PDA

View Full Version : AoS: myths and reality



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Wishing
16-12-2015, 15:41
This. Warmahordes has tier lists that are in many cases far weaker than just running a normal list. It's never stopped us playing to the theme at my club. Our last game involved trying to assassinate Irusk with a bunch of Llaese freedom fighting mercs. The game before that was an undead pirate raid (Ships in the Night tier list) on a Cygnar held port.

I agree that WM/H has lots of PP published theme-related content, if by theme we mean things that are focused on the game world background and adding flavour to the game.

I think when people compare WM/H and GW products and say that GW is more "narrative", I read that as meaning that GW's game design is less defined and less structured. This lack of structure leads some fans to be more creative, modifying the game and making it their own, with house rules and homebrew armies and models and so on. Which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.

Because of its structure and strictly organised ruleset, WM/H is very suited to strict and competitive play with a minimum of fuss. Hence, a lot of its fans are oriented towards that as I see it. There is nothing in the game as such that discourages more freeform approaches, like asymmetrical scenarios or homebrew, but I've always gotten the sense that people that in any way diverge from the strictly official PP published rules are seen as weirdos and are ignored by the community at large. Nobody writes their own theme lists, for example (or I've never heard of anyone doing so in the many many years I have followed the PP forum). In the community, you use what PP publishes, and nothing else.

HelloKitty
16-12-2015, 16:00
That data actually matters a lot. Not sure why it was posted in this thread and not on the other one about sales, however.

That google search graph has been posted in about 20 different areas over the past few months, you're bound to run into it sooner or later.


Because of its structure and strictly organised ruleset, WM/H is very suited to strict and competitive play with a minimum of fuss. Hence, a lot of its fans are oriented towards that as I see it. There is nothing in the game as such that discourages more freeform approaches, like asymmetrical scenarios or homebrew, but I've always gotten the sense that people that in any way diverge from the strictly official PP published rules are seen as weirdos and are ignored by the community at large. Nobody writes their own theme lists, for example (or I've never heard of anyone doing so in the many many years I have followed the PP forum). In the community, you use what PP publishes, and nothing else.

This is pretty much my thoughts as well on the subject matter of Privateer and WM/H and my own experience. The game absolutely lets you do these things, but the fan base is overwhelmingly either against such things or not interested in such things, so while the game can be made to do such a thing, you'll likely be playing with yourself in your garage because the community largely does not support that.

Much like the years and years of Forgeworld debates had shown that people were loath to buy Forge world because none of their community would let them use it because it wasn't standard.

The community makes the game what it is in my opinion as much as the designers themselves do. They are linked.

Karhedron
16-12-2015, 16:34
The community makes the game what it is in my opinion as much as the designers themselves do. They are linked.

The designers make the components and the players put them together into entertaining games.

Unfortunately players wanted Lego and AoS gave us Duplo. :p

Altsain
16-12-2015, 16:52
Wow. That's pretty damning although I'm sure some noble crusader will be able to explain why this evidence doesn't matter either.

Well, the first thing I would suggest is this: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Warhammer%20Fantasy%2C%20Warhammer%20Sig mar&date=1%2F2015%2012m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

Spiney Norman
16-12-2015, 16:54
Interesting, thanks for posting it. To put it into context of this topic...have anyone stated on Warseer that AoS is currently more popular than WFB? I agree that people actually believing AoS is more popular than WFB would be a myth.

I don't think so, I certainly haven't been advancing that view. There are also a few reasons why that isn't an especially relevant question. The popularity of warhammer fantasy wasn't necessarily translating into lots of sales, the game was damn hard to get into, the absurdly high buy-in cost meant new players were extremely rare and most of the established players I know and game with weren't throwing much if any money at the game because they already owned multiple large armies to pick their forces from.

Conversely AoS has the potential to grow in popularity with each new army they bring out. If they launch a completely killer range of dwarf models in January regardless of all the rage and angst surrounding AoS people will still buy them, (even if they're not using them for AoS).

Currently AoS as a game only really consists of stormcast, Seraphon and chaos as recognisable, saleable armies, and as the number of armies increase, so will the appeal of the game.

Holier Than Thou
16-12-2015, 17:45
I don't think so, I certainly haven't been advancing that view. There are also a few reasons why that isn't an especially relevant question. The popularity of warhammer fantasy wasn't necessarily translating into lots of sales, the game was damn hard to get into, the absurdly high buy-in cost meant new players were extremely rare and most of the established players I know and game with weren't throwing much if any money at the game because they already owned multiple large armies to pick their forces from.

Conversely AoS has the potential to grow in popularity with each new army they bring out. If they launch a completely killer range of dwarf models in January regardless of all the rage and angst surrounding AoS people will still buy them, (even if they're not using them for AoS).

Currently AoS as a game only really consists of stormcast, Seraphon and chaos as recognisable, saleable armies, and as the number of armies increase, so will the appeal of the game.

Let me get this straight.

You're saying WFB was a popular game but people weren't buying models? You're also saying AOS is not a popular game but people ARE buying models but not to use in AOS?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep the popular game AND release models people wanted to buy, even if it wasn't to use in their popular game?

StygianBeach
16-12-2015, 19:05
Let me get this straight.

You're saying WFB was a popular game but people weren't buying models? You're also saying AOS is not a popular game but people ARE buying models but not to use in AOS?


I though it was common knowledge that WHFB was popular, but not selling as well as GW wanted despite still making a profit.
No, Spiney is not saying people are buying models for AoS. What he is saying is that it is early days for AoS and considering there have only been 3 armies released for AoS so far their is potential for growth.

Wishing
16-12-2015, 22:02
I though it was common knowledge that WHFB was popular, but not selling as well as GW wanted despite still making a profit.
No, Spiney is not saying people are buying models for AoS. What he is saying is that it is early days for AoS and considering there have only been 3 armies released for AoS so far their is potential for growth.

And that since AoS does not have the huge buy-in cost that WHFB did, the idea is that more people should get into it as time goes by, since it is much easier to start as a new player.

scruffyryan
16-12-2015, 22:11
I agree that WM/H has lots of PP published theme-related content, if by theme we mean things that are focused on the game world background and adding flavour to the game.

I think when people compare WM/H and GW products and say that GW is more "narrative", I read that as meaning that GW's game design is less defined and less structured. This lack of structure leads some fans to be more creative, modifying the game and making it their own, with house rules and homebrew armies and models and so on. Which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.

Because of its structure and strictly organised ruleset, WM/H is very suited to strict and competitive play with a minimum of fuss. Hence, a lot of its fans are oriented towards that as I see it. There is nothing in the game as such that discourages more freeform approaches, like asymmetrical scenarios or homebrew, but I've always gotten the sense that people that in any way diverge from the strictly official PP published rules are seen as weirdos and are ignored by the community at large. Nobody writes their own theme lists, for example (or I've never heard of anyone doing so in the many many years I have followed the PP forum). In the community, you use what PP publishes, and nothing else.

WM/H has a literal rpg that uses the same ruleset as the wargame allowing you to rotate pc's into actual tabletop battles. GW has no comparable ability to do so. WM/H is therefore a superior narrative game.

Spiney Norman
16-12-2015, 22:17
And that since AoS does not have the huge buy-in cost that WHFB did, the idea is that more people should get into it as time goes by, since it is much easier to start as a new player.

Of course what they really need to do for both games was reduce the prices to affordable levels, AoS is only low-buy-in cost if you play one of the armies in the starter set.

tmod
16-12-2015, 23:05
I though it was common knowledge that WHFB was popular, but not selling as well as GW wanted despite still making a profit.
No, Spiney is not saying people are buying models for AoS. What he is saying is that it is early days for AoS and considering there have only been 3 armies released for AoS so far their is potential for growth.

It's common knowledge that WhFB was reasonably popular and was selling very well indeed, but that GW felt it should have performed closer to 40k. Also, WhFB had a huge range, which means that the shelf/storage cost was high relative to the profit. Things may of course change (doesn't seem likely, but you never know), but so far AoS hasn't solved any of the issues with WhFB (bloated range, low sales volumes)...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

MagicAngle
16-12-2015, 23:09
And that since AoS does not have the huge buy-in cost that WHFB did, the idea is that more people should get into it as time goes by, since it is much easier to start as a new player.

:p

I think the $305 price tag for the last 5 minis released for AoS might disagree.

Spiney Norman
16-12-2015, 23:17
It's common knowledge that WhFB was reasonably popular and was selling very well indeed, but that GW felt it should have performed closer to 40k. Also, WhFB had a huge range, which means that the shelf/storage cost was high relative to the profit. Things may of course change (doesn't seem likely, but you never know), but so far AoS hasn't solved any of the issues with WhFB (bloated range, low sales volumes)...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

If by 'common knowledge' you mean 'common uninformed speculation', then yes. We have never had any definitive sales data from GW on how wfb was performing relative to 40k or by any other metric, likewise we have no sales data for AoS either. People enjoy fantasising about how wfb was selling strongly but GW decided to can it anyway because 40k was selling better when all the reliable rumour sources were saying precisely the opposite for months running up to and during the end times.

Harry and Darnok were pretty clear, wfb had been selling poorly for some time and a number of ideas had been put forward including scrapping the fantasy side of the business entirely. So basically wfb was not making enough money to justify the warehouse/shelf space it was occupying, from a business perspective it made more sense to cut off that market entirely than to continue selling an underperforming line.

Even if AoS is written off as a failed experiment GW are not going to relaunch a game that has already failed in their eyes.

Dosiere
16-12-2015, 23:18
And that since AoS does not have the huge buy-in cost that WHFB did, the idea is that more people should get into it as time goes by, since it is much easier to start as a new player.

This is either sarcasm ( if it is ignore the rest of this post) or ignorance of the price points of all things AoS, excluding the starter. Island of blood was good value as well though. It's true you can (and should) play AoS with fewer miniatures than WFB... but those miniatures are about 4x the price. A box of 5 regular sigmar dudes is $50. I can get 20 state troops for slightly less, and even those are priced high compared to other systems. My experience was that 6-8 sigmarines made a good unit, and 30-40 state troops makes a good unit for 8th. For smaller games 20 really was fine.

From a modeling perspective I could see AoS has an advantage, since it's going to be slightly cheaper and much faster to paint the sigmardudes. But they're about the same price.

Price most of the battalions in AoS and you'll find they are around the same price of a small WFB army. I get that you can, in theory, play AoS with only say, a single box of sigmarines or something, but is that really realistic?

Based on my experience with the game and watching other people who played AoS it's at best marginally cheaper to start let alone collect, Over time we saw fewer models but mor elite ones. So at first people brought armies that resembled WFB ones but eventually left all the weak stuff at home. An empire army was basically just DGks, maybe Knights, steam tanks, artillery, etc... This wasn't just a competitive thing though, the game plays better that way. A smaller more elite force is easier to play with and generally more enjoyable to use. It's not fun to move 150 state troops in this game, at all.

For the one guy who starting collecting Sigmarines at our store it was obvious the difference. His six winged guys (they do look cool gotta admit, I like the spear and shield option) cost the same as my 30 greatswords I liked to use in WFB. I also got a lot more hobby potential out of my greatswords. Extra heads, bits, swords for my great weapon knight conversions, cool command bits all over the place, etc... The AoS miniatures I've seen have been very monopose and made with little thought to conversions or cool bits. My also overpriced space marine miniatures at least come with a load of cool bits.

The only real difference in price is the army books. In AoS you don't need them, it's true. But if you played a faction I would certainly want one, and they do have exclusive scenarios and such. An advantage though for sure. In WFB you really needed the army books to expand outside of the starter, and was an immediate barrier to buying more minis. It wasn't so bad though until they went all hardback and became too expensive for their purpose in the game though.

scruffyryan
16-12-2015, 23:23
If by 'common knowledge' you mean 'common uninformed speculation', then yes. We have never had any definitive sales data from GW on how wfb was performing relative to 40k or by any other metric, likewise we have no sales data for AoS either. People enjoy fantasising about how wfb was selling strongly but GW decided to can it anyway because 40k was selling better when all the reliable rumour sources were saying precisely the opposite for months running up to and during the end times.

Harry and Darnok were pretty clear, wfb had been selling poorly for some time and a number of ideas had been put forward including scrapping the fantasy side of the business entirely. So basically wfb was not making enough money to justify the warehouse/shelf space it was occupying, from a business perspective it made more sense to cut off that market entirely than to continue selling an underperforming line.

Even if AoS is written off as a failed experiment GW are not going to relaunch a game that has already failed in their eyes.

And yet BFG is coming back

Spiney Norman
16-12-2015, 23:30
This is either sarcasm ( if it is ignore the rest of this post) or ignorance of the price points of all things AoS, excluding the starter. Island of blood was good value as well though. It's true you can (and should) play AoS with fewer miniatures than WFB... but those miniatures are about 4x the price. A box of 5 regular sigmar dudes is $50. I can get 20 state troops for slightly less, and even those are priced high compared to other systems. My experience was that 6-8 sigmarines made a good unit, and 30-40 state troops makes a good unit for 8th. For smaller games 20 really was fine.

To be entirely fair your comparisons are a little disingenuous, comparing stormcast liberators to Empire State troops is rather like comparing chaos knights to clan rats. Stormcast eternals are much more comparable to warhammer super-elite infantry like blight kings or wrath mongers, in terms of the size of the models and their 'eliteness' and they come in at a comparable price point. If you're looking for a point of comparison to Empire State troops (10 models for 15) you want to be looking at something more equivalent like Khorne blood reavers (20 for 35) which are slightly more expensive, but hardly represent a huge price hike.

In addition many of the Warhammer units that have been repacked as AoS miniatures actually received a price drop in per-model terms including skull crushers, dryads and temple guard. And given that AoS games tend to be played with many fewer models than a standard 2k game of wfb was and all game rules and army rules are free for AoS, the price for getting into the game is quite a lot lower than it was for wfb

Dosiere
16-12-2015, 23:58
chaos Knights to clan rats? Blight kings? All those things are even further away from my rather fair comparison of the cheapest and standard sigmarine pack to state troops. The point is to compare what a standard or core troop would be. in AoS your army is going to be made of things like liberators at its core, or even things like prosecutors which are Even more expensive.

aoS armies are going to be made of a smaller number of more expensive miniatures in most cases. I think the comparison is more than apt if you take an honest look at the two systems played in the real world.

Pojko
17-12-2015, 01:42
And that since AoS does not have the huge buy-in cost that WHFB did, the idea is that more people should get into it as time goes by, since it is much easier to start as a new player.

AoS has a huge buy-in cost. 5 Sigmarines are $50. 10 Blood Warriors are $62. Archaon is $165. 3 Varanguards are $100. And there are many more characters and units of 3-5 models which are hilariously priced.

"AoS does not have the huge buy-in cost" = myth.

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 01:45
If one wants to field 50+ models then AOS can have the same buy in cost issues as whfb.

If one is playing AOS with 20 or so models, the cost doesn't seem as high.

scruffyryan
17-12-2015, 01:48
I too love games where the upper limit of the army size by negotiated fairness hinges on the person who wants to spend the absolute least money possible.

Ayin
17-12-2015, 05:13
If one wants to field 50+ models then AOS can have the same buy in cost issues as whfb.

If one is playing AOS with 20 or so models, the cost doesn't seem as high.


Er... I'm not so sure. A quick look shows me that the only three units that are available besides the box set are the Paladins (5 for $70) the Prosecutors (3 for $70) and the Celestant (1 for $95), so, for those three units (5 infantry, 3 flying infantry, 1 leader) it's $235.

Comparably in 40k terms, that's a 10 man tactical squad, a 5 man terminator squad, a Land Raider or Stormraven, and an HQ character cost the same. A game with a unit of 5 guys, a unit of 3 guys, and a leader, vs a leader, a unit of 5 guys, a unit of 10 guys, and a giant tank.

Alternatively, for $235 i got a pretty big swing of Chaos and Empire not so many years ago.

It's not unreasonable considering GW's pricing trends. But it is silly compared to the rest of the industry. And it's silly to say the startup cost of something is pretty minor when it's 9 guys for what's basically a little starter force for $235.

scruffyryan
17-12-2015, 06:38
Er... I'm not so sure. A quick look shows me that the only three units that are available besides the box set are the Paladins (5 for $70) the Prosecutors (3 for $70) and the Celestant (1 for $95), so, for those three units (5 infantry, 3 flying infantry, 1 leader) it's $235.

Comparably in 40k terms, that's a 10 man tactical squad, a 5 man terminator squad, a Land Raider or Stormraven, and an HQ character cost the same. A game with a unit of 5 guys, a unit of 3 guys, and a leader, vs a leader, a unit of 5 guys, a unit of 10 guys, and a giant tank.

Alternatively, for $235 i got a pretty big swing of Chaos and Empire not so many years ago.

It's not unreasonable considering GW's pricing trends. But it is silly compared to the rest of the industry. And it's silly to say the startup cost of something is pretty minor when it's 9 guys for what's basically a little starter force for $235.

That was like 2500 points of ogres back in the day of battalion boxes.

Wishing
17-12-2015, 07:07
AoS has a huge buy-in cost. 5 Sigmarines are $50. 10 Blood Warriors are $62. Archaon is $165. 3 Varanguards are $100. And there are many more characters and units of 3-5 models which are hilariously priced.

"AoS does not have the huge buy-in cost" = myth.

Yeah, the new models released for AoS are expensive, but that's not the same as the game having a minimum cost to start playing. You don't need to buy the rules, an army book, and a 2500 point army in order to started with the game. The rules are free, and encourage you to play with whatever you have (which does not have to consist of the new expensive stuff). Hence, to a new player, there is very little stopping you from trying it out with your friends.

2DSick
17-12-2015, 07:11
Yeah, the new models released for AoS are expensive, but that's not the same as the game having a minimum cost to start playing. You don't need to buy the rules, an army book, and a 2500 point army in order to started with the game. The rules are free, and encourage you to play with whatever you have (which does not have to consist of the new expensive stuff). Hence, to a new player, there is very little stopping you from trying it out with your friends.

That wasn't an issue with the core mechanics. That was all the bs that came with 8th edition. Horde rules, steadfast encouraged huge units and %army meant using bigger armies to squeeze in better Lords and rares.

6th ed... Hell even 7th could be enjoyed at 400pts level not to mention 6ths skirmish games (free in the BRB annex)

ihavetoomuchminis
17-12-2015, 07:15
Dreadfleet was a long term investment for GW. You can't tell it's success right away because it relies on bringing in a new generation of "collectors" and it takes time to grow that base. Most importantly, Dreadfleet offers a variety of high quality GW models for players and collectors alike, so lack of apparent interest in communities like online message boards and (pfft...) local gaming stores is no evidence of it's success or failure, as it wasn't made for hardcore, win at all costs players like those who go places to play or talk about playing games.

Brilliant!!!!

Bloodeletters

Wishing
17-12-2015, 07:21
WM/H has a literal rpg that uses the same ruleset as the wargame allowing you to rotate pc's into actual tabletop battles. GW has no comparable ability to do so. WM/H is therefore a superior narrative game.

Interesting argument. I see what you mean to some extent. I've just never heard of anyone mixing the RPG and the wargame in the way that you describe, but I can see the potential. Instead of just a steamroller scenario WM game, you could fight battles using the WM rules to represent fights going on in the RPG storyline, fielding RPG characters. Instead of points values and field allowance, the GM would just decide the forces presentbased on the story. Very cool idea. Seems theoretical to me and not something anyone actually does, but then I don't read the RPG section of the PP forum.

scruffyryan
17-12-2015, 07:32
Interesting argument. I see what you mean to some extent. I've just never heard of anyone mixing the RPG and the wargame in the way that you describe, but I can see the potential. Instead of just a steamroller scenario WM game, you could fight battles using the WM rules to represent fights going on in the RPG storyline, fielding RPG characters. Instead of points values and field allowance, the GM would just decide the forces presentbased on the story. Very cool idea. Seems theoretical to me and not something anyone actually does, but then I don't read the RPG section of the PP forum.

The non rpg section of the forum is generally mostly concerned with the major tournaments being played. I haven't been over to the RPG section of their forum either, but in both of the campaigns i've played in with 2 different GM's there were several wargames involved with the party involved. I cant imagine we're the only ones doing it. The rules are basically identical with feat points and hit boxes for non beasts/jacks being the only real difference.

Edit: Also most of the military grade stuff the wargame has is exactly what you need to keep middling tier pc's aware of mortality Most warcasters/locks are of a power level that will put a hurt on a party.

Spiney Norman
17-12-2015, 08:33
chaos Knights to clan rats? Blight kings? All those things are even further away from my rather fair comparison of the cheapest and standard sigmarine pack to state troops. The point is to compare what a standard or core troop would be. in AoS your army is going to be made of things like liberators at its core, or even things like prosecutors which are Even more expensive.

aoS armies are going to be made of a smaller number of more expensive miniatures in most cases. I think the comparison is more than apt if you take an honest look at the two systems played in the real world.

My point is you chose to directly compare a unit from a small-count super-elite army against a high-count horde army, you would expect stormcast to cost more than state troopers, they're four times the size and state troops were released almost a decade ago. Now comparing them to the 'basic troops' of a more elite army like say Ogre kingdoms, might be more valid (although they are even older than state troops). Furthermore if it's stormcast eternals you're talking about, failing to mention the starter set as a cheap way to acquire the bulk of your army would be a pretty drastic misrepresentation in itself, everyone I know who plays stormcast started with that set.

The point in any case, is that prize rises from the AoS era compared to similar products released in the end times and late 8th edition are not that different and have, in some cases, actually dropped in the case of repacked models from the wfb era.

I'm really not sure how anyone can say AoS is more expensive (or even as expensive) to play as wfb was with a straight face when you are typically using significantly fewer models and getting all the rules for free.

Allen
17-12-2015, 08:51
I think everyone can easily agree that AoS original idea was to present customers with an economically affordable wargame: low miniature count in a skirmish game usually suggest that kind of objective. GW implementation of that idea is, as usual, rather poor - they managed to sneak in massive price tags in what was supposed to be a newbie firendly entry-level game. On the other hand, I hope everyone can easily agree that the other core idea of AoS, presenting customers with an easy to learn&quick game, was implemented well: GW managed to pull out good-looking miniatures (a must-have in skirmish games), free rules (a nice bonus) and a ruleset that while a little uninspired and not really innovative give you a rather good gameplay.

Sadly, being able to pull out an ok skirmish game is necessary but not sufficient to success: price tags on everything except some starter boxes are honestly insane...a lot of people (me included) are happy to have between hands a low-model count wargame from GW, but not having to buy, paint and build dozens of miniatures is only half of the problem: if a 30-ish miniatures force for AoS is going to cost me more than a 150-ish one for WHFB or 40K why should I even start playing it? It seems to me they truly believe in their "we're selling models to collectors and not gamers" speech.

tmod
17-12-2015, 09:16
If by 'common knowledge' you mean 'common uninformed speculation', then yes. We have never had any definitive sales data from GW on how wfb was performing relative to 40k or by any other metric, likewise we have no sales data for AoS either. People enjoy fantasising about how wfb was selling strongly but GW decided to can it anyway because 40k was selling better when all the reliable rumour sources were saying precisely the opposite for months running up to and during the end times.

False! Up until a few years back they did in fact publish much more specified sales data. Also, we do know the sales data from independents in certain large markets and GW publish the break-down of revenue from sales channels. Furthermore numerous GW insiders, past AND current (and several in official capacity) have confirmed the sales break-down.
Up until a few years back Fantasy was consistently amongst the top three selling miniature games, and last year it's total revenue was in the neighbourhood of 15 mill. This we do know, and no matter how many times you repeat the claim that it's guesswork it still isn't, it's fact.

There is room for one possible misunderstanding explaining this. There's a difference between selling poorly and not selling strong enough. GW figured they could do better than Fantasy, and did the rational thing. They probably could've handled it better, but if they believed AoS could easily rack up sales in excess of 15 they did the logical thing to do. I believe they underestimated the network effect, gamers' influence on collectors' buying habits and many other effects, but given the information they had the decision made sense.


Harry and Darnok were pretty clear, wfb had been selling poorly for some time and a number of ideas had been put forward including scrapping the fantasy side of the business entirely. So basically wfb was not making enough money to justify the warehouse/shelf space it was occupying, from a business perspective it made more sense to cut off that market entirely than to continue selling an underperforming line.

Even if AoS is written off as a failed experiment GW are not going to relaunch a game that has already failed in their eyes.

No objections here, this is all very accurate. Caveat: Selling poorly is a relative term here, meaning poor relative to the other main line (40k) and the company's expectations. Fantasy was underperforming according to what we know, but that is in light of costing almost as much as 40k to develop/support and returning about 25% of 40k's revenue. This made it a rational decision (given the information GW thought they had) to drop Fantasy, and it means you are probably perfectly right in stating they are never going to bring it back.

Warning guesstimate ahead:
To illustrate the difference between underperforming and being unprofitable. We know Fantasy revenue was about 15 million and 40k was about 60. If we assume development costs were equal for both, total profit was 16 million (from memory, might not be accurate) and all lines have the same margins (not likely, but just to get a number), 40k and Fantasy together returned a profit of about 8 million. Development cost at the studio was about 10 million if I recall correctly (yeah, I know, this is for stuff not yet released, but the proportions are probably similar). This means that Fantasy cost 5 million to generated a profit of 2 million, whereas 40k generated a profit of 6 million for the same cost. If we add that Fantasy's share of warehouse, production, and transportation costs also was equal to 40k, what would YOU do with the line? In a vacuum the only decision that made sense was to drop it! Still doesn't mean it wasn't profitable though...

As the discourse here on Warseer the last six months have shown there are further costs associated with dropping a popular long term product line completely. We have (at least I haven't seen) no numbers on this, but we do know that competitors to GW have benefited from this, and that will have long term consequences for GW. They might be miniscule, they might be horrendous, we won't know until several years down the line... (But the summary of the latest half year report seems to be pretty grim...)


Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Dosiere
17-12-2015, 11:17
My point is you chose to directly compare a unit from a small-count super-elite army against a high-count horde army, you would expect stormcast to cost more than state troopers, they're four times the size and were released almost a decade ago. Now comparing them to the 'basic troops' of a more elite army like say Ogre kingdoms, might be more valid (although they are even older than state troops). Furthermore if it's stormcast eternals you're talking about, failing to mention the starter set as a cheap way to acquire the bulk of your army would be a pretty drastic misrepresentation in itself, everyone I know who plays stormcast started with that set.

The point in any case, is that prize rises from the AoS era compared to similar products released in the end times and late 8th edition are not that different and have, in some cases, actually dropped in the case of repacked models from the wfb era.

I'm really not sure how anyone can say AoS is more expensive (or even as expensive) to play as wfb was with a straight face when you are typically using significantly fewer models and getting all the rules for free.

Of course I am comparing a more elite force (and a dedicated AoS miniature army) to a semi-horde (solidly WFB) army Spiney, that's the whole point of this discussion. Fewer but more elite, more expensive miniatures is the difference between AoS and WFB. Liberators aren't even that elite in the game, at all. Pretty standard actually, were I a Stormcast player my army would be made mostly of the other infantry like Paladins and Retributors. Were I playing Empire I wouldn't be using State Troops, but mostly DGKs, Steam Tanks, Knights (maybe), etc... Point is, fewer miniatures, same price as before. And I have mentioned the starter several times, although the IoB set also was a great value.

When I look at the webstore and you compare a bundled army deal of Stormcast or Khorne Bloddbound to just about any of the old armies it's abundantly clear that the price of an army is about the same, and the Bloodbound even include the Bloodreavers which are not a great unit in AoS, and most Chaos players are going to want more things like Skullcrushers rather than bulking an army out of Bloodreavers.

The only way AoS is actually more consisitently affordable is if you both A) don't consider the new, AoS miniature lines and B) assume that army composition is the same as before, just smaller, which is wrong. Ignoring either is at best a misrepresentation of the reality of both games and how they are generally played.

Also, speaking of being disingenuous, all the rules for AoS are most certainly not free. In fact, if you actually want to take part in the ongoing narrative that you have said is a huge point in AoSs favor you have to shell out even more money than before on books. At the very least the vast majority of AoS players are going to want to buy a few of the scenario and battalion packs, even if they don't care about the rather limited and sketchy fluff in the books. AoS has a few things going for it compared to WFB, being more affordable in general is not one of them.

Buddy Bear
17-12-2015, 12:11
In terms of affordability, here's an interesting comparison.

5 Liberators = $50
6 Ogres = $40

One more model with the ogres box for $10 less, and you get bigger models. And on the table?

- Ogres move 1" faster
- Ogres have 2 more Wounds
- Ogres have 1 extra Attack
- Ogres do 1 extra point of Damage
- Ogres have access to bonuses granted by a musician and standard bearer
- Ogres have generally better unit abilities

The only thing Liberators have which is really better is a 4+ Save versus a 5+ Save. So a person buying Sigmarines is paying for more to get noticeably less than if they were buying Ogres, both in terms of model count, model size, and effectiveness in the game.

Spiney Norman
17-12-2015, 12:40
In terms of affordability, here's an interesting comparison.

5 Liberators = $50
6 Ogres = $40

One more model with the ogres box for $10 less, and you get bigger models. And on the table?

- Ogres move 1" faster
- Ogres have 2 more Wounds
- Ogres have 1 extra Attack
- Ogres do 1 extra point of Damage
- Ogres have access to bonuses granted by a musician and standard bearer
- Ogres have generally better unit abilities

The only thing Liberators have which is really better is a 4+ Save versus a 5+ Save. So a person buying Sigmarines is paying for more to get noticeably less than if they were buying Ogres, both in terms of model count, model size, and effectiveness in the game.

This is hardly a surprise though right? GW's sales model is to increase the cost of the new kits as they come out so newer models cost more than older ones, that's why state troopers cost 15 for ten and witch elves cost 35. Those ogres are over a decade old, in fact aside from the high elf and tomb King core units they are one of the oldest plastic kits still in production. The pricing of AoS models has been entirely consistent with the price of wfb models before the transition, fewer models are required to play AoS and you no longer pay money for rules so AoS is inherently cheaper.

Not everyone will play ogors in AoS just like not everyone played warriors of chaos in wfb despite them being clearly the most powerful choice, because not everyone is gaming the system for the win.

Wishing
17-12-2015, 12:48
The non rpg section of the forum is generally mostly concerned with the major tournaments being played. I haven't been over to the RPG section of their forum either, but in both of the campaigns i've played in with 2 different GM's there were several wargames involved with the party involved. I cant imagine we're the only ones doing it. The rules are basically identical with feat points and hit boxes for non beasts/jacks being the only real difference.

Edit: Also most of the military grade stuff the wargame has is exactly what you need to keep middling tier pc's aware of mortality Most warcasters/locks are of a power level that will put a hurt on a party.

Sounds good. What you are describing here though sounds to me like Iron Kingdoms RPG GMs mixing WM/H rules into their roleplaying game, which to me is not the same as saying that WM/H is a narratively oriented wargame. As you say, the WM/H oriented sections of the PP forum don't talk about these things, which suggests that in the minds of most fans, "normal" WM/H is the kind that is played in tournaments.

Allen
17-12-2015, 14:00
And yet BFG is coming back

Battlefleet Gothic was a skirmish game played with few models and thus a low entry cost (for a GW game, not in general)...nowadays GW need this kind of game as a way to introduce new customers to the hobby. Or they think they need those kind of games...it really depends on what side you look at the issue. Simply lowering the price of their products and streamlining a bit the rules probably would be enough to create an influx of new players, for example.

Pojko
17-12-2015, 16:04
Yeah, the new models released for AoS are expensive, but that's not the same as the game having a minimum cost to start playing. You don't need to buy the rules, an army book, and a 2500 point army in order to started with the game. The rules are free, and encourage you to play with whatever you have (which does not have to consist of the new expensive stuff). Hence, to a new player, there is very little stopping you from trying it out with your friends.

Seems to me you just made up a minimum cost of Warhammer. You don't need to splurge on a 2,500 point army when you first get into Warhammer. Who does that? It was often stressed by GW itself to start out at 1,000 points, and then go on adding 500 point blocks to your army once you've painted what you had and played a few games. In this way you could get a feel for your army and decide what kind of troops you wanted to add to your existing force.

And the rules/army book point is countered by every new $58 battle tome that comes out. Because as I've seen it said very often on forums by AoS fans, the game is terrible without scenarios. So you need new scenarios to have fun. And in the place of updated rules and army books, you have to pay for your scenarios and pay to win battle tome formations.

Allen
17-12-2015, 16:27
Seems to me you just made up a minimum cost of Warhammer. You don't need to splurge on a 2,500 point army when you first get into Warhammer. Who does that? It was often stressed by GW itself to start out at 1,000 points, and then go on adding 500 point blocks to your army once you've painted what you had and played a few games. In this way you could get a feel for your army and decide what kind of troops you wanted to add to your existing force

WHFB could be played in 500vs500 points battle, but it wasn't designed to roll on those numbers. Not at all. Anything between 2000 and 3000 points, according at least to the meta in my region, was considered standard procedure for a WHFB game. While with latest editions there were less models on the gaming mat (what of all those demigriphs, war machines etc. eating up points) the decreasing numbers of bodies to buy, assemble and paint was not linked to a decrease in costs. Anyone starting from scratch an army was faced with a steep financial curve - unless for some reason people in his area regularly played low points battles, that's it. But in my local experience 500 or 1000 points battles were extremely rare.


And the rules/army book point is countered by every new $58 battle tome that comes out. Because as I've seen it said very often on forums by AoS fans, the game is terrible without scenarios. So you need new scenarios to have fun. And in the place of updated rules and army books, you have to pay for your scenarios and pay to win battle tome formations.

Well, it's desinged with scenarios in mind...so it seems quite natural that it works well with them. Rules present on the battletomes are avalaible online: I can't see how this is supposed to be a pay to win situation. Scenario-driven wargames usually encourage players to develop their own scenarios, not relying only on official material...I understand, however, that this solution isn't for everyone: scenario development is not easy or quick; and I understand that coming from rulesets where everything you need is printed on some official book the idea of player-managed balance and scenarios sounds pretty situational. But as I said in other threads, AoS was developed with a different game experience in mind. It's different from WH40K and WHFB, both in good and bad ways.

Buddy Bear
17-12-2015, 16:28
When I got back into Warhammer with the Empire I had no problem playing 1,000 points games. I had some very entertaining games at that level. Just get an Empire Battalion box, Empire General, and Warrior Priest blister, and that right there is enough for the following 1,000 point Empire army.

166 Grand Master
93 Captain of the Empire (Battle Standard Bearer)
72 Warrior Priest
110 Crossbowmen (10)
170 Halberdiers (20)
265 Knightly Orders (8: Inner Circle Knights, Steel Standard)
120 Great Cannon

And that force is only slightly more expensive than the AOS starter set with almost the same amount of models. But unlike the AOS starter set, all those models are for a single army, instead of for two separate ones.

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 16:35
One of the more common complaints I have heard over the past five or so years is people complaining that having to assemble and paint more than say 20-30 models top is a chore and games should never require that.

I watch whats left of my community that plays AoS and all of them without exception have discarded the notion of troops and usually field the large wicked models and play games that involve roughly 20-30 models.

That appears to be the common denominator. 20-30 models max. I see that in warmachine, i see that in AoS, really the only place I'm not seeing 20-30 models are historicals and the kings of war guys.

akai
17-12-2015, 16:36
The absolute minimum models you would need to play AoS as written is just one model/unit. So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets just say you can spend ~$10 for one goblin hero.

The absolute minimum models you would need to play WFB 8th Edition as written is one Lord/Hero to be General and 3 non-character units (25% core requirement also). So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets say goblin hero, one box of wolf riders for 2 units, and one troll ~$60.

Of course, playing to have fun and what you want to field will change how much money you invest. If playing with just pieces of cut-out cardboard AoS would cost you nothing. Likewise, playing WFB 8th Edition with just cut-out cardboard/paper it would cost nothing (well you still have to buy the rulebook and at least an army book maybe)

AoS scenarios/Battleplans can be purchased individually for a significant fraction of the books.

So AoS is cheaper to start playing the game. But again, depending on what you want to play, both WFB and AoS cost to expand the size of your armies is exactly the same (they both use the same models!)

Allen
17-12-2015, 16:38
When I got back into Warhammer with the Empire I had no problem playing 1,000 points games. I had some very entertaining games at that level. Just get an Empire Battalion box, Empire General, and Warrior Priest blister, and that right there is enough for the following 1,000 point Empire army.

166 Grand Master
93 Captain of the Empire (Battle Standard Bearer)
72 Warrior Priest
110 Crossbowmen (10)
170 Halberdiers (20)
265 Knightly Orders (8: Inner Circle Knights, Steel Standard)
120 Great Cannon

And that force is only slightly more expensive than the AOS starter set with almost the same amount of models. But unlike the AOS starter set, all those models are for a single army, instead of for two separate ones.


As I said, probably it's a regional thing. In my experience 1000/1500 points battles were extremely rare, and usually reserved for introductory games...after a couple of those, new players were expected to either proxy or buy their way to at least a 2000 points force. Besides regional preferences, it seemed to me that WHFB played better on higher point caps. Not sure if it was a personal idea or an actual feature of the rules, though.

Vladyhell
17-12-2015, 17:19
I mentioned this in another thread but if you are starting AoS with a friend you can get 2 large armies for 125 each/250 total.I personally don't see anything else on the market that can match that for quality or quantity.
For your money you get:

Lord-Celestant
Lord-Castellant with Gryph-Hound
Lord-Relictor
Three Retributors
Two units of five Liberators
Three Prosecutors
Three Prosecutors
Five Paladins
Ten Judicators

One Mighty Lord of Khorne
Skarr Bloodwrath
One Bloodsecrator
One Bloodstoker
One Khorgorath
Fifteen Blood Warriors
Forty Bloodreavers
Three Mighty Skullcrushers
Five Skullreapers

Katastrophe
17-12-2015, 17:55
One of the more common complaints I have heard over the past five or so years is people complaining that having to assemble and paint more than say 20-30 models top is a chore and games should never require that.

I watch whats left of my community that plays AoS and all of them without exception have discarded the notion of troops and usually field the large wicked models and play games that involve roughly 20-30 models.

That appears to be the common denominator. 20-30 models max. I see that in warmachine, i see that in AoS, really the only place I'm not seeing 20-30 models are historicals and the kings of war guys.

So has your AoS community lived up to exceptions and desires. You expressed in several posts some weeks/months ago how the introduction of AoS made it MORE possible for people to play the way YOU desired to play. And you seemed to imply that this would make for a decent sized (more than a few folks in a garage) community of people playing the way you would like (If I am misconstruing what you said it's not intended, apology in advance).

Just curious whether it has worked out.

Dosiere
17-12-2015, 18:35
The absolute minimum models you would need to play AoS as written is just one model/unit. So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets just say you can spend ~$10 for one goblin hero.

The absolute minimum models you would need to play WFB 8th Edition as written is one Lord/Hero to be General and 3 non-character units (25% core requirement also). So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets say goblin hero, one box of wolf riders for 2 units, and one troll ~$60.

Of course, playing to have fun and what you want to field will change how much money you invest. If playing with just pieces of cut-out cardboard AoS would cost you nothing. Likewise, playing WFB 8th Edition with just cut-out cardboard/paper it would cost nothing (well you still have to buy the rulebook and at least an army book maybe)

AoS scenarios/Battleplans can be purchased individually for a significant fraction of the books.

So AoS is cheaper to start playing the game. But again, depending on what you want to play, both WFB and AoS cost to expand the size of your armies is exactly the same (they both use the same models!)

I'm sorry but this is not based in reality. Where are the cardboard cut out modeling threads for AoS? Or the 1 model games using a goblin warrior? Maybe it's a dragon hunter, maybe. This point has already been addressed several times in This thread. Yes, you can play with a single box, but are you really suggesting that's normal, desired, or even playable? What about the poor guy across the table who came to play and watches you smugly put your single goblin on the table, or your pieces of cardboard?

Also, the games do not, or at least very rarely, use the same models. It's a fallacy that doesn't reflect actual experience playing the game. People will gravitate towards the more elite and smaller unit sizes of larger kits. Have you personally played a game of AoS using roughly the same models A large game of WFB used? I have, and it's punishing. Moving that many guys, multiple times a turn, is not ok and it's not fun. I'd rather have 9 DGKs than 150 state troops, every time. Has nothing to do with power level, just simple playability. We (my LGS) routinely ignored the sudden death rules because it created situations where people were punished for having more models but often a weaker force. Despite that everyone moved toward smaller armies using more interesting models and rules than your standard rank n file trooper from WFB.

My experience is very similar to HKs, in my case I would have said more like 30-40 a side. Generally I used a little less, since I have in my collections lots of things like steam tanks, wizard wagons, orcs on wyverns, etc.... That were much, much More enjoyable to use in this game than any of regular dudes.

Same about the free rules. Can you honestly tell me the battle plans and battalion rules are not almost required if you want to enjoy AoS in the long run? My personal opinion is that you really want the full books to get the most out of them but even if you buy them separately on the app it's real easy to get up and then exceed what an army book costs. Despite it being a terrible game, with terrible books, terrible rules, and terrible pricing the second you want to step outside the starter set - it is decidedly less terrible if you use the scenarios and the suggested forces. It's almost a real game, almost. So please, let's stop with the "you really only need a piece of cardboard or at most a goblin dragon hunter" to play, and trying to sincerely pass that off as the true cost of investing in AoS as a game system.

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 18:38
So has your AoS community lived up to exceptions and desires. You expressed in several posts some weeks/months ago how the introduction of AoS made it MORE possible for people to play the way YOU desired to play. And you seemed to imply that this would make for a decent sized (more than a few folks in a garage) community of people playing the way you would like (If I am misconstruing what you said it's not intended, apology in advance).

Just curious whether it has worked out.

If I posted that it was in July or so. We had a lot of positive feedback in July and through August and we had a big campaign turn out then.

Today most of the community here (80% or so) moved to Kings of War because my community is very tournament driven and wants to play what everyone else is playing. The game could be great or the game could be a hammered ****, they will play it if thats what the majority are playing. (which is how 40k and whfb lasted as long as they have to be honest)

For me personally I'm one step removed from selling everything off and finding other hobbies because I've accepted that the gaming community in general enjoys things very different than I, and I got burned out on the way that the general gaming community around here plays many years ago which I have already discussed in great depth in several different posts.

My choice today in regards to fantasy wargaming are: continue pushing Age of Sigmar with the three other people playing it, or play Kings of War... a game that I personally cannot stand.

I had to go through a similar situation in my RPGs... because most of my community loves Pathfinder. Another game that I personally cannot stand. So I sold my RPG books off and just found something else to do with my time.

Thats ok though. Sometimes your hobbies outgrow you or you outgrow your hobbies and move into a different direction.

Vladyhell
17-12-2015, 18:44
Can't remember which edition it was,maybe 3rd,as I was but a lad but I remember cutting out the elves and orc forces(?) at the back of the rule book to play.

Dosiere
17-12-2015, 18:49
HK,

That's a shame, although the Azyr comp system was a great asset to me while I played AoS and I used it a lot. It came pretty close to making the game suitable for pick up games at my club, not a small feat.

For what it's worth, I have started playing some much more casual games like X-Wing and Descent from FFG among others and its been a great time. All of these tabletop battle systems are pretty intense in the level of investment of time and money required to play. These other games have been great alongside the bigger games like 40K, KoW, even AoS when I played it for just quick, no hassle casual affairs when I want to get a game in after work but don't have all night to spend away.

For me the reason I don't play RPGs is just for that, they require a lot of time, more than I have these days. Btw, having stopped before the whole D&D/pathfinder thing, what was the big difference anyway? I see people playing both these days and they seem pretty similar, at least from a distance.

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 18:57
Azyr is a good system and I'm proud to have helped design it and playtest it with the guys that wrote it. The problem Azyr ran into is - its not endorsed by the grand tournament circuit and just like people want to play games that everyone else is playing - the tournament systems also dictate what comp is used and Azyr is not it for several reasons. The guy writing Azyr is writing a new campaign system called Azyr Empires which looks really good - but if no one is around to play it its largely a waste of time (but hey its his time to waste, he loves writing game systems thats in his blood to do)

They did a poll on the overall group a couple weeks ago about doing a fantasy campaign for 2016 using another system and there was next to no interest. In fact the prevailing attitude was "campaigns should be strictly relegated to RPGs".

Xwing was something i liked at first but the tournament meta once again became a thing and i was really hoping for squadron-based play. Xwing is very much to me magic: the gathering with xwing miniatures. Armada is a bit better and I still play that but now we have guys playing games with 3 imperial star destroyers every game and i'm feeling the burn out there too.

Pathfinder is an extension of D&D 3rd edition, which is a very rules intensive rules-mastery edition where character builds and optimization are bread & butter. I don't like those type of systems. Old AD&D and for some part the new 5th edition D&D are more DM-Fiat but my area largely HATES that, and is big into char-ops and rules heavy games with a lot of rules crunch (which is why games like Infinity are doing really well here) where system mastery is pretty much the norm and games that are more casual or have less system mastery / more random elements / DM Fiat are seen as bad things and you have to look harder to find a good group that meshes well.

I think a large part of my problem is I started gaming in the 80s and I have carried a lot of those things over to today and today's gaming is a lot different and I don't think I can reconcile that and its time to move on.

Ayin
17-12-2015, 19:07
In terms of affordability, here's an interesting comparison.

5 Liberators = $50
6 Ogres = $40


Just to ignore everything else below this, I feel you won't have to suffer through this injustice for long. Once Ogres are re-released as Go-Ork Ograhms or whatnot with their new box and round bases, I am sure they will be brought up to the new normal.

akai
17-12-2015, 19:30
I'm sorry but this is not based in reality. Where are the cardboard cut out modeling threads for AoS? Or the 1 model games using a goblin warrior? Maybe it's a dragon hunter, maybe. This point has already been addressed several times in This thread. Yes, you can play with a single box, but are you really suggesting that's normal, desired, or even playable? What about the poor guy across the table who came to play and watches you smugly put your single goblin on the table, or your pieces of cardboard?

Also, the games do not, or at least very rarely, use the same models. It's a fallacy that doesn't reflect actual experience playing the game. People will gravitate towards the more elite and smaller unit sizes of larger kits. Have you personally played a game of AoS using roughly the same models A large game of WFB used? I have, and it's punishing. Moving that many guys, multiple times a turn, is not ok and it's not fun. I'd rather have 9 DGKs than 150 state troops, every time. Has nothing to do with power level, just simple playability. We (my LGS) routinely ignored the sudden death rules because it created situations where people were punished for having more models but often a weaker force. Despite that everyone moved toward smaller armies using more interesting models and rules than your standard rank n file trooper from WFB.

My experience is very similar to HKs, in my case I would have said more like 30-40 a side. Generally I used a little less, since I have in my collections lots of things like steam tanks, wizard wagons, orcs on wyverns, etc.... That were much, much More enjoyable to use in this game than any of regular dudes.

Same about the free rules. Can you honestly tell me the battle plans and battalion rules are not almost required if you want to enjoy AoS in the long run? My personal opinion is that you really want the full books to get the most out of them but even if you buy them separately on the app it's real easy to get up and then exceed what an army book costs. Despite it being a terrible game, with terrible books, terrible rules, and terrible pricing the second you want to step outside the starter set - it is decidedly less terrible if you use the scenarios and the suggested forces. It's almost a real game, almost. So please, let's stop with the "you really only need a piece of cardboard or at most a goblin dragon hunter" to play, and trying to sincerely pass that off as the true cost of investing in AoS as a game system.

Let me bold the parts that you seem to ignore.

"The absolute minimum models you would need to play AoS as written is just one model/unit. So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets just say you can spend ~$10 for one goblin hero.

The absolute minimum models you would need to play WFB 8th Edition as written is one Lord/Hero to be General and 3 non-character units (25% core requirement also). So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets say goblin hero, one box of wolf riders for 2 units, and one troll ~$60.

Of course, playing to have fun and what you want to field will change how much money you invest. If playing with just pieces of cut-out cardboard AoS would cost you nothing. Likewise, playing WFB 8th Edition with just cut-out cardboard/paper it would cost nothing (well you still have to buy the rulebook and at least an army book maybe)

AoS scenarios/Battleplans can be purchased individually for a significant fraction of the books.

So AoS is cheaper to start playing the game. But again, depending on what you want to play, both WFB and AoS cost to expand the size of your armies is exactly the same (they both use the same models!)"

Read what you wrote and reread my post. If I was to go out and play with complete strangers, I of course would not take pieces of cardboard to play with them or a single figure. But if I know the person has very low to no income but actually does like to play the game, I would not look down at the person proxying figures with whatever they can. Who is actually smug in your example? A person proxying figures because they like playing games of FB/AoS but do not have the income to buy expensive figures or the "poor guy watching someone play with proxies"!?

The "reality" is based on the rules as written. And if you have read my post more carefully, I wrote the bare minimum as written in the rules. I also wrote depending on the type of AoS/WFB game you want to play the cost will of course increase. Sure, you like playing 30-40 figures of elite go ahead and put the cost of the game based on that. Maybe there is small group of people who like to play a general with lots of rank and file troops. The cost for that group would be different. So please, read more carefully instead of jumping into conclusions.

MLP
17-12-2015, 19:31
Seems to me you just made up a minimum cost of Warhammer. You don't need to splurge on a 2,500 point army when you first get into Warhammer. Who does that? It was often stressed by GW itself to start out at 1,000 points, and then go on adding 500 point blocks to your army once you've painted what you had and played a few games. In this way you could get a feel for your army and decide what kind of troops you wanted to add to your existing force.

And the rules/army book point is countered by every new $58 battle tome that comes out. Because as I've seen it said very often on forums by AoS fans, the game is terrible without scenarios. So you need new scenarios to have fun. And in the place of updated rules and army books, you have to pay for your scenarios and pay to win battle tome formations.

What the hell happened to the hobby that people can't make up their own scenarios?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 19:36
What the hell happened to the hobby that people can't make up their own scenarios?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Much like house rules and comp - its not standard and thus not really appealing to tournament players who want to practice for tournaments or pick up gamers who want to just use the standard official whatever to play games against whoever without having to enter a "negotiation phase".

I've found the past few months that those two interests seem to be very much the heavy dominant.

Ayin
17-12-2015, 19:51
Much like house rules and comp - its not standard and thus not really appealing to tournament players who want to practice for tournaments or pick up gamers who want to just use the standard official whatever to play games against whoever without having to enter a "negotiation phase".

I've found the past few months that those two interests seem to be very much the heavy dominant.


Hmm, this doesn't align with my observation. Many tournaments use created scenarios and non-standard conditions, including simple things like modifying win conditions in Blood and Glory or offering extra victory points for achieving specific conditions that aren't found in standard missions.

Likely the reason pick-up gamers don't want to play made up or fan created scenarios is that play time is limited. Games take time. Only a limited number of games can be played by most people. All of that means that, if I get to play one game every week or two, I'm much, MUCH more likely to want to play a game which I understand, am used to, and believe provides me a fair chance, as opposed to a game someone else has constructed and which I have no experience with.

Kahadras
17-12-2015, 19:54
I honestly don't agree with the idea that AoS is supposed to be cheaper. Certainly it seems intended to be have a low start up cost but I'm pretty sure GW wants you spending as much money on AoS as you did on Warhammer. Heck they actually want you spending more money as one of the reasons given for Warhammer being canned was that it wasn't raking in enough profit. The instant you step away from the starter set or want to play more than the standard battle line game then you start paying.

Arrahed
17-12-2015, 19:55
If I posted that it was in July or so. We had a lot of positive feedback in July and through August and we had a big campaign turn out then.

Today most of the community here (80% or so) moved to Kings of War because my community is very tournament driven and wants to play what everyone else is playing. The game could be great or the game could be a hammered ****, they will play it if thats what the majority are playing. (which is how 40k and whfb lasted as long as they have to be honest)

For me personally I'm one step removed from selling everything off and finding other hobbies because I've accepted that the gaming community in general enjoys things very different than I, and I got burned out on the way that the general gaming community around here plays many years ago which I have already discussed in great depth in several different posts.

My choice today in regards to fantasy wargaming are: continue pushing Age of Sigmar with the three other people playing it, or play Kings of War... a game that I personally cannot stand.

I had to go through a similar situation in my RPGs... because most of my community loves Pathfinder. Another game that I personally cannot stand. So I sold my RPG books off and just found something else to do with my time.

Thats ok though. Sometimes your hobbies outgrow you or you outgrow your hobbies and move into a different direction.

I think it is quite condescending to assume that the majority of people only play a game because everyone else is playing it, implying that they either don't care about a 'good/fun' game or lack the ability to judge whether a game is 'good/fun'.
Strangely, you also accept that different people might simply enjoy different things. Or are you saying that people simply enjoy the anonymity of doing the same thing as everyone else?

MLP
17-12-2015, 19:58
Much like house rules and comp - its not standard and thus not really appealing to tournament players who want to practice for tournaments or pick up gamers who want to just use the standard official whatever to play games against whoever without having to enter a "negotiation phase".

I've found the past few months that those two interests seem to be very much the heavy dominant.

I'm eternally grateful I don't have to include these boring and unimaginative "gamers" in my hobby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ayin
17-12-2015, 20:05
I honestly don't agree with the idea that AoS is supposed to be cheaper. Certainly it seems intended to be have a low start up cost but I'm pretty sure GW wants you spending as much money on AoS as you did on Warhammer. Heck they actually want you spending more money as one of the reasons given for Warhammer being canned was that it wasn't raking in enough profit. The instant you step away from the starter set or want to play more than the standard battle line game then you start paying.

This is entirely correct.


The difference is supposed to be in the required NUMBER of models, and thus the intended EASE of starting. Instead of putting together and painting 29 models, you can do 8. THAT is the lowered barrier of entry. If GW can make as much on those 8 as the 26, they will.


As an example, even including AoS current prices:

Empire Captain: $20
20 Empire soldiers: $60
8 Empire Knights: $40
=$120

5 Paladins: $70
3 Prosecutors: $70
=$140


The actual entry cost for what's likely the minimum size for a "fun" force (a force that can do two things at once) is...let's say comparable, but the total number of models which are required to be fielded (29 vs 8) is vastly different.

Buddy Bear
17-12-2015, 20:05
I honestly don't agree with the idea that AoS is supposed to be cheaper. Certainly it seems intended to be have a low start up cost but I'm pretty sure GW wants you spending as much money on AoS as you did on Warhammer. Heck they actually want you spending more money as one of the reasons given for Warhammer being canned was that it wasn't raking in enough profit. The instant you step away from the starter set or want to play more than the standard battle line game then you start paying.

The lack of points is a pretty clear indicator that they want people spending more, not less. They obviously want to see people trying to outspend each other to win games. Got trounced by your buddy? Then buy Archaon and three boxes of Varanguard. It's a pay-to-win miniature game complete with micro transactions.

2DSick
17-12-2015, 20:39
The lack of points is a pretty clear indicator that they want people spending more, not less. They obviously want to see people trying to outspend each other to win games. Got trounced by your buddy? Then buy Archaon and three boxes of Varanguard. It's a pay-to-win miniature game complete with micro transactions.

I'd hardly call that MICRO XD

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 20:40
I think it is quite condescending to assume that the majority of people only play a game because everyone else is playing it,

I can't count how many times I've read or heard someone say "I only play 40k because I know I can get a game of it in". They sometimes said that about whfb too. Its usually in a thread complaining that GW games are awful, the rules are broken, and the balance non existent and games not fun.

So while you may take it as condescension because you choose to take it that way, there are reams of data displaying that very thing that I have observed.

We had a group meeting about what fantasy game to try to play with and by far and large the vote to move to kings of war wasn't because everyone loved kings of war, but because the tournaments all 100% switched to it and everyone else was playing that so thats the game they chose.

Swathes of stores in my region switched to Kings of War because "the masters all switched to that format so we want to do what the masters are doing so we switched too"

40k is teetering depending on how well Gates of Antares does. There are a LOT of players in my region looking to the big tournaments to see if it starts taking over 40k and if it does there will be a ton of people switching over because "everyone else is too and I can find a game".

"because i can find a game" is pretty much a universal constant statement that you can find in new posts on forums or newsgroups or fb threads several times a day.

Yowzo
17-12-2015, 20:41
Battlefleet Gothic was a skirmish game played with few models and thus a low entry cost (for a GW game, not in general)...nowadays GW need this kind of game as a way to introduce new customers to the hobby. Or they think they need those kind of games...it really depends on what side you look at the issue. Simply lowering the price of their products and streamlining a bit the rules probably would be enough to create an influx of new players, for example.
Actually I think they will do a deadfleet type boxed set and depending on sales they will follow with limited release expansions.

I could see them trying pre painted xwing style models too.

Buddy Bear
17-12-2015, 20:41
I'd hardly call that MICRO XD

LOL! I was thinking more about buying the battleplans on the app.

2DSick
17-12-2015, 20:59
LOL! I was thinking more about buying the battleplans on the app.

Well it's definitely micro in terms of what you get for your money :-P

NoobLord
17-12-2015, 21:00
40k is teetering depending on how well Gates of Antares does. There are a LOT of players in my region looking to the big tournaments to see if it starts taking over 40k and if it does there will be a ton of people switching over because "everyone else is too and I can find a game".


Blimey. Really? From everything you post the gamers in your area sound like the kind of people I wouldn't want to play any kind of game with, but that's the first thing I've read about GoA being considered as a serious alternative to 40K (I know the Warpath kickstarter was successful but it will be a while yet before the stuff gets produced).

I agree the network effect is important (see MtG and X wing for example - turn up with your deck/squadron anywhere and you can get a standard game). Still, I play a system with a only a few thousand players worldwide and I can get a game almost instantly at any time any day thanks to VASL.

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 21:02
GoA isnt anything just yet, but there are a lot of people hoping it puts the final torpedo in gw (afterall once 40k is toppled that would effectively be game over)

Our 40k annual campaign starts in jan and we are down about 50%. Lot of people sitting out because they think 40k is getting aos rules and they are wAiting to see if GoA attracts enough to switch.

Right now infinity is booming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ender Shadowkin
17-12-2015, 21:09
I can't count how many times I've read or heard someone say "I only play 40k because I know I can get a game of it in". They sometimes said that about whfb too. Its usually in a thread complaining that GW games are awful, the rules are broken, and the balance non existent and games not fun.

So while you may take it as condescension because you choose to take it that way, there are reams of data displaying that very thing that I have observed.

We had a group meeting about what fantasy game to try to play with and by far and large the vote to move to kings of war wasn't because everyone loved kings of war, but because the tournaments all 100% switched to it and everyone else was playing that so thats the game they chose.

Swathes of stores in my region switched to Kings of War because "the masters all switched to that format so we want to do what the masters are doing so we switched too"

40k is teetering depending on how well Gates of Antares does. There are a LOT of players in my region looking to the big tournaments to see if it starts taking over 40k and if it does there will be a ton of people switching over because "everyone else is too and I can find a game".

"because i can find a game" is pretty much a universal constant statement that you can find in new posts on forums or newsgroups or fb threads several times a day.

No one is playing AoS around me anymore, And I ran a fairly successful AoS tournament (lower attendance then past events of course) in October ,people had fun, ramped up for it, painted stuff, played practice games. It was attended by serious gamers and hobbyists (US ETC team members, etc) tournament went well with very few rules disputes compared to WHFB.

you can see pics and the rules packet if interested over at :
http://www.infernalzoo.com

Now a couple months after... No one around me is playing AoS. My conclusion is that AoS is fun, tournaments are totally doable... its just not more fun then playing some other game and if their arnt people to play with, you gravitate towards games that have players. Now people who are super into something can motivate others.. draw them in..just not seeing that with AoS, simply no momentum.

Flipmode
17-12-2015, 21:28
GoA isnt anything just yet, but there are a lot of people hoping it puts the final torpedo in gw (afterall once 40k is toppled that would effectively be game over)

Our 40k annual campaign starts in jan and we are down about 50%. Lot of people sitting out because they think 40k is getting aos rules and they are wAiting to see if GoA attracts enough to switch.

Right now infinity is booming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blimey. How soon are they thinking it could happen that it affects them signing up for a campaign starting next month?? Even if it does, do they think Kirby is going to turn up and make them rebase their miniatures?

Not quite related to that... But wondering how many people were considering changing systems already. If they had carried on with WHFB, how many were going to switch to KoW anyway?

Could GW have decided that the rank and file market was going to be too competitive for a product they were already sruggling to justify? (Their apparent lack of market research does go against this, of course, as it is difficult to believe they know exactly how fickle their customer base is)

Wesser
17-12-2015, 21:33
Well we can hope AoS soldier on. If they ever get to Sylvaneth I might expand my Sylvans for 9th

The phrase "good point, we'll clarify that issue/change that rule in the next update" was something you never have nor will hear from GW. In this day and age you cant sit and develop your stuff in the fuhrerbunker like GW does, so the company is likely doomed in oh.. 5 years... Just hope they manage to squueze out some cool stuff before going under

Buddy Bear
17-12-2015, 21:34
But wondering how many people were considering changing systems already. If they had carried on with WHFB, how many were going to switch to KoW anyway?

Doubtful. Kings of War wasn't even on the radar for a great many people until Age of Sigmar hit. Why would people have been planning to make a switch if they were already happy with the system and setting that they were using? Gates of Antares is likewise turning up on people's radar because of the fear that 40k will be AOSed as well, not to mention that GW's been on a downward slope with 40k for a while now. AOS was just the straw that broke the camel's back and let the player base know that GW is not a company they could trust even in the short term. If they did what they did to Warhammer Fantasy then nothing is out of bounds for them, and that's not something that inspires a great deal of confidence.

Folomo
17-12-2015, 21:37
I knew (ok, deduced for those that take thing literally) that AoS took a big chunk of the previous WH players, but never thought it could affect 40K players in such way. I always thought the posters saying that people quitted from 40K because of AoS where exaggerating. But to hear that a big chunk of 40k players stopped from an pro-AoS poster made me rethink how big the impact of AoS may be.

Dosiere
17-12-2015, 21:41
Let me bold the parts that you seem to ignore.

"The absolute minimum models you would need to play AoS as written is just one model/unit. So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets just say you can spend ~$10 for one goblin hero.

The absolute minimum models you would need to play WFB 8th Edition as written is one Lord/Hero to be General and 3 non-character units (25% core requirement also). So if you go through Games Workshop website, lets say goblin hero, one box of wolf riders for 2 units, and one troll ~$60.

Of course, playing to have fun and what you want to field will change how much money you invest. If playing with just pieces of cut-out cardboard AoS would cost you nothing. Likewise, playing WFB 8th Edition with just cut-out cardboard/paper it would cost nothing (well you still have to buy the rulebook and at least an army book maybe)

AoS scenarios/Battleplans can be purchased individually for a significant fraction of the books.

So AoS is cheaper to start playing the game. But again, depending on what you want to play, both WFB and AoS cost to expand the size of your armies is exactly the same (they both use the same models!)"

Read what you wrote and reread my post. If I was to go out and play with complete strangers, I of course would not take pieces of cardboard to play with them or a single figure. But if I know the person has very low to no income but actually does like to play the game, I would not look down at the person proxying figures with whatever they can. Who is actually smug in your example? A person proxying figures because they like playing games of FB/AoS but do not have the income to buy expensive figures or the "poor guy watching someone play with proxies"!?

The "reality" is based on the rules as written. And if you have read my post more carefully, I wrote the bare minimum as written in the rules. I also wrote depending on the type of AoS/WFB game you want to play the cost will of course increase. Sure, you like playing 30-40 figures of elite go ahead and put the cost of the game based on that. Maybe there is small group of people who like to play a general with lots of rank and file troops. The cost for that group would be different. So please, read more carefully instead of jumping into conclusions.

I understand perfectly. Your strange argument about somehow being a ****** for assuming people are using miniatures in a game like AoS doesn't seem very relevant. My point remains that you are trying these weird theoryhammer scenarios that do not reflect the reality in the game or how it is played. None of your quoting yourself changes the fact that people are not going to play this game with a single goblin model, or that using ripped up pieces of cardboard has any bearing on the startup cost of either AoS or WFB. Just like no one is going to play WFB at say, 25 points per side, even though that's possible.

akai
17-12-2015, 21:57
Just like no one is going to play WFB at say, 25 points per side, even though that's possible.

I'm quite sure you can't field an army as written in WFB with just 25 points. About my strange argument not being relevant...it was a direct response to your "smug" remark...how relevant is that to the discussion?

I'm not making theoryhammer scenarios. There is an actual scenarios where you are playing just one hero versus two. The rules as written allows it. It is not theory, its exactly what the rules allowed and can actually be practically played that way. I likely would not have fun just playing with one character, but it is "fact" and not some "strange theory" I pulled out of nowhere that the rules as written allows it. Just because its not the "popular" or the normal format people play in a league or store it does not mean people do not play that way.

Niall78
17-12-2015, 21:59
I knew (ok, deduced for those that take thing literally) that AoS took a big chunk of the previous WH players, but never thought it could affect 40K players in such way. I always thought the posters saying that people quitted from 40K because of AoS where exaggerating. But to hear that a big chunk of 40k players stopped from an pro-AoS poster made me rethink how big the impact of AoS may be.

Talking to older 40K players in my area AoS is the straw that broke the camels back.

According to them the 40K rules are a mess, balance - even with heavy comp - is difficult to nail down and scale creep has badly infected the game. Now they are wondering if their years of investment in the universe and in their collections will be nullified. Some have already went through that with WFB and aren't the slightest bit happy.

Not sure what is happening with the younger 40K players locally. Maybe they aren't as networked within the community and are less exposed to the near constant GW negativity emanating from the veteran and older players. These oldster 40k players are whales though - they spend the bulk of the money within the community as far as I can see. They also run the vast majority of events and meet-ups.

GW did a silly thing peeing off the veterans. These people are the heart of most gaming scenes. GW - unique among game companies - has relied nearly completely on word of mouth to promote their products. GW hurt the very people they need the most. That applies to 40K as much as it did WFB. Already they've damaged their reputation among the 40K vets who were involved with WFB. Not expecting knock-on damage to 40K due to the AoS debacle would be naive in my opinion.

Flipmode
17-12-2015, 22:06
Doubtful. Kings of War wasn't even on the radar for a great many people until Age of Sigmar hit. Why would people have been planning to make a switch if they were already happy with the system and setting that they were using? Gates of Antares is likewise turning up on people's radar because of the fear that 40k will be AOSed as well, not to mention that GW's been on a downward slope with 40k for a while now. AOS was just the straw that broke the camel's back and let the player base know that GW is not a company they could trust even in the short term. If they did what they did to Warhammer Fantasy then nothing is out of bounds for them, and that's not something that inspires a great deal of confidence.

If KoW was getting a new edition, improving models and expanding fluff then people may have become more and more likely to switch. As you say, AoS may have sped up that process, or it may not have happened at all without it.

The only positive for GW on that angle would be operating in a slightly different area of the market. It then comes down to how different, and how large that area might be.

Arrahed
17-12-2015, 22:07
I can't count how many times I've read or heard someone say "I only play 40k because I know I can get a game of it in". They sometimes said that about whfb too. Its usually in a thread complaining that GW games are awful, the rules are broken, and the balance non existent and games not fun.

So while you may take it as condescension because you choose to take it that way, there are reams of data displaying that very thing that I have observed.

We had a group meeting about what fantasy game to try to play with and by far and large the vote to move to kings of war wasn't because everyone loved kings of war, but because the tournaments all 100% switched to it and everyone else was playing that so thats the game they chose.

Swathes of stores in my region switched to Kings of War because "the masters all switched to that format so we want to do what the masters are doing so we switched too"

40k is teetering depending on how well Gates of Antares does. There are a LOT of players in my region looking to the big tournaments to see if it starts taking over 40k and if it does there will be a ton of people switching over because "everyone else is too and I can find a game".

"because i can find a game" is pretty much a universal constant statement that you can find in new posts on forums or newsgroups or fb threads several times a day.

I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't it be much more probable that those people like a number of games about the same so the question of what the others are playing becomes the deciding factor? I highly doubt that a super crappy game would be played by everyone because everyone is playing it.

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 22:10
I find that hard to believe. Wouldn't it be much more probable that those people like a number of games about the same so the question of what the others are playing becomes the deciding factor? I highly doubt that a super crappy game would be played by everyone because everyone is playing it.

Go stick your head in the 40k forum and ask them "why do you still play 40k if the game is so bad?"

Buddy Bear
17-12-2015, 22:19
Go stick your head in the 40k forum and ask them "why do you still play 40k if the game is so bad?"

Because I love the setting and have a massive collection, and I've been around long enough to see five edition changes. Some I liked, some I didn't. I certainly didn't get into the game because I thought it was bad, or just because I was some kind of drone only playing games other people played. I got into it because, aside from the setting, I liked the game and I thought it was great. As for 7th, I like it for the most part, although it can definitely use some work, and the preponderance of big things is getting a bit much. I liked the days when Tactical Marines were useful. I'm still having fun with the game, though, and that's why I play it. What I'm not interested in, however, is "The Age of the Emperor" where bolter armed Marines wound Wraithknights on a 4+ and I measure movement from the miniature in a game with no points or comp.

akai
17-12-2015, 22:33
Doubtful. Kings of War wasn't even on the radar for a great many people until Age of Sigmar hit. Why would people have been planning to make a switch if they were already happy with the system and setting that they were using? Gates of Antares is likewise turning up on people's radar because of the fear that 40k will be AOSed as well, not to mention that GW's been on a downward slope with 40k for a while now. AOS was just the straw that broke the camel's back and let the player base know that GW is not a company they could trust even in the short term. If they did what they did to Warhammer Fantasy then nothing is out of bounds for them, and that's not something that inspires a great deal of confidence.

So I was curious about Kings of War getting more recognition so I used that Google Trend site that DariusZero linked earlier.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Warhammer%20Fantasy%2C%20Age%20of%20Sigm ar%2C%20Kings%20of%20War%2C%20Warhammer%2040K&date=1%2F2015%2012m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

Just to note, "Warhammer Fantasy" search on the link is different from the link provided by DariusZero. I found out that messing around with google trend that DariusZero's link was comparing Warhammer Fantasy under "Games" compared to Age of Sigmar as a "Search Item." I'm not entirely sure what is the difference. In the link I provided its comparing everything as a "Search Item." There is no option to put Kings of War or Age of Sigmar as "Game." I also included 40K as another reference.

Except for the July release of Age of Sigmar that brought its search volume to be on par to 40K, over time Age of Sigmar search on Google appears to be similar to Warhammer Fantasy and Kings of War. If anything, Kings of War was a tad bit higher than Age of Sigmar. Search or interest in the United States for Age of Sigmar is much lower compared to UK searches of Age of Sigmar; however Fantasy and Kings of War searches in the UK and USA are more closer in volume.

I did find it interesting that the Fantasy games only show search volume for USA and UK, but search volume for 40K have many other countries beside those two. I wonder if the appeal of Fantasy genre is mostly just in the UK and USA while Science Fiction genre have more of a global appeal?

scruffyryan
17-12-2015, 22:41
I understand perfectly. Your strange argument about somehow being a ****** for assuming people are using miniatures in a game like AoS doesn't seem very relevant. My point remains that you are trying these weird theoryhammer scenarios that do not reflect the reality in the game or how it is played. None of your quoting yourself changes the fact that people are not going to play this game with a single goblin model, or that using ripped up pieces of cardboard has any bearing on the startup cost of either AoS or WFB. Just like no one is going to play WFB at say, 25 points per side, even though that's possible.

Yeah I wouldn't spend too much time addressing "but you can play with 1 model only" arguments as regards startup costs. It relies on a couple of things that just don't prove to be true in reality.

1. That people buy miniature games to get in 5 to 10 minute games.
2. That there are enough people out there interested in buying 1 model at a time
3. That the environment you're going to find is full of folks down to play 2v1 model scenarios
4. That playing with 1 model is fun enough to get you to buy more.

HelloKitty
17-12-2015, 22:46
Because I love the setting and have a massive collection, and I've been around long enough to see five edition changes. Some I liked, some I didn't. I certainly didn't get into the game because I thought it was bad, or just because I was some kind of drone only playing games other people played. I got into it because, aside from the setting, I liked the game and I thought it was great. As for 7th, I like it for the most part, although it can definitely use some work, and the preponderance of big things is getting a bit much. I liked the days when Tactical Marines were useful. I'm still having fun with the game, though, and that's why I play it. What I'm not interested in, however, is "The Age of the Emperor" where bolter armed Marines wound Wraithknights on a 4+ and I measure movement from the miniature in a game with no points or comp.

While those are all true you yourself have posted that the biggest reason played gw games was because of the following and how easy it was to get in games.

It was in a thread where you were saying aos changed all that now that nobody was playing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
17-12-2015, 22:49
Talking to older 40K players in my area AoS is the straw that broke the camels back.

According to them the 40K rules are a mess, balance - even with heavy comp - is difficult to nail down and scale creep has badly infected the game. Now they are wondering if their years of investment in the universe and in their collections will be nullified. Some have already went through that with WFB and aren't the slightest bit happy.

Not sure what is happening with the younger 40K players locally. Maybe they aren't as networked within the community and are less exposed to the near constant GW negativity emanating from the veteran and older players. These oldster 40k players are whales though - they spend the bulk of the money within the community as far as I can see. They also run the vast majority of events and meet-ups.

It's funny but the majority of 40k players that don't play wfb seem to be almost completely unaware of the AoS phenomenon, but then our community has been a lot less angry about the whole AoS thing than the Internet would have you believe. Most of our fantasy players are still playing 8th edition just as regularly as they were before, some of them are playing AoS as well.


GW did a silly thing peeing off the veterans. These people are the heart of most gaming scenes. GW - unique among game companies - has relied nearly completely on word of mouth to promote their products. GW hurt the very people they need the most. That applies to 40K as much as it did WFB. Already they've damaged their reputation among the 40K vets who were involved with WFB. Not expecting knock-on damage to 40K due to the AoS debacle would be naive in my opinion.

This I do agree with, personally I enjoy playing AoS and value it as a game system, but I do think GW could have handled the transition so much moe successfully if they would just communicate properly with their customers. I can't help but feel that a more positive transition would have resulted in more people at least giving the game a chance.

scruffyryan
17-12-2015, 22:52
This I do agree with, personally I enjoy playing AoS and value it as a game system, but I do think GW could have handled the transition so much moe successfully if they would just communicate properly with their customers. I can't help but feel that a more positive transition would have resulted in more people at least giving the game a chance.

AoS is seriously fine as an entry level game, or something to do with models while building up to a WFB level of stuff.

veterannoob
17-12-2015, 22:53
May I ask what countries you are in? I'm just curious about the different scenes. It sounds like at least a few of you are in the UK. I interviewed the head of Mantic this morning and I'm just curious about how KoW scenes are doing now with more tournament involvement. Thanks:)

veterannoob
17-12-2015, 22:57
AoS is seriously fine as an entry level game, or something to do with models while building up to a WFB level of stuff.
Yeah, while GW did, I admit, floor me by engaging podcasts and welcoming open feedback we faced a problem in our scene back home with AoS being the game the stores now carried so it must be supported. They did not force us but as a group we knew to at
least try AoS and find some way to make it work. Who knows, maybe GW will continue to take baby steps and engage its customers more. One can dream;)

Spiney Norman
17-12-2015, 23:03
May I ask what countries you are in? I'm just curious about the different scenes. It sounds like at least a few of you are in the UK. I interviewed the head of Mantic this morning and I'm just curious about how KoW scenes are doing now with more tournament involvement. Thanks:)

I'm in the UK, Mantic games are hardly played at all here, mainly due to the low quality of their models (we're quite a snobbish group if truth be told). Non-GW games played at our club are mainly limited to mtg, warmahordes, malifaux, X-wing and Star Trek attack wing.

veterannoob
17-12-2015, 23:13
I'm in the UK, Mantic games are hardly played at all here, mainly due to the low quality of their models (we're quite a snobbish group if truth be told). Non-GW games played at our club are mainly limited to mtg, warmahordes, malifaux, X-wing and Star Trek attack wing.

Totally understand that. The hobby is visual for me, I want to see battles come to life. That gets muddied sometimes with lackluster battlefields...

2DSick
17-12-2015, 23:14
I'm in the UK, Mantic games are hardly played at all here, mainly due to the low quality of their models (we're quite a snobbish group if truth be told). Non-GW games played at our club are mainly limited to mtg, warmahordes, malifaux, X-wing and Star Trek attack wing.

I live in Portsmouth and play in pompy, Southampton, fareham, Southsea and the solent at various clubs and stores. KoW is being played alot here. Because the game is Uber regardless of what models you play it with :-*

Dreadball is played second only to guildball.

Warpath has been a none starter but that's more due to gates of antares.

Dungeon saga is the big thing right now :-D

akai
18-12-2015, 00:33
Yeah I wouldn't spend too much time addressing "but you can play with 1 model only" arguments as regards startup costs. It relies on a couple of things that just don't prove to be true in reality.

1. That people buy miniature games to get in 5 to 10 minute games.
2. That there are enough people out there interested in buying 1 model at a time
3. That the environment you're going to find is full of folks down to play 2v1 model scenarios
4. That playing with 1 model is fun enough to get you to buy more.

The several points you made are subjective, but I agree I would not think it is fun to always play with one model :P. You are not following the logic of my original post and seems fixated on the "one model only" portion. Warhammer Fantasy Battle have an actual minimum requirement to start playing the game. Age of Sigmar says you can play with what you have. You are not obligated to field certain units within Age of Sigmar whereas Warhammer Fantasy Battle you do. Just looking only at models and not at books, the cost of Age of Sigmar is indeed cheaper to start playing the games with the rules as written (see below). That is an undeniable fact and not some notion of an idea.

WFB 8th Edition:
1 goblin hero, 2 units of Wolf Riders, 1 Troll - is what I think is one of the cheapest cost to start a legal army in WFB game. ~$60
1 goblin hero and 2 units of Wolf Riders - is not a legal army in the game to play with.
2 units of Wolf Riders and a Troll is not a legal army in the game to play with.
1 goblin hero and 1 Troll is not a legal army in the game to play with.

AoS:
1 goblin hero, 2 units of Wolf Riders, 1 Troll - is a legal army to play in the game with ~$60
1 goblin hero, and 2 units of Wolf Riders is a legal army to play in the game with ~$40
2 units of Wolf Riders and a Troll is a legal army to play in the game with ~$50
1 goblin hero and 1 Troll is a is a legal army to play in the game with ~$30

Now, if you read the last sentence of my original post -

"So AoS is cheaper to start playing the game. But again, depending on what you want to play, both WFB and AoS cost to expand the size of your armies is exactly the same (they both use the same models!)."

After getting into the game and deciding what type and how many miniatures/models you want to actually have fun in the game, both WFB and AoS would be of similar cost, imo. How much models/units you used to play AoS/WFB to have fun is subjective.

Dosiere
18-12-2015, 03:31
You forgot the goblin dragon hunter build.

Arrahed
18-12-2015, 07:18
The several points you made are subjective, but I agree I would not think it is fun to always play with one model :P. You are not following the logic of my original post and seems fixated on the "one model only" portion. Warhammer Fantasy Battle have an actual minimum requirement to start playing the game. Age of Sigmar says you can play with what you have. You are not obligated to field certain units within Age of Sigmar whereas Warhammer Fantasy Battle you do. Just looking only at models and not at books, the cost of Age of Sigmar is indeed cheaper to start playing the games with the rules as written (see below). That is an undeniable fact and not some notion of an idea.

WFB 8th Edition:
1 goblin hero, 2 units of Wolf Riders, 1 Troll - is what I think is one of the cheapest cost to start a legal army in WFB game. ~$60
1 goblin hero and 2 units of Wolf Riders - is not a legal army in the game to play with.
2 units of Wolf Riders and a Troll is not a legal army in the game to play with.
1 goblin hero and 1 Troll is not a legal army in the game to play with.

AoS:
1 goblin hero, 2 units of Wolf Riders, 1 Troll - is a legal army to play in the game with ~$60
1 goblin hero, and 2 units of Wolf Riders is a legal army to play in the game with ~$40
2 units of Wolf Riders and a Troll is a legal army to play in the game with ~$50
1 goblin hero and 1 Troll is a is a legal army to play in the game with ~$30

Now, if you read the last sentence of my original post -

"So AoS is cheaper to start playing the game. But again, depending on what you want to play, both WFB and AoS cost to expand the size of your armies is exactly the same (they both use the same models!)."

After getting into the game and deciding what type and how many miniatