new factions have a decent round up of units too. It may have helped to have announced future releases ahead of time though. If people interested in the stormcast knew that in the next 6 months their faction would be getting a,b,c I think that would alleviate many of the problems.

I don't know of any fantasy examples, but many of the sci fi games like warpath and Antares have lots of things that don't really have rules or miniatures yet. I'm. It really sure how comparable those are to AoS though.

Skargit Crookfang
25-04-2016, 18:45
These threads are brilliant. All the love and wanting of fantasy battle now that its gone, dead & buried. Where were you lot before it died? You know when you could have made a difference, its all well and good whining now and rallying against age of sigmar. Problem is aos is here. GW wont drop it, see how long fantasy was dragged out yeah? AoS is here to stay and gw will do as they please to fix it. Meh it has no points costs, meh they're only bringing points back to stop the hate lol. The hate on forums is laughable. AoS isn't selling at all blah, blah and blah. If you go to Newcastle or metro centre you can get a game easily. Its done well up here. Betrayal at calth, deathwatch, knight box didn't sell out either by whineseer logic all of those failed too.
Fantasy is dead, AoS is here. No one forces you to play/ like aos. Like people who actually enjoy aos (yes there are quite a few) no ne forces them to play. We play as we enjoy it. That's life, that's games. If it wasn't for AoS id still not play fantasy which up til aos was a crapfest of a game.

Enjoy what you enjoy. Don't ruin the fun of others cos you cant handle other people enjoying themselves with a game you don't like.

Oh and if you're wondering where these people are who like aos, they are probably avoiding coming here due to the hate the game gets and what the fans get. There are some truly nasty people on here with many agenda's and driving aos fans away is one of them.

Uhm... I ... I don't think you read much of this thread. No one was giving AoS players a hard time for liking AoS. Hastings was stating the information he's privvy to (which he has no requirement to do, and has been correct far more often that not) and everyone was discussing why the issues have arisen and why this is all happening now.

But, you know... AoS Defense League to the rescue. If someone doesn't like the game, or reports on negative reception, we must be "haters".

Sete
25-04-2016, 18:51
Hmm there are some veiled insults around. Easily ignored. News and rumours sections is a lot worse in that aspect. Stuff easily ignored. Some people might get a bit fed up of the insinuations.
Anyway The AoS haters league needs to have an arch enemy. ;)

Skargit Crookfang
25-04-2016, 18:59
Hmm there are some veiled insults around. Easily ignored. News and rumours sections is a lot worse in that aspect. Stuff easily ignored. Some people might get a bit fed up of the insinuations.
Anyway The AoS haters league needs to have an arch enemy. ;)

I've seen 2, maybe 3, regular posters that give AoS a hard time... and even then, nothing overwhelming. But the calls of oppression from the AoS defense force are just grating.

Drakkar du Chaos
25-04-2016, 19:01
Hmm there are some veiled insults around. Easily ignored. News and rumours sections is a lot worse in that aspect. Stuff easily ignored. Some people might get a bit fed up of the insinuations.
Anyway The AoS haters league needs to have an arch enemy. ;)

Like what ? That AoS is a child game ? That's not an insult, it's a fact :

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?417154-I-finally-quot-get-quot-AoS

"AoS is great because i can play with my 5 years old"

Cool. Now excuse me if some people here have higher expectations for GW products, are sick of watching the brand sicking for years, and may be a little vocal about it.

Zywus
25-04-2016, 19:02
If it wasn't for AoS id still not play fantasy which up til aos was a crapfest of a game.
;):D:rolleyes:

Well, my man. You better get out and buy some more stuff from GW if you truly want your game to survive. Sales are lacking and you AoS fans don't seem to be pulling your weight.

Vazalaar
25-04-2016, 19:08
;):D:rolleyes:

Well, my man. You better get out and buy some more stuff from GW if you truly want your game to survive. Sales are lacking and you AoS fans don't seem to be pulling your weight.

I more or less agree. If AoS was doing well, GW would never have announced this 3 way thing.

Kahadras
25-04-2016, 19:09
Uhm... I ... I don't think you read much of this thread. No one was giving AoS players a hard time for liking AoS.

Yeah but it still amuses me that people come out with stuff like this...


Oh and if you're wondering where these people are who like aos, they are probably avoiding coming here due to the hate the game gets and what the fans get. There are some truly nasty people on here with many agenda's and driving aos fans away is one of them

They seem unable to accept that there appear to be serious issues in regards to AoS and, instead, prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and shout about haters.

Yowzo
25-04-2016, 19:10
By several accounts wood elves and some End Time releases were flying off the shelves (sold out in various places).....

Despite this GW still radically changed the rules in UNDER A YEAR in a desperate attempt to try to appeal to more players so who really know what GW is tripping on?

Well, according to insiders things move very slowly at GWHQ, AoS was in the making for quite a long time and I'm sure the higher ups chose to ignore the signals that the move would be suicidal.

Sete
25-04-2016, 19:16
See how fast they come out of the woodwork. ;)
Giving a hard time. What a jovial community. Seems like a frat house.
Im here to talk about the points and how that will change the game. Like the thread title implies. You are here to shout at the 7 winds that the game is dead. How childish is the game. How much of a copy of 40k is the game. Maybe if you didnt want WHFB to die, you should have bought more models. Crying over spilled milk makes poor conversation.
Now then points. What to expect SCGT like system or points ala 40k?

Vazalaar
25-04-2016, 19:27
See how fast they come out of the woodwork. ;)
Giving a hard time. What a jovial community. Seems like a frat house.
Im here to talk about the points and how that will change the game. Like the thread title implies. You are here to shout at the 7 winds that the game is dead. How childish is the game. How much of a copy of 40k is the game. Maybe if you didnt want WHFB to die, you should have bought more models. Crying over spilled milk makes poor conversation.
Now then points. What to expect SCGT like system or points ala 40k?

But what is there to discuss?

AoS was the new thing, unbound is great, points are bad... almost a year later.. points are back... . This means AoS is a flop. Honestly it would be better that they just pull the plug/cut their losses and go back to the End Times, which atleast was very popular.

Haravikk
25-04-2016, 19:27
Again, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; even highly optimistic projections could never have expected a game with four small factions released so far to outsell an entrenched game with a bunch of fully fleshed out armies. I can mostly only speak from my own experience, but for me it's the uncertainty that has me hesitant; I need to see more of the Dwarf, Elf and Human factions before I'll be willing to commit, though I may get some Fyreslayers regardless since I have a pretty big slayer contingent in my old army, and they won't go amiss there.
GW must have expected it otherwise they would have never pushed through with it.
If you mean that they expected it to outsell WHFB overnight then I highly doubt that, as no-one should have expected that. I'm pretty sure they knew it wouldn't sell spectacularly from the moment it dropped as that's just the nature of the beast, but it's also not a sign of failure.

Basically GW had two choices; try to keep WHFB afloat, for which there were certainly some viable options but no clear guarantee that any of them would actually work, or they could try something new. Clearly they went with the latter, but doing so is a huge risk, as it means establishing a whole new settings, a bunch of new factions and producing all the necessary models to go with it, this is not something that can be done in a short space of time. They could be doing a better job with some aspects of it certainly, but the risk isn't about outshining an existing product with well established armies and huge model range in an instant, it's about creating something that will (hopefully) grow steadily and make more money in the long term. Of course it may not pay off, but considering we're only four factions into what will likely be several dozen factions we are not even close to being able to say that AoS is a failure; all it has to do is grow, and keep growing, and I believe that as more stuff is released, and more the uncertainty disappears that it may well do just that.

In business terms you could think about as a choice between making WHFB (maybe) 20% more profitable now but might just continue to decline anyway, or creating an alternative that may be 100% more profitable in a couple of years and beyond, the latter is riskier, but if it works it's by far the better move. In fact, thanks to the End Times and sales to people buying stuff before it disappears, it could be argued that GW has managed to both make a bunch of money from WHFB in the short term, while pushing ahead with a new game that could make more money in the future. They are also re-releasing a bunch of models, so it's not like they've actually axed everything, thereby lowering some of the risk, we just don't know exactly what's survived yet, only what's definitely been lost thus far.

Again, I'm not saying it will definitely succeed, only that it's too soon to tell as it was never going to be a short-term venture, as it's a game with four small factions replacing one compared to large factions with a bunch of history whose replacements have yet to be revealed; it was never going to catch the imaginations of everyone with an existing army in a single sweep as there's just too much cover. There are certainly things they could have done to speed the process up; for example, I would have focused on the grand alliances, releasing a little bit of everything for Order (e.g- Duardin warriors, Aelf archers, Human knights, Stormcast elites), then the same for Chaos and so-on to give more of a flavour of everything sooner, but that ship has sailed since we got week upon week of Stormcasts and Khorne with only Fyreslayers to break it up alongside some reboxings, but regardless of what mistakes have been made, I still think the long term strategy is a sound one, and that it's too soon to say if it's failed or not.

Zywus
25-04-2016, 19:30
See how fast they come out of the woodwork. ;)
Giving a hard time. What a jovial community. Seems like a frat house.
We are lucky to have you here at least to lighten up the mood.

When AoS gets cancelled in the future, will you take the blame for not buying enough models?

Vazalaar
25-04-2016, 19:33
Haravikk, why do you think that GW has worked out a long term plan for AoS? I think GW expected that AoS, thanks to the Stormcast to be a big and immediatly hit. Why would they otherwise kept releasing those Stormcast the whole summer... .

Imo the only plan GW had with AoS was pure greed and now that things are falling appart they start do some great stuff (Start collecting boxes, Tournament support, Community engagement/openly asking for questions).

I can't believe that people are still saying that it is to soon to say that AoS failed.

Sete
25-04-2016, 19:39
I always advocated for a point system. Since the very beginning.
Oh cmon im just giving you guys a hard time ;)
If, not when( so sure of yourself)AoS fails, life goes on. Im sure I wont be around giving a hard time to the guys that will be playing WHFB reborn. :)

Sete
25-04-2016, 19:39
And yes you are lucky to have me *blushes*

Zywus
25-04-2016, 19:41
You know there exist a quote button right Sete?

What's WHFB reborn?

Sete
25-04-2016, 19:58
Yes I do know. Its the next GW game after AoS. :D
Sometimes I just talk to everyone in general. Quoting makes things so personal. ;)

Zywus
25-04-2016, 20:18
Yes I do know. Its the next GW game after AoS. :D
Sometimes I just talk to everyone in general. Quoting makes things so personal. ;)
If you adress someone in particular with a response to a statement you really should make use of the quote button though.

It's hard to see what you are referring to otherwise and although we are of course extremely lucky to be graced with your presens; I don't care enough to put that much effort in deciphering who you are addressing with each individual line of text.

Sete
25-04-2016, 20:26
If you adress someone in particular with a response to a statement you really should make use of the quote button though.

It's hard to see what you are referring to otherwise and although we are of course extremely lucky to be graced with your presens; I don't care enough to put that much effort in deciphering who you are addressing with each individual line of text.
Im dont think im ready for this kind of commitment. :)
Will make an effort but on mobile its such a bother.
Im honestly curious about the points, and like I said I hope the game gets better.
If it flops, maybe next time GW can get their **** together. Things seem to be improving these last few months tho.

Zywus
25-04-2016, 20:35
Im dont think im ready for this kind of commitment. :)
Will make an effort but on mobile its such a bother.
Im honestly curious about the points, and like I said I hope the game gets better.
If it flops, maybe next time GW can get their **** together. Things seem to be improving these last few months tho.
You need to get yourself a proper Warseer rig dude.

I can't see this point system saving AoS. Now that they've started with formation bonuses ala 40K, there won't be possible to get anywhere near a comprehensive balance without making the army construction rules far too complicated, clashing with the only thing AoS has going for it, being simple to pick up and play.

It would indeed be interesting to see what they'd come up with after scrapping AoS, but they'll probably just get out of fantasy alltogether:(

Haravikk
25-04-2016, 20:35
Haravikk, why do you think that GW has worked out a long term plan for AoS?
Why do you think they took such a tremendous risk without thinking it through even a little?

Age of Sigmar was in planning for quite a while (18 months? I don't remember) before the End Times hit to begin the reboot, which means we've got a good couple of years before we see it in its entirety from that point; development of new models takes a long time too, it's a pipe-line of releases that will extend for months yet to come. Any new release by GW has to have some planning behind it.


I think GW expected that AoS, thanks to the Stormcast to be a big and immediatly hit. Why would they otherwise kept releasing those Stormcast the whole summer...
Thing is that this logic doesn't follow; Stormcast being a bit like fantasy Space Marines might help for attracting new players who prefer to enter a fantasy setting but want a demigod aesthetic, but that does not equate to instant success as fans of WHFB never needed fantasy Space Marines, as they've always had access to actual Space Marines. This would be pretty plain for anyone to see, so assuming GW banked on Stormcast selling the game would require assuming that GW are idiots, which I'm not sure I'm willing to do, their previous CEO was not a positive influence, but I don't think a deeply flawed assumption could be forced through like that, they're just a new faction that hopefully people will adopt, but to expect them everyone to want them would be unrealistic in the extreme.

As for selling them during the summer; this is something I've already questioned, but it more likely comes down to wanting to have the faction established, rather than existing only in the starter set. Personally I'd have opted for leaving them with the starter set, or releasing the same snap-fit models for the time being, but clearly that's not what they did.


Imo the only plan GW had with AoS was pure greed
If they just wanted to make money they could have done the End Times, pushed while stocks last sales to get rid of remaining stock and then discontinued fantasy entirely, which would have been perfectly reasonable if WHFB was struggling. This would cut their losses and allow them to focus on 40k alone which remains successful; this would allow more 40k updates, plus 40k has a universe that's easily adaptable into loads of one-off specialist games, as well as a more easily defensible IP.

Instead they're rebooting their fantasy game, which is not a small undertaking and involves considerably more risk. Even if Stormcast could have driven sales up two or three times what WHFB had before, it would still be a huge risk without some kind of plan for long term viability; production of new models is not a small investment, and even for 40k likely takes a few years to pay off completely, this is why it's momentum and growth that GW need.

Asmodios
25-04-2016, 20:37
These threads are brilliant. All the love and wanting of fantasy battle now that its gone, dead & buried. Where were you lot before it died? You know when you could have made a difference, its all well and good whining now and rallying against age of sigmar. Problem is aos is here. GW wont drop it, see how long fantasy was dragged out yeah? AoS is here to stay and gw will do as they please to fix it. Meh it has no points costs, meh they're only bringing points back to stop the hate lol. The hate on forums is laughable. AoS isn't selling at all blah, blah and blah. If you go to Newcastle or metro centre you can get a game easily. Its done well up here. Betrayal at calth, deathwatch, knight box didn't sell out either by whineseer logic all of those failed too.
Fantasy is dead, AoS is here. No one forces you to play/ like aos. Like people who actually enjoy aos (yes there are quite a few) no ne forces them to play. We play as we enjoy it. That's life, that's games. If it wasn't for AoS id still not play fantasy which up til aos was a crapfest of a game.

Enjoy what you enjoy. Don't ruin the fun of others cos you cant handle other people enjoying themselves with a game you don't like.

Oh and if you're wondering where these people are who like aos, they are probably avoiding coming here due to the hate the game gets and what the fans get. There are some truly nasty people on here with many agenda's and driving aos fans away is one of them.
My guess is that the fans of WHFB were there but many didn't have an option to buy. For example say you are a Bret player and have owned your army for 10 years. You could start another army but the price per unit is incredibly expensive so you just stick with brets. If nothing is ever released for your army of course you are not putting anything into GW. Every time WHFB updated an army it got tons of support (look at wood elves and lizardmen) but most armies took years to get updates. IMO if GW had released small updates to each force each year with 1-2 new models or remaking old models they would have really boosted revenue. They should have also either cut most core unit prices in half or doubled the amount you got. This would have greatly reduced the buy in cost of a new army and encouraged people to start new forces (we all know once you start you never finish).

Sete
25-04-2016, 20:46
You need to get yourself a proper Warseer rig dude.

I can't see this point system saving AoS. Now that they've started with formation bonuses ala 40K, there won't be possible to get anywhere near a comprehensive balance without making the army construction rules far too complicated, clashing with the only thing AoS has going for it, being simple to pick up and play.

It would indeed be interesting to see what they'd come up with after scrapping AoS, but they'll probably just get out of fantasy altogether:(

Really depends on how they go at it.
Could bring some new people into it.
For me list building and customizing heroes are a big deal. Its half the fun. I hope to see that eventually.
If goes wrong I hope GW does not leave Fantasy altogether. Honestly the safe thing would be revamp factions and a skirmish game. But in the long run would that hold ppl in?
For example at my area to where moved 3 years ago some WHFB guys hate AoS with a passion. Yet all that time I have been there they never played a game. I tried to get in but no one was interested in bringing a couple of armies to show the game rolling.
Maybe in the end I was lucky.

Whirlwind
25-04-2016, 22:35
My guess is that the fans of WHFB were there but many didn't have an option to buy. For example say you are a Bret player and have owned your army for 10 years. You could start another army but the price per unit is incredibly expensive so you just stick with brets. If nothing is ever released for your army of course you are not putting anything into GW. Every time WHFB updated an army it got tons of support (look at wood elves and lizardmen) but most armies took years to get updates. IMO if GW had released small updates to each force each year with 1-2 new models or remaking old models they would have really boosted revenue. They should have also either cut most core unit prices in half or doubled the amount you got. This would have greatly reduced the buy in cost of a new army and encouraged people to start new forces (we all know once you start you never finish).

You are correct. And this is what GW are trying to do with AoS and also why they are now shocked the game isn't selling well. They must at some point realised that players were holding back for their army to be updated. Hence popular armies like VC would bring a massive boost to income for a period whilst TK brought in a much restrained income. From a business perspective this makes predicting income, profits etc very difficult each year. If you release in drips then other companies beat you to it at a lower cost. Hence GW changed strategy with AoS. They expected people to still accept the game and continue buying but by releasing small factions (which can be clearly seen in their army design structure on the website) they believed that people would be tempted to buy smaller factions much more frequently; players would spend their money more frequently and not bank it for when their army was updated every decade or so. In this way GW expected more income as that empire player bought a small group of sigmarines, the skaven player would buy a few khorne bezerkers. The warscrolls and models themselves are even designed this way with a lack of customisation compared to some of the WFB kits. They want most to buy each of the kits, rather than a relative few people buying several repeat boxes of the same thing then disappearing again for a decade. What GW failed to predict was that vast numbers of players would reject this idea and in my view gave a lot of people the perfect excuse to get away from the WFB 'drug'. GW forced players to go WFB cold turkey as they were no longer invested in GWs new game. Now most will be outside of GWs influence and this bad news for AoS and GW in general.

Oh and....COME ON LEICESTER!

Yodhrin
25-04-2016, 23:01
You are correct. And this is what GW are trying to do with AoS and also why they are now shocked the game isn't selling well. They must at some point realised that players were holding back for their army to be updated. Hence popular armies like VC would bring a massive boost to income for a period whilst TK brought in a much restrained income. From a business perspective this makes predicting income, profits etc very difficult each year. If you release in drips then other companies beat you to it at a lower cost. Hence GW changed strategy with AoS. They expected people to still accept the game and continue buying but by releasing small factions (which can be clearly seen in their army design structure on the website) they believed that people would be tempted to buy smaller factions much more frequently; players would spend their money more frequently and not bank it for when their army was updated every decade or so. In this way GW expected more income as that empire player bought a small group of sigmarines, the skaven player would buy a few khorne bezerkers. The warscrolls and models themselves are even designed this way with a lack of customisation compared to some of the WFB kits. They want most to buy each of the kits, rather than a relative few people buying several repeat boxes of the same thing then disappearing again for a decade. What GW failed to predict was that vast numbers of players would reject this idea and in my view gave a lot of people the perfect excuse to get away from the WFB 'drug'. GW forced players to go WFB cold turkey as they were no longer invested in GWs new game. Now most will be outside of GWs influence and this bad news for AoS and GW in general.

Oh and....COME ON LEICESTER!

That's perhaps the most insane thing about AoS for me though - if they'd backburnered WHFB-proper and brought out, what did someone call it earlier, "super-Mordheim" or something like that, their strategy would have suckered me so hard it isn't even funny. Christ Mordheim is technically a "dead" game yet I'm actively working on seven new warbands right now. That basic idea(get people to buy lots of small forces) is actually genius...the problem is they didn't just change the size of the game, they changed the fundamental nature of it and then threw out all the background for good measure. A game that let me buy a Steam Tank, a couple of units of Handgunners, some Pistolkorps, and an Engineer on Mechanical Steed to paint up in Nuln colours and trundle around the Old World getting into skirmish-y scrapes? I'd have been all over that and so, I suspect, would a lot of other folk, but they got too carried away and the result isn't something I care to play or even support with purchases.

I mean I quite like the new Orc(no, I won't use your sad legal department-created pseudonames GW, sorry) Shaman, ludicrous size aside, but I won't buy one because I don't want to help give GW the impression that they made a good decision.

Asmodios
25-04-2016, 23:04
You are correct. And this is what GW are trying to do with AoS and also why they are now shocked the game isn't selling well. They must at some point realised that players were holding back for their army to be updated. Hence popular armies like VC would bring a massive boost to income for a period whilst TK brought in a much restrained income. From a business perspective this makes predicting income, profits etc very difficult each year. If you release in drips then other companies beat you to it at a lower cost. Hence GW changed strategy with AoS. They expected people to still accept the game and continue buying but by releasing small factions (which can be clearly seen in their army design structure on the website) they believed that people would be tempted to buy smaller factions much more frequently; players would spend their money more frequently and not bank it for when their army was updated every decade or so. In this way GW expected more income as that empire player bought a small group of sigmarines, the skaven player would buy a few khorne bezerkers. The warscrolls and models themselves are even designed this way with a lack of customisation compared to some of the WFB kits. They want most to buy each of the kits, rather than a relative few people buying several repeat boxes of the same thing then disappearing again for a decade. What GW failed to predict was that vast numbers of players would reject this idea and in my view gave a lot of people the perfect excuse to get away from the WFB 'drug'. GW forced players to go WFB cold turkey as they were no longer invested in GWs new game. Now most will be outside of GWs influence and this bad news for AoS and GW in general.

Oh and....COME ON LEICESTER!
Couldn't agree more. I had only bought GW products before AOS.... literally only GW. Now i am buying all types of miniatures from different companies and loving the range and most of all the prices I'm being exposed to. The only GW models i have picked up is a couple boxes of night goblins because i see them as fairly generic and want to finish my goblin army with all the same core. Picking up some mantic goblin mincers for chariots though because they look great.

scruffyryan
25-04-2016, 23:08
You are correct. And this is what GW are trying to do with AoS and also why they are now shocked the game isn't selling well. They must at some point realised that players were holding back for their army to be updated. Hence popular armies like VC would bring a massive boost to income for a period whilst TK brought in a much restrained income. From a business perspective this makes predicting income, profits etc very difficult each year. If you release in drips then other companies beat you to it at a lower cost. Hence GW changed strategy with AoS. They expected people to still accept the game and continue buying but by releasing small factions (which can be clearly seen in their army design structure on the website) they believed that people would be tempted to buy smaller factions much more frequently; players would spend their money more frequently and not bank it for when their army was updated every decade or so. In this way GW expected more income as that empire player bought a small group of sigmarines, the skaven player would buy a few khorne bezerkers. The warscrolls and models themselves are even designed this way with a lack of customisation compared to some of the WFB kits. They want most to buy each of the kits, rather than a relative few people buying several repeat boxes of the same thing then disappearing again for a decade. What GW failed to predict was that vast numbers of players would reject this idea and in my view gave a lot of people the perfect excuse to get away from the WFB 'drug'. GW forced players to go WFB cold turkey as they were no longer invested in GWs new game. Now most will be outside of GWs influence and this bad news for AoS and GW in general.

Oh and....COME ON LEICESTER!


Except releasing in drips is exactly what Privateer press does, and they're one of the companies taking huge bites out of GW's market share in the U.S. precisely because once a year you can buy a book with the rules for what new model/units your faction is going to get that year. They had absolutely NO REASON to think that players would buy a few kits here and there of other factions other than wishful thinking pulled straight from their arses. And frankly the BIGGEST thing about PP's new releases is that they have a very limited effect on releases for older factions, there may be delays in models hitting the shelves, but you've got a good idea what they look like and you have the rules for them so you can proxy up in a game if you want to test them out. Having the rules show up with the models is like half a step forward, but continuing to ignore other factions while focusing on one for months at a time is basically the same bad business that keeps GW's share declining.

Malagor
25-04-2016, 23:23
Funny enough when GW started to print the rules and put them in the boxes I thought they had learnt something from PP(and others I'm sure) but they still did/do the whole "new models can only be released alongside a codex/armybook/battletome" thing and it just not needed.
Even more so when we hear that the missing TK models were made, bretonnia models were made that they could have released without the need for a armybook but now they are lost because of a stupid policy.

ewar
25-04-2016, 23:23
Instead they're rebooting their fantasy game, which is not a small undertaking and involves considerably more risk. Even if Stormcast could have driven sales up two or three times what WHFB had before, it would still be a huge risk without some kind of plan for long term viability; production of new models is not a small investment, and even for 40k likely takes a few years to pay off completely, this is why it's momentum and growth that GW need.

Why is it a huge risk? Strategically, a much bigger risk is to drop their entire fantasy product line and bet the entire farm on 40k. That is the choice they are faced with - the fact that they chose option (b) do literally anything and see what sticks is not an inherently riskier strategy.

My personal view is that the entire misbegotten AoS project has been entirely ill conceived from the beginning. Putting aside the execution (which IMO has been horrifically, comically, awful), I just don't understand it as a sensible long term strategic choice. They have gone from having the market leading skirmish AND ranked battle games. Now what do they have? Neither (if you consider X Wing to be a skirmish game). Their short sighted pricing strategy killed WFB dead. Their handling of the changeover created a storm of nerd rage and community schism like I've never seen before.

They have done literally everything wrong. It is pretty funny really (except people's job and livelihoods rely on it being a success...)

Pancakey
26-04-2016, 00:36
Thank you hastings for all of your insights. This is turning out to be a very interesting thread because of them. :D

Dosiere
26-04-2016, 00:46
too little too late.

Can't polish a **** but they can sure as hell roll it in glitter!

Maybe! But just possibly this news is the real start of something really positive as well. Personally I am most hopeful about the narrative stuff coming. I have real doubts about the competitive play announcement, as it would take a few real fundamental changes to the basic rules to make it really appeal to me in that regard. But I actually had fun playing through the scenarios for AoS, and if they had real narrative play, dynamic mission trees, and character customization and other RPG elements I think it could only mean good things.

Souppilgrim
26-04-2016, 01:29
That's perhaps the most insane thing about AoS for me though - if they'd backburnered WHFB-proper and brought out, what did someone call it earlier, "super-Mordheim" or something like that, their strategy would have suckered me so hard it isn't even funny. Christ Mordheim is technically a "dead" game yet I'm actively working on seven new warbands right now. That basic idea(get people to buy lots of small forces) is actually genius...the problem is they didn't just change the size of the game, they changed the fundamental nature of it and then threw out all the background for good measure. A game that let me buy a Steam Tank, a couple of units of Handgunners, some Pistolkorps, and an Engineer on Mechanical Steed to paint up in Nuln colours and trundle around the Old World getting into skirmish-y scrapes? I'd have been all over that and so, I suspect, would a lot of other folk, but they got too carried away and the result isn't something I care to play or even support with purchases.

I mean I quite like the new Orc(no, I won't use your sad legal department-created pseudonames GW, sorry) Shaman, ludicrous size aside, but I won't buy one because I don't want to help give GW the impression that they made a good decision.

A "super" mordheim, would have been perfect. People would pick up warbands for all kinds of armies that they dont own because it would be easy to get 6-20 models or whatever. Release a "super warhammer quest" around the same time for all the boardgaming attention, allow the models to flow from both. Put out campaign books in the setting that people know and love for fluff battles and to move the setting forward. Am I just crazy or would that have been great?

MagicAngle
26-04-2016, 03:41
Coca Cola Corporation, 1985: "Guys, guys, we've heard the complaints about New Coke. We get it. Seriously, we do. So, get ready to go nuts for New Coke! It now comes in three different cans!"

scruffyryan
26-04-2016, 03:47
Maybe! But just possibly this news is the real start of something really positive as well. Personally I am most hopeful about the narrative stuff coming. I have real doubts about the competitive play announcement, as it would take a few real fundamental changes to the basic rules to make it really appeal to me in that regard. But I actually had fun playing through the scenarios for AoS, and if they had real narrative play, dynamic mission trees, and character customization and other RPG elements I think it could only mean good things.

maybe something nice will happen! (https://youtu.be/iicTW-PQ9S8?t=12s)

Buddy Bear
26-04-2016, 04:12
A "super" mordheim, would have been perfect. People would pick up warbands for all kinds of armies that they dont own because it would be easy to get 6-20 models or whatever. Release a "super warhammer quest" around the same time for all the boardgaming attention, allow the models to flow from both. Put out campaign books in the setting that people know and love for fluff battles and to move the setting forward. Am I just crazy or would that have been great?

You're not crazy. It would have been great. What GW should've done was make an updated Warhammer Quest with models usable among all the factions (and maybe made a mirrored "evil" version where the heroes are Chaos Warriors, Clan Eshin Assassins, Chaos Dwarf Sorcerers, etc., with the "monsters" being Questing Knights, Wood Elf Waywatchers, Empire Halberdiers, and so on), a rejiggered Mordheim where each warband represented one of the in-game factions, and then a proper "skirmish" game about the size of 40k. That would've created an ecosystem which fed into itself constantly. The board game at big box stores which draws in new people to the hobby, and then move those people to proper tabletop games using the miniatures they get in Warhammer Quest as a base for their Mordheim/Skirmish/Fantasy forces, while existing Warhammer Fantasy players either use their existing models or buy new models to play the Skirmish or Mordheim scale game, or use them for Warhammer Quest.

Asmodios
26-04-2016, 06:15
You're not crazy. It would have been great. What GW should've done was make an updated Warhammer Quest with models usable among all the factions (and maybe made a mirrored "evil" version where the heroes are Chaos Warriors, Clan Eshin Assassins, Chaos Dwarf Sorcerers, etc., with the "monsters" being Questing Knights, Wood Elf Waywatchers, Empire Halberdiers, and so on), a rejiggered Mordheim where each warband represented one of the in-game factions, and then a proper "skirmish" game about the size of 40k. That would've created an ecosystem which fed into itself constantly. The board game at big box stores which draws in new people to the hobby, and then move those people to proper tabletop games using the miniatures they get in Warhammer Quest as a base for their Mordheim/Skirmish/Fantasy forces, while existing Warhammer Fantasy players either use their existing models or buy new models to play the Skirmish or Mordheim scale game, or use them for Warhammer Quest.
This is exactly where I thought GW was going after 8th. It seemed like the logical route to take..... I actually thought the AOS rules were a sick joke my friends were playing on me when they started group texting about them when they were released... Then I went online to read them and knew I was done with gw for a while.

Greyshadow
26-04-2016, 07:40
...(that the) background replaced something so rich and alive as the old world does (bother me).

This is what destroyed Age of Sigmar for me - Warhammer belonged to the players, GW had no mandate to do this. When Harry and Hastings rumours told me that the Old World would be destroyed I was devastated. Years of painting and modelling a coherent world that would soon no longer exist. GW bought this lack of sales mess upon themselves through their own arrogance and stupidity.

Herzlos
26-04-2016, 07:46
A "super" mordheim, would have been perfect. People would pick up warbands for all kinds of armies that they dont own because it would be easy to get 6-20 models or whatever. Release a "super warhammer quest" around the same time for all the boardgaming attention, allow the models to flow from both. Put out campaign books in the setting that people know and love for fluff battles and to move the setting forward. Am I just crazy or would that have been great?

That's exactly what's happening with Frostgrave. It's been out less than a year and I've already started on warband number 4. Not to mention the ton I'm about to spend on new monsters to encounter.

Chilled out Charlie
26-04-2016, 08:17
Few thoughts.

Any company that makes a conscious decision to put at risk 15-20% of their revenues are quite clearly ill managed (I understand WHFB was still profitable) especially if they are operating within a Niche market where every loyal customer should be cherished. Any company that thought that the changes they were making weren't going to put at risk 15-20% of their revenue are also Ill managed.

There were many ways to grow the customer base for WHFB and improve entry which have already been mentioned, skirmish version, increasing model count per box, releasing a warhammer quest box, start collecting boxes.

In addition the complete lack of support for many armies for many years was always going to lead to lower sales. It was a poor decision for GW to have said they will never squat armies again. IMO, part of WHFB's problem was faction bloat. When I came back for the first time since the late 90s I was amazed at how many different factions there now were. Chaos has been split in to three different factions. Undead in to 2. Ogres had been created as an entirely separate faction. Supporting this many lines would have been expensive. They should have rolled up the model lines in to less army factions and disposed of unsuccessful models. This would have saved substantial amounts of money for GW and it would have also allowed them to concentrate on those remaining factions. I know this wouldn't have been popular but better IMO than what we got.

The way I see it if the warhammer quest box that is coming out this summer is a success there may be some life left in AOS otherwise I think the only way GW would be able to save any of it's fantasy side of the business is to re-release WHFB (even as just a specialist game) alongside the release of Total War. I'm aware this won't happen. Unfortunately though from what I've seen of AOS popularity (no matter how anecdotal) and the various things I've read on the internet and financial warnings from GW themselves I can't see AOS being supported for much longer.

I personally don't like AOS but I do not wish for the end of the fantasy side of Warhammer simply because for those who do like AOS I would not wish the squatting of your entire game as happened to mine.

If WHQ is a success, there may be some life yet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jtrowell
26-04-2016, 08:46
It's possible to sell less and be more profitable.

eg.
100 to make something, sold for 150. You made 50, which is 50% profit.
50 to make something else, sold for 80. You made 30, which is 60% profit.

Sold less, more profitable.

But this can also be a terrible error if you forget that you are selling a social hobby, you cannot play a game if you don't know anyone else who play, so somtimes by selling for a lower profit, you can keep a doominant position where you are the default game that everyone play, so other games cannot compete with you.

By shrinking the total community of players, you lose this advantage, and in more and more places people that want to start fantasy wargaming from scratc are free to evaluate each game according to their merit and not by "it's already what all my friends are playing"

Buddy Bear
26-04-2016, 08:54
But this can also be a terrible error if you forget that you are selling a social hobby, you cannot play a game if you don't know anyone else who play, so somtimes by selling for a lower profit, you can keep a doominant position where you are the default game that everyone play, so other games cannot compete with you.

By shrinking the total community of players, you lose this advantage, and in more and more places people that want to start fantasy wargaming from scratc are free to evaluate each game according to their merit and not by "it's already what all my friends are playing"

Exactly. One of the most important things a game could have going for it is the "network effect", which is when you have a large pre-existing network of gamers which a new player could instantly join. Every single instance of someone wanting to play but having little to no one to play against is a guaranteed lost sale. So in the long run it's worth it to have lower prices and more customers, because the more customers you have, the more likely you are to get additional customers, and the larger the player base for a game in the area, the more likely it'll attract new players who may have otherwise started other games as well as draw away players from less popular games in that area.

Sete
26-04-2016, 08:57
Is frostgrave Skirmish? Plastic?
Need to google that.
Been reading the comments on FB, W:AoS said that there will be something for everyone, and every size of game.
Quite happy with this development.
Now they need to tweak the background a bit, for something more familiar.
The new faction ascetics really hit the spot with me.
Now I just need a proper human faction.
Just some guys with balls of sigmarite.
(I dont like Empire range.)

Yowzo
26-04-2016, 08:59
It's possible to sell less and be more profitable.

eg.
100 to make something, sold for 150. You made 50, which is 50% profit.
50 to make something else, sold for 80. You made 30, which is 60% profit.

Sold less, more profitable.

Problem being GW business is extremely front-loaded.

Designing a miniature that's going to sell 100 units costs the same as designing a mini that will sell a million. Moulds, box designs, etc. it all adds up very quickly.

Flat sales (meaning dwindling unit sales) also means lots of idle production time, meaning again highest fixed unit costs going up.

On that scenario you're essentially locking yourself into a spiral of increasing unit costs, that lead you to higher prices, that in turn reduce unit sales and so on.

Herzlos
26-04-2016, 09:39
Is frostgrave Skirmish? Plastic?
Need to google that.


Frostgrave is very much skirmish; it's based around a Wizard with optional apprentice, and a crew of up to 10 mooks (I think you can get to 12 mini's total). Characters are all metal, but they have plastic kits for the mooks (which are great). Currently plastic kits for Soldiers and undead, but Knolls (ratmen) are coming out shortly.

Of course, it's not tied to a manufacturer, so you can use any wizard from wherever you want, with any soldiers from wherever. One of my crews is The Hobbit starter set. So you can play using only plastics if you want.

Yowzo
26-04-2016, 09:50
Of course, it's not tied to a manufacturer, so you can use any wizard from wherever you want, with any soldiers from wherever. One of my crews is The Hobbit starter set. So you can play using only plastics if you want.

I built a spare Empire militia box I had still laying around with the plastic GW fire mage.

Herzlos
26-04-2016, 10:11
Most gamers probably have enough fantasy mini's laying around to make a warband. Bases don't matter either (measuring is from the base, but there's no size specified and it works fine), so the only investment is the 14.99 (At full RRP) for the rulebook. You can get into the game with everything you need for not much more than cost of a squad of Sigmarines [Book 15 + Wizard/Apprentice 6 + Soldiers 20 + a pair of D20's 1 => 42. At full RRP, with 10 spare soldiers]

Sete
26-04-2016, 10:52
Great. Thanks Herzlos will have a look. Seem a good gateway to bring some friends into tabletop.

Kelesis
26-04-2016, 10:53
Smart move but, unfortunately, i think is late for AoS and GW.

Inmy gaming club nobody plays Aos and ll th 40K players hve abandnedte game, due to the poor balancing of the game and the "Aos efect".

t'sad, but no oneisingt return now to GWs games, since all the comunity have moved to Warmahordes Infinity and other games.

IMO os is doomed, only is a matterof time. Sad timesfr GW ex-fas like.

Regards,

Kelesis
26-04-2016, 10:55
Smart move but, unfortunately, i think is late for AoS and GW.

In my gaming club nobody plays Aos and all the 40K players have abandoned the game, due to the poor balancing of the game and the "Aos efect".

It's sad, but no one is going to return now to GWs games, since all the comunity have moved to Warmahordes Infinity and other games.

IMO AoS is doomed, only is a matterof time. Sad times for GW ex-fans like me.

Kelesis
26-04-2016, 10:55
Double post

Turgol
26-04-2016, 11:26
This whole discussion whether AoS "will tank" or if this is good or bad for AoS is rather pointless. It is generally linked to a certain will; there is no unbiased opinion here. Some want it to tank; while other want it to succeed. Period. Of course, the tankers will claim that they know it will tank soon, and the fans will claim that they know it will not. But there is no knowing here, not even an objective appreciation of the facts. AoS is an investment and as such will be proved and re-proved until GW feels they have succeeded. This will not happen for years precisely because it is an investment; there is no definitive failure or success for years to come and yes, many more tweaks and change will be coming along the way.

So really, the question is not whether AoS will flourish because of this or it will rot, much less if GW is "desperate" by doing this, etc. The only plausible question you may ask here is: is the introduction of three ways to play good? I really think VERY few people will say that it is not. So this is good news.

You can still discuss if even with these changes, AoS is a good product or not. Although "haters" will say it sucks in every level (much as lovers will say it is great in all levels), I really think that an unbiased opinion should go like this: it has some really nice models; it has some very absurd prices; rules need work; setting needs work. So the real question is: are you willing to put faith on GW on managing the rules and setting? I'am. You may call me "lover" because of this, but the irrational lover is the man who cannot see flaws where there are. I have faith on rules managing because it was announced and setting improvement because it has potential and BL writers have done good job there.

Where I'am not willing to put faith, is on GW returning to sane prices. I don't want to turn this to a pricing thread though. Here there is only hoping that GW realized that having a small base of fans, willing to pay large amounts of money, is worst than having a larger but pickier one. Returning to "competitive" players and "community" approach is a nice indication. But I will give you this: having faith on prices becoming reasonable for new models seems rather pointless.

Which leads me to my real question here: WTF was wrong with Kirby? At this point I do not think that anyone will doubt that there is a REAL change in GW after Kirby. But the damage he did is so big that it seems almost criminal. He simply rose prices, that is all he did! Just look at the decisions GW has made to have a more healthy business since Kirby: (i) price differentiation by making older but still good looking armies a lot cheaper (Start Collecting) and by increasing the number of cheaper stand alone boxes. Everyone will agree that this is a sound move, but then it just shows that the old business model was as absurd as having everything at high prices! Kirby did nothing to address this issue. (ii) An unprecedented amount of community cooperation and communication. Of course, this just mends something created by the Kirby administration and does nothing new. (iii) Opening up to all kind of hobbyists and players. Same as (ii): this is just repairing Kirby's wounds.

I think all can agree that all of these moves are sound, but this is just repairing a framework set by Kirby. They still have to handle a product range with very expensive new miniatures (which therefore seem very uncompetitive), a hurt community and fan-base, etc. Which really brings my question to the table: what good did he do as CEO? I really cannot think of anything.

75hastings69
26-04-2016, 11:28
Great. Thanks Herzlos will have a look. Seem a good gateway to bring some friends into tabletop.

It really is great, you can mix whatever troops you want to make your warband as it is currently not race specific (although I believe there is a supplement coming that will give some races traits). Also exciting is the upcoming "into the breeding pits" which I believe alows you to play FG as a dungeon crawler, and does feature heavily Gnolls (which are not rat men) along with a plastic gnoll kit. I really like FG, especially as the buy in is so cheap. I got my books from Amazon for around half price too which is great.

silverstu
26-04-2016, 11:37
Without going into what they should have done and what they have got wrong I'm taking this as a positive step by the company alongside other positive steps -like the return of specialist games, more board games and the starter boxes. clearly they recognise they are facing serious problems and are moving to right the ship [at least I hope that is what we are seeing]. With such a large company which plans years in advance such changes won't be quick- its like a large tanker- turns slowly. Probably they need to develop AoS into a better product for themselves, I hope that WFB may return in some format [If i play I'll be playing 8th/9th]. Maybe Warhammer Total War possibly run by Specialist initially. They seem to be more responsive to the community, hopefully they see there is still interest in WFB and may bring it back alongside AoS. I see no problem running 2 eras- especially if they are doing it in 40k with the Heresy. 40k is looking a bit bloated looking- they need to develop a bigger spread of games which looks to be what they are doing under Roundtree. WFB would do really well if they actually just use their existing kits to do cheap starting and regiment boxes [ironically the reboxes in AoS which are the only thing I like in AoS -although the orc release is nice].
I hope they continue responding to and working with the community- grow AoS and bring in the 9th age community with some official support and some minis. I really think both fantasy games could run alongside each other as different eras would work and if done well could keep a lot of people happy.

PS. Hastings -cheers for the insights - invaluable as usual.

Yowzo
26-04-2016, 12:01
Which leads me to my real question here: WTF was wrong with Kirby? At this point I do not think that anyone will doubt that there is a REAL change in GW after Kirby. But the damage he did is so big that it seems almost criminal. He simply rose prices, that is all he did! Just look at the decisions GW has made to have a more healthy business since Kirby: (i) price differentiation by making older but still good looking armies a lot cheaper (Start Collecting) and by increasing the number of cheaper stand alone boxes. Everyone will agree that this is a sound move, but then it just shows that the old business model was as absurd as having everything at high prices! Kirby did nothing to address this issue. (ii) An unprecedented amount of community cooperation and communication. Of course, this just mends something created by the Kirby administration and does nothing new. (iii) Opening up to all kind of hobbyists and players. Same as (ii): this is just repairing Kirby's wounds.

I think all can agree that all of these moves are sound, but this is just repairing a framework set by Kirby. They still have to handle a product range with very expensive new miniatures (which therefore seem very uncompetitive), a hurt community and fan-base, etc. Which really brings my question to the table: what good did he do as CEO? I really cannot think of anything.

Not only that. There are reports from all kinds of former GW employees that the issues were known at just about every company level, but Kirby (and those aligning with him) chose to dismiss them.

Haravikk
26-04-2016, 12:05
do literally anything and see what sticks is not an inherently riskier strategy.
If by "do literally anything" you mean "invest lots of money in all new miniatures, all new books and an all new setting that will takes years to fully develop" then I think the risk is clear.

If WHFB was dying then the obvious thing to do is to discontinue it and invest more on 40k; this would allow for more frequent updates to 40k, or more room to develop smaller supplementary games based in the 40k universe, which has more than enough breadth to cover it. 40k is also the more defensible IP, as while there are other sci-fi games out there, none are quite like 40k, whereas the same can't always be said of WHFB; it has parts that are characterful and unique, but it's pretty Tolkien-esque, which means there's a lot of direct competition from other fantasy games. AoS' setting is weird and underdeveloped, but it seems they're at least trying to take what made the more unique elements of WHFB unique and transplant them into a new setting that's more uniquely its own; it's far from perfect of course, but again, it's a young game replacing an old one while trying to keep some of the same elements.

Turgol
26-04-2016, 12:10
If by "do literally anything" you mean "invest lots of money in all new miniatures, all new books and an all new setting that will takes years to fully develop" then I think the risk is clear.

If WHFB was dying then the obvious thing to do is to discontinue it and invest more on 40k; this would allow for more frequent updates to 40k, or more room to develop smaller supplementary games based in the 40k universe, which has more than enough breadth to cover it. 40k is also the more defensible IP, as while there are other sci-fi games out there, none are quite like 40k, whereas the same can't always be said of WHFB; it has parts that are characterful and unique, but it's pretty Tolkien-esque, which means there's a lot of direct competition from other fantasy games. AoS' setting is weird and underdeveloped, but it seems they're at least trying to take what made the more unique elements of WHFB unique and transplant them into a new setting that's more uniquely its own; it's far from perfect of course, but again, it's a young game replacing an old one while trying to keep some of the same elements.

Agreed. I just hope they can bring these elements to fruition.

A month ago I made a post about how April would close the first cycle of AoS with the release of GA Destruction. Back then the point of the second cycle was not so clear. They will, of course, bring new models and armies. But with Silver Tower and new rules being the openers of this second cycle, it seems they will point hard at consolidating the game at least rules-wise. I'd love them to work on the setting as well though. I guess a real consolidation (like WHFB 4th edition) will not be possible until all "reimagination" of new races are done. Of those we are missing obvious Aelfs, maybe humans, and Tzeentch and Slaanesh-Chaos.

Malagor
26-04-2016, 12:19
Which leads me to my real question here: WTF was wrong with Kirby? At this point I do not think that anyone will doubt that there is a REAL change in GW after Kirby. But the damage he did is so big that it seems almost criminal. He simply rose prices, that is all he did! Just look at the decisions GW has made to have a more healthy business since Kirby: (i) price differentiation by making older but still good looking armies a lot cheaper (Start Collecting) and by increasing the number of cheaper stand alone boxes. Everyone will agree that this is a sound move, but then it just shows that the old business model was as absurd as having everything at high prices! Kirby did nothing to address this issue. (ii) An unprecedented amount of community cooperation and communication. Of course, this just mends something created by the Kirby administration and does nothing new. (iii) Opening up to all kind of hobbyists and players. Same as (ii): this is just repairing Kirby's wounds.

I think all can agree that all of these moves are sound, but this is just repairing a framework set by Kirby. They still have to handle a product range with very expensive new miniatures (which therefore seem very uncompetitive), a hurt community and fan-base, etc. Which really brings my question to the table: what good did he do as CEO? I really cannot think of anything.
He didn't do that much. Nearly took the company down when he bought it due to loans.
One can say that the good he did was Lord of the Rings game which during it's golden age was the biggest selling game GW had, bigger then even 40k but then even knowing that it was just a fad, was unable to adapt to it which led to problems which then led to essentially the sales department taking over the creative part of the company which only caused more problems that we see to this day, Sigmarines are a prime example of how a sales department thinks(Space Marines sell, let's put them in fantasy) as is AoS.
So he did 1 thing good really and that was sign a deal for the LOTR licence, any other success was due to the talent people that worked at GW at the time were allowed to do their jobs and even that Kirby made sure to that they weren't allowed to hence why many left and are now succeeding in other companies.

Drakkar du Chaos
26-04-2016, 13:25
He didn't do that much. Nearly took the company down when he bought it due to loans.
One can say that the good he did was Lord of the Rings game which during it's golden age was the biggest selling game GW had, bigger then even 40k but then even knowing that it was just a fad, was unable to adapt to it which led to problems which then led to essentially the sales department taking over the creative part of the company which only caused more problems that we see to this day, Sigmarines are a prime example of how a sales department thinks(Space Marines sell, let's put them in fantasy) as is AoS.
So he did 1 thing good really and that was sign a deal for the LOTR licence, any other success was due to the talent people that worked at GW at the time were allowed to do their jobs and even that Kirby made sure to that they weren't allowed to hence why many left and are now succeeding in other companies.

He's also the one behind the huge expansion of GW in the UK and worldwide until the "LotR crash" in 2004-2005. Since then Kirby administration have cutdown costs everywhere every year, isolated them from the customers and started to believe that GW objective was "to make models, not games" leading to the best game designers leaving the company and ultimately Games Workshop giving birth to Age of Sigmar.

If only Kirby had resigned from his position 10 years ago after GW stock value lost 75% in two years, what is currently happening with Rountree would have come way sooner and i assume WHFB could probably be alive and doing well.
But it didn't happened and since August 2015 i want to believe Rountree is the perfect man to put back GW in good shape and fix this toxic relation GW/community Kirby created.
So far i'm not dissapointed even if it seems there is no end to the AoS products created one or two years ago (let's not kidding ourselves, even the recent Orks were not designed in 2016 but probably mid-2015).
I expect that big changes will come this summer, not only the points value for AoS, and i hope the new administration understand that WHFB left a void in the market and they should fix this with something else than AoS (after 30K and the Specialist Games my hopes are with you ForgeWorld)...

Malagor
26-04-2016, 13:50
I think if Kirby had listen to the likes of Priestly and others, Fantasy would still be alive and kicking as would the other specialist games.
Just a simple change like that would have done alot.
A guess a easy trait to apply to Kirby is ambitious, he wanted GW to become huge and stay that way for a long time but he had no real idea on how to do that and ignored those that did in favor of listening to the sales department.

toonboy78
26-04-2016, 13:57
i can't find where, but i seem to remember that when AoS was released that here were rumours that a "points system" was already designed and was going to be released later on.

companies don't have the resources to dump everything out straight away, and GW has always been known for drip feeding releases. to have most armies covered after a year is pretty quick for them.

also this idea that the points are only being done because of sales....sort of implies recent stuff wasn't everything they have done in the last 20+ years (since plc) has been done because of sales. whether is has work or not is another issue all together

ewar
26-04-2016, 14:04
With such a large company which plans years in advance such changes won't be quick- its like a large tanker- turns slowly.

I've seen this said before - it is completely false. GW is a tiny company in the great scheme of things. Is it bigger than your local FLGS? Yes. Is it the biggest in the TTG hobby? Probably. However companies need to be agile, it's how they survive in a cut-throat market. Did VW sit around for a year whilst the dieselgate crisis hit? Did BP just carry on drilling deep sea oil wells after their 2010 disaster?

GW are not some kind of oil tanker locked on a path of destruction, unable to change for 6 or 12 months. They just need management who are decisive and able to effect change quickly. It appears that at least some minor action is now being taken.


If by "do literally anything" you mean "invest lots of money in all new miniatures, all new books and an all new setting that will takes years to fully develop" then I think the risk is clear.

If WHFB was dying then the obvious thing to do is to discontinue it and invest more on 40k; this would allow for more frequent updates to 40k, or more room to develop smaller supplementary games based in the 40k universe, which has more than enough breadth to cover it. 40k is also the more defensible IP, as while there are other sci-fi games out there, none are quite like 40k, whereas the same can't always be said of WHFB; it has parts that are characterful and unique, but it's pretty Tolkien-esque, which means there's a lot of direct competition from other fantasy games. AoS' setting is weird and underdeveloped, but it seems they're at least trying to take what made the more unique elements of WHFB unique and transplant them into a new setting that's more uniquely its own; it's far from perfect of course, but again, it's a young game replacing an old one while trying to keep some of the same elements.

I think you have completely misunderstood my point. Dropping their fantasy lines completely and putting MORE money into the 40k universe IS the high risk play here - they would be betting the entire future of the business on a single product and IP. Think about that for a moment. Think of how fickle consumer tastes are, what happens if scifi goes completely out of fashion? What if Star Wars becomes and even more unstoppable juggernaut and releases a huge 28mm table top battle game with incredible models and rules for half the price?

A situation like that would be an existential crisis for GW. Putting some studio time to try and come up with a new WFB is absolutely the SAFEST course of action they could have followed - what is remarkable is just how hilariously badly they managed to ******* it up.

herjan1987
26-04-2016, 14:17
A little side info: Some on Dakka or here on Warseer posted ( from AoS facebook page ) that all WHFB legacy units will be supported in this points system. This that even Tomb Kings and Brettonnians. Everybody draw their own conclusions.

Herzlos
26-04-2016, 14:38
The official line was that anything with WarScrolls would get points. They still won't be supported in any other sense of the word.

Herzlos
26-04-2016, 14:40
i can't find where, but i seem to remember that when AoS was released that here were rumours that a "points system" was already designed and was going to be released later on.

That was just due to complete disbelief that there wasn't a points system. GW confirmed (I'm sure) that AoS would have no points, they even made a big thing of how points is a bad way to play.

silverstu
26-04-2016, 14:40
I've seen this said before - it is completely false. GW is a tiny company in the great scheme of things. Is it bigger than your local FLGS? Yes. Is it the biggest in the TTG hobby? Probably. However companies need to be agile, it's how they survive in a cut-throat market. Did VW sit around for a year whilst the dieselgate crisis hit? Did BP just carry on drilling deep sea oil wells after their 2010 disaster?

GW are not some kind of oil tanker locked on a path of destruction, unable to change for 6 or 12 months. They just need management who are decisive and able to effect change quickly. It appears that at least some minor action is now being taken

In model manufacturing terms it is large and I would have thought that production times that go into the creation of its products would emphasise that things can't change in that quickly- WD is written 3 ,on the in advance, rules and models are developed over years, they have a schedule set out for some thing like 2 years in advance and all their resources are aligned to make all that happen. They have set up specialist games but that seems likely to have its first releases next year- it can't make major changes rapidly. I would have thought that was obvious. That's the problem with larger companies - they don't have the flexibility to react to markets in a way that smaller companies can. But GW is making some moves with recent initiatives - hopefully they will gain some momentum. How long has the new CEO been in charge? (Roundtree)

Treadhead_1st
26-04-2016, 14:55
I remember people saying that as Rountree was from within the company the company would continue on as normal - he'd been one of Kirby's "yes men". That may have been true (most people don't want to make waves at work), but now that Kirby has sidelined himself I think there is more acceptance of the issues the company has.

I hope the changes we are seeing - notably cheaper cost of entry with the Start Collecting boxes and good value sets in game products like Betrayal at Calth and Imperial Knights Renegade, as well as some kit consolidation - the three SM heroes for 30 when they're 18 each, for example. Not to mention the restarting of Facebook pages and engagement with the customers. The fact that this points system has been co-developed with major tournament organisers and podcasts is a massive internal change too.

I think it is hard to say for certain that the changes to AoS are a panic-result, but hopefully that is indeed a change for the better. I believe Harry or Hastings mentioned that a replacement for Fantasy was being discussed/worked on before 8th Edition was even released, the printed material is finalised 3 months out, and model production set something like 2 years in advance. At the same time, announcing now (end of April) that the release will be "in the Summer" (i.e. more than 3 months out) could indicate it is a far more recent development.

herjan1987
26-04-2016, 14:58
The official line was that anything with WarScrolls would get points. They still won't be supported in any other sense of the word.

You can still find the Tomb King warscrolls and the here is a qoute from the facebook site:

"Warhammer Age of Sigmar (https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/?rc=p) Hey Marco (https://www.facebook.com/marco.stark1?hc_location=ufi), you will be able to play your Bretonnians using the new Matched Play."

Bloodknight
26-04-2016, 15:00
Did VW sit around for a year whilst the dieselgate crisis hit?

Pretty much unless you live in the US where they reacted relatively quickly and compensated their customers (they probably didn't want to get sued in the US). The rest of the world doesn't get any compensation for the massive loss of value those cars suffered. Thank the lord I sold my Skoda just before the crisis hit. Wouldn't touch anything with a diesel engine with a 10 foot pole at the moment (or anything with a modern gasoline direct injection engine - engines with gasoline intake manifold injection, i.e. less modern engines, don't cause particles -, because those only pass the particle limits because nobody measures them, only for Diesel, that is probably going to be the car industry's next Waterloo), no matter the manufacturer. This is going to be one of those cases where customers and taxpayers have to pay the bill for the lies of rich people (That said, I wonder if those limits are actually physically possible with the current level of engineering).

/OT rant

ewar
26-04-2016, 15:00
In model manufacturing terms it is large and I would have thought that production times that go into the creation of its products would emphasise that things can't change in that quickly- WD is written 3 ,on the in advance, rules and models are developed over years, they have a schedule set out for some thing like 2 years in advance and all their resources are aligned to make all that happen. They have set up specialist games but that seems likely to have its first releases next year- it can't make major changes rapidly. I would have thought that was obvious. That's the problem with larger companies - they don't have the flexibility to react to markets in a way that smaller companies can. But GW is making some moves with recent initiatives - hopefully they will gain some momentum. How long has the new CEO been in charge? (Roundtree)

The industry they are in is irrelevant, I don't disagree products take time to develop and make (you can't put out a new car model with a 6 month window for example), but that can be planned around. It's why effective management have contingencies in place. What was GWs plan if AOS imploded? (which they should have considered as a possibility) What is their plan if their factory catches fire? These are all things that should be ready to go into action as soon as it's needed.

They do lots of stuff very far in advance, but how does that benefit them if their customer base is collapsing in on itself? I would love to know the lead time on getting a product such as IK:Renegades from drawing board to shop. It uses previously published rules from WD and plastic kits that have already paid themselves off 10 times over. I suspect that it probably took about 3 months... and when the December trading was bad they have immediately looked to plug their H2 sales shortfall by getting a discount box of knights to market.

Didn't need anything except a glossy box. Even the release window seems forced as the OnG stuff has been compressed where it would normally be spread out. All of this is an example of them acting much more quickly than in the past (as they may well need to - I can't wait to see the June 2016 financials).


At the same time, announcing now (end of April) that the release will be "in the Summer" (i.e. more than 3 months out) could indicate it is a far more recent development.

But also, for a company that is sooooo tight lipped about future developments, isn't it interesting that they are letting the community know this is on the way 2 months in advance? (it is the common sense thing to do of course if you want new customers to get over their reservations with the current product).

Spiney Norman
26-04-2016, 15:13
But also, for a company that is sooooo tight lipped about future developments, isn't it interesting that they are letting the community know this is on the way 2 months in advance? (it is the common sense thing to do of course if you want new customers to get over their reservations with the current product).

Perhaps it is a sign that their lips are becoming a little looser than they have traditionally been ;)

ewar
26-04-2016, 15:21
Perhaps it is a sign that their lips are becoming a little looser than they have traditionally been ;)

I have several small children and as a parent I give them the most effusive praise for completing the most mundane and trivial of tasks. That is what is happening with the community now. If GW manages to go on the potty without staining the carpet then they get a smiley face sticker and a big hug. :)

Tokamak
26-04-2016, 15:29
Problem being GW business is extremely front-loaded.

Designing a miniature that's going to sell 100 units costs the same as designing a mini that will sell a million. Moulds, box designs, etc. it all adds up very quickly.

Flat sales (meaning dwindling unit sales) also means lots of idle production time, meaning again highest fixed unit costs going up.

On that scenario you're essentially locking yourself into a spiral of increasing unit costs, that lead you to higher prices, that in turn reduce unit sales and so on.

Exactly, and any rule development will be balloon relative to the production cost. It's way cheaper to develop for a large quantity of kits than for a small quantity of kits.

abaddonseviltwin
26-04-2016, 15:32
Some interesting insight into what goes on behind the scenes. As a couple have side here and elsewhere, I'm inclined to believe that "fantasy" sales have been muddied by people playing End Times and buying these miniatures, people stocking up on the old range while they still had square bases and the "buy while you can" effect. All acting to artificially bump up what might appear to be AoS sales on an oversimplified spreadsheet.

There was a lot of evidence in the End Times books that the storyline was set to move on. But there were also changes to the way the rules played, things like combining the rider and mount stats, seemed odd at the time to do things this way, still does, if 8th was the end, why not just keep them separate? I think there were two projects in the running for the future of fantasy, AoS and something more resembling 8th.

A note of caution with the new points, I would worry that with all those units getting points that the points would either be no better than the results from a random number generator, or that they are all pretty similar, basic troops 2, elite troops 3, cavalry 5, chariot 7, with little distinction between types within the category.

Tokamak
26-04-2016, 15:37
I think AoS was a panic product. GW throwing a hail-mary and drastically change everything for the sake of drastic change. It's posturing for the shareholders.

Comrade Penguin
26-04-2016, 16:06
This is definitely a step in the right direction. And if it is true that they are working with tournament organizers to balance the game they may see me return yet.

But GW has a long ways to go to mend the rift that AOS caused. This was posted in my FLGS's facebook group yesterday, and it quickly devolved into bitter arguments and lots of snark.

Sete
26-04-2016, 16:06
I think its a back up plan. Glad external elements to GW are involved in the points. Also read this on faeit from a "source".
"Tomb Kings and Bretonnians as well as many missing unit's like Wardancers (That we're mentioned by name, seems that folks love those deadly dancers of pointy eared doom) are not "gone" but will be re done and re released in a new shiny form."

Myster2
26-04-2016, 16:07
I have several small children and as a parent I give them the most effusive praise for completing the most mundane and trivial of tasks. That is what is happening with the community now. If GW manages to go on the potty without staining the carpet then they get a smiley face sticker and a big hug. :)

:) This person speaks the truth. If GW finally puts on an errata will we praise them for their infinite wisdom?

Sete
26-04-2016, 16:12
If they dont do anything lets keep being bitter.
Its positive reinforcement. They do a good thing you say great keep at it.
Hardly high praise.
Its a step in the right direction. Nothing more nothing less.
I dont understand the need to blow everything out of proportion.

Treadhead_1st
26-04-2016, 16:29
But also, for a company that is sooooo tight lipped about future developments, isn't it interesting that they are letting the community know this is on the way 2 months in advance? (it is the common sense thing to do of course if you want new customers to get over their reservations with the current product).

Yup, and we customers have complained for years about how tight-lipped they became. Although it is on a far shorter time-frame, look at what is going on on Facebook - the silhouettes of the various flyers in 40K are being used to trail new releases before they are officially announced; the 30th Anniversary Marine was detailed weeks before it was available. All that said, it is quite possible that this is a late attempt to shape Age of Sigmar into something more palatable after its performance.


I have several small children and as a parent I give them the most effusive praise for completing the most mundane and trivial of tasks. That is what is happening with the community now. If GW manages to go on the potty without staining the carpet then they get a smiley face sticker and a big hug. :)

Yup. Positive reinforcement so that we can hopefully force/keep this shift in their consumer interactions and concerns. Ignoring the positive steps they take, even if they are basic or expected, won't do squat. Berating them for doing so will be counter-productive.


:) This person speaks the truth. If GW finally puts on an errata will we praise them for their infinite wisdom?

Given they took public submissions, released what they had changed, and are (currently) taking feedback on what they've changed before they finalise it, yes they should be praised. Other companies are better at FAQing (either in documents or through official forums), but I've never seen a company produce a draft FAQ for consumer feedback.

Yodhrin
26-04-2016, 16:33
If by "do literally anything" you mean "invest lots of money in all new miniatures, all new books and an all new setting that will takes years to fully develop" then I think the risk is clear.

If WHFB was dying then the obvious thing to do is to discontinue it and invest more on 40k; this would allow for more frequent updates to 40k, or more room to develop smaller supplementary games based in the 40k universe, which has more than enough breadth to cover it. 40k is also the more defensible IP, as while there are other sci-fi games out there, none are quite like 40k, whereas the same can't always be said of WHFB; it has parts that are characterful and unique, but it's pretty Tolkien-esque, which means there's a lot of direct competition from other fantasy games. AoS' setting is weird and underdeveloped, but it seems they're at least trying to take what made the more unique elements of WHFB unique and transplant them into a new setting that's more uniquely its own; it's far from perfect of course, but again, it's a young game replacing an old one while trying to keep some of the same elements.


People just keep asserting this but I've yet to see any of them actually explain how, legally, GW can prevent someone from selling something that looks almost-but-not-quite like an "Orruk" or a "Fyreslayer" or a "Stormcast" under a different name(Orc, Dwarf Berzerker, Angelic Paladin) and the description "compatible with Games Workshop's Age of Sigmar(tm) Orruk/Fyreslayer/Stormcast(tm) faction and game" exactly as they do now with Orcs and Dwarfs and Empire. The component parts of the concepts are still generic, and it's been established in a court of law that anyone is free to use GW's trademarks in that context so SEO to ensure your not-Fyrelayers show up on the front page of Google when someone searches with AoS-specific terms is no problem - GW are in exactly the same legal position with AoS as they were with WHFB.

Either AoS will be successful, in which case it will inevitably inspire third-party variations on the main factions whether GW like it or not, or it won't, in which case whether anyone is "copying" them is a fairly moot point since nobody will be buying AoS stuff either way.

Of course, we can also question whether not being "unique" to the degree of AoS actually is a good thing or not. Sure, it means GW don't have to directly compete with historicals for the business of value-conscious gamers to the same degree, but the point has been made and it's a good one that a sense of connection to the world is important to a lot of gamers, and WHF's fusion of history, Tolkienesque fantasy, folklore and fairytales with a dash of Pratchettesque humour made that connection easy through familiarity - by comparison, how do you connect with the Gribblegrumble Clan of Grooblesnork Hill, doing battle with the Glarblefablulons of the Shimmertarns?

If someone asks "What's the Empire?" or "Why do all your guys have French names?", there were always tangible real-world, pop-culture, or well-known fantasy literature hooks to which you could refer in order to give them a basic understanding quickly, and in a way that often piqued their interest. Obviously GW disagreed that was important, we'll have to wait & see if they were right.

Drakkar du Chaos
26-04-2016, 16:42
In model manufacturing terms it is large and I would have thought that production times that go into the creation of its products would emphasise that things can't change in that quickly- WD is written 3 ,on the in advance, rules and models are developed over years, they have a schedule set out for some thing like 2 years in advance and all their resources are aligned to make all that happen. They have set up specialist games but that seems likely to have its first releases next year- it can't make major changes rapidly. I would have thought that was obvious. That's the problem with larger companies - they don't have the flexibility to react to markets in a way that smaller companies can. But GW is making some moves with recent initiatives - hopefully they will gain some momentum. How long has the new CEO been in charge? (Roundtree)

IIRC : first half of 2015. But the real question is : since when he started to make the decisions that matters ? I think it was after AoS was released and flopped and that Roundtree's decision to lower BaC price make it a cash cow for GW (so he's really in charge since autumn/winter 2015)... since then we had "start collecting" boxes, black friday, the announcement of specialist games coming back, more presence of Games Workshop in the social media or working with the community (new points system for AoS), etc... i hope it's only the beginning for a GW 2.0 and the come back of WHFB in the long run is a possibility.

Drakkar du Chaos
26-04-2016, 16:45
I remember people saying that as Rountree was from within the company the company would continue on as normal - he'd been one of Kirby's "yes men". That may have been true (most people don't want to make waves at work), but now that Kirby has sidelined himself I think there is more acceptance of the issues the company has.

I hope the changes we are seeing - notably cheaper cost of entry with the Start Collecting boxes and good value sets in game products like Betrayal at Calth and Imperial Knights Renegade, as well as some kit consolidation - the three SM heroes for 30 when they're 18 each, for example. Not to mention the restarting of Facebook pages and engagement with the customers. The fact that this points system has been co-developed with major tournament organisers and podcasts is a massive internal change too.

I think it is hard to say for certain that the changes to AoS are a panic-result, but hopefully that is indeed a change for the better. I believe Harry or Hastings mentioned that a replacement for Fantasy was being discussed/worked on before 8th Edition was even released, the printed material is finalised 3 months out, and model production set something like 2 years in advance. At the same time, announcing now (end of April) that the release will be "in the Summer" (i.e. more than 3 months out) could indicate it is a far more recent development.

People started saying that just after AoS was released, it was basically just assumptions without facts, since then it's pretty clear that's not the case.

Kahadras
26-04-2016, 16:50
I think AoS was a panic product. GW throwing a hail-mary and drastically change everything for the sake of drastic change.

I disagree. I feel that AoS was designed as a product to make the most money out of the least resources (as well as trying to include the Space Marine effect). The new background provides a massive blank canvass that can be constantly used to pull out new stuff without any explanation needed. The removal of a points system and a simplified rules system allowed for GW to cut down on developement time (IMO there was little or no play testing done when AoS was being written). The factons also seem to be smaller (looking at Sylvaneth, Fyreslayers and Ironjaws) and I honestly feel that GW are going for churn and burn here. I think that what GW decided was that they'd have a big, core, popular army (Fantasy Space Marines) and then keep releasing small factions (a monster, a couple of leaders, a couple of infantry choices and maybe a cavalry unit). The smaller factions would be easy to support (no new minatures), can be combined in with other factions and can be dropped once they run out of steam (being replaced with a new faction).

Zywus
26-04-2016, 16:51
People just keep asserting this but I've yet to see any of them actually explain how, legally, GW can prevent someone from selling something that looks almost-but-not-quite like an "Orruk" or a "Fyreslayer" or a "Stormcast" under a different name(Orc, Dwarf Berzerker, Angelic Paladin) and the description "compatible with Games Workshop's Age of Sigmar(tm) Orruk/Fyreslayer/Stormcast(tm) faction and game" exactly as they do now with Orcs and Dwarfs and Empire. The component parts of the concepts are still generic, and it's been established in a court of law that anyone is free to use GW's trademarks in that context so SEO to ensure your not-Fyrelayers show up on the front page of Google when someone searches with AoS-specific terms is no problem - GW are in exactly the same legal position with AoS as they were with WHFB.
You are correct. The whole IP-protecting-scheme theory is just something parroted by people who don't know how IP-law work. (which admittedly, might include GW's legal department :p)

None of the new models are any more protected from a copyright perspective than the old ones were. Giving them silly names gives GW phrases they can trademark, but as you've alluded to, it doesn't stop anyone from making and marketing component parts compatible with the models and it doesn't stop anyone making models that can be used instead of GW's versions. (although alternative models cannot be directly marketed as such). These guys for example could very well be used instead as sigmarines:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1113411001/odyssey-argonauts/description


Either AoS will be successful, in which case it will inevitably inspire third-party variations on the main factions whether GW like it or not, or it won't, in which case whether anyone is "copying" them is a fairly moot point since nobody will be buying AoS stuff either way.
In this way at least, AoS is a success from the perspective of third party manufacturers. Since any AoS specific stuff is so unpopular, few if anyone will bother making addon kits, head variations etc, that GW feels are eating into their profits.

And the hard core of GW fans left playing AoS are probably generally among the most likely to exclusively buy GW product to play their GW games with.

Sete
26-04-2016, 16:54
"I think it was after AoS was released and flopped" " i hope it's only the beginning for a GW 2.0 and the come back of WHFB in the long run is a possibility."

Breaking news right here.
WHFB wont come back. Move on.
Just like my Black Templars wont have a codex ever again. Best to accept it.

Drakkar du Chaos
26-04-2016, 16:57
I disagree. I feel that AoS was designed as a product to make the most money out of the least resources (as well as trying to include the Space Marine effect). The new background provides a massive blank canvass that can be constantly used to pull out new stuff without any explanation needed. The removal of a points system and a simplified rules system allowed for GW to cut down on developement time (IMO there was little or no play testing done when AoS was being written). The factons also seem to be smaller (looking at Sylvaneth, Fyreslayers and Ironjaws) and I honestly feel that GW are going for churn and burn here. I think that what GW decided was that they'd have a big core popular army (Space Marines) and then keep releasing small factions (a monster, a couple of leaders, a couple of infantry choices and a cavalry unit). The smaller factions would be easy to support (no new minatures), can be combined in with other factions and can be dropped once they run out of steam (being replaced with a new faction).

This ^
Spot on, especially the part regarding game development inside GW : they became really lazy about it these last years and the design studio is a shadow of what it used to be.
For those who didn't see it already :


Priestley left Games Workshop in 2010, almost three decades after the release of the original Warhammer. He said he’d grown increasingly disillusioned with the direction the company was taking.

“I was the head of the creative department, and they weren’t doing anything creative any more,” he said.
“The role I had in the studio was with staff working on game development and design, and they’d pretty much decided that game development and design wasn’t of any interest to them. The current attitude in Games Workshop is that they’re not a games company, it’s that they’re a model company selling collectibles. That’s something I find wholly self-deceiving and couldn’t possibly agree with.”

http://unpluggedgames.co.uk/features/blood-dice-and-darkness-how-warhammer-defined-gaming-for-a-generation/

Megad00mer
26-04-2016, 17:12
There’s no doubt that this direction change is due to horrific sales. You don’t create a rule system like this and talk about how revolutionary it is, (No points! Just put your models down and play! A true social experience! The way tabletop games are meant to be played!) and then almost completely backpedal 9 months later if things are going according to plan. As much as I want to like AoS, it’s baffling to me how GW could have utterly screwed the pooch on this one by completely misunderstanding who their players are and what we want. I think their intentions were pure and their hearts in the right place but geezus did they make some dumb decisions.

They completely destroyed a world with over 30yrs of history, upcoming video games set in it, and a devoted group of fans, many who didn’t play WFB anymore, but would have come back if you gave them reason to. There were about 1,000 ways you could have revamped the world and the setting without blowing up the entire g.damn thing. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

End times was a cool (if expensive) way to set up this revamp and ironically it appeared to increase sales and interest in the game right before they nuked the whole thing. #faceplam. End Times concluded with Archaon blowing up the world, Chaos winning and Sigmar barely surviving. This was the “blank canvas” on which GW would vomit their new “lore”. This allowed them to revamp the IP along with nice new copyright protectable names for each race….except..

This would be like if J.R.R. Tolkien’s estate wanted to sell more books, so he wrote a series of novels, each costing $75 bucks, that ended with Middle Earth being destroyed by Sauron. Then when the new stories pick up, we’re in a brand new dimension created by Gandalf’s last fart made of fire and silk, the Hobbits are called Horborts, that fight with rolling pins in a land made of butter against the evil forces of the Hruruk Chai and Smoggg the Dargon who want to destroy the world cuz reasons….Yup. Just what your fans always wanted….

THEN they use this new IP that feels like it was written on the inside cover of a spiral notebook by an introvert middle schooler wearing a Slipknot t-shirt in a new game that has no system of balance whatsoever, with 4 pages of rules so horribly vague that they require 20 pages of FAQ. Now in GW’s minds I’m sure they thought that a game doesn’t need points because we live in a magical, fairly, rainbow land where no one is an **** and everyone always tries to play the most balanced fair games they can and besides, we just wanna collect these models anyway, right? Playing games with them isn’t the most important part of the hobby, right? We all spend thousands of dollars and hours on this stuff cuz what we really want is to look at these things sitting on a shelf. Right….RIGHT???

Part of me hopes this new direction is GW waking up, realizing that this hobby isn’t about primarily collecting expensive hunks of plastic but actually PLAYING GAMES with them. Part of me hopes this saves AoS and makes it a viable game system. Another part of me hopes that it’s too late and AoS crashes and burns because honestly, stupidity and ignorance on this level deserves some major repercussions.

Tokamak
26-04-2016, 17:26
Breaking news right here.
WHFB wont come back. Move on.
Just like my Black Templars wont have a codex ever again. Best to accept it.

I'm having way too much fun griping about it on the internet.

Sete
26-04-2016, 17:28
I'm having way too much fun griping about it on the internet.
Would not be the same thing without you ;)

jesper.adamsson.3
26-04-2016, 17:44
WFB and Old world not coming back?

Yeah, well didn't GW say the same thing about points?

Sure it will be a big bite of the humble pie for them swallow but falling sales tend to make corporations hungry.

And if the piece of the pie is too big then they could always let Forgeworld take vare of it.

scruffyryan
26-04-2016, 17:50
WFB and Old world not coming back?

Yeah, well didn't GW say the same thing about points?

Sure it will be a big bite of the humble pie for them swallow but falling sales tend to make corporations hungry.

And if the piece of the pie is too big then they could always let Forgeworld take vare of it.

GW actually never said anything of the sort. Its the rallying cry of people upset that AoS isn't liked more.

Edit: and even if they did, as a company the event of bad sales causing the person who took that position to be fired and replaced is always out there.

Comrade Penguin
26-04-2016, 17:50
Breaking news right here.
WHFB wont come back. Move on.
Just like my Black Templars wont have a codex ever again. Best to accept it.

Hey, you never know.. we are on the verge of getting a new Blood Bowl and BFG.

It would be cool if they actually made a ranked up version of AOS using movement trays for minis with circle bases like they did with LOTR.

Whirlwind
26-04-2016, 18:09
I generally work on the principle of 'never say never' to avoid egg on my face in the future.

Somehow I doubt we'll see WFB back in its original form; even if they did bring it back I think many people who dislike AoS and liked WFB will have moved on to greener pastures. Hence it would probably not be viable for GW to bring it back because there may be those that play AoS that would not go back to WFB. I also doubt they have game designers anymore that could re-invent WFB successfully. It's more likely that AoS would be shelved and we would have 40k and LoTR.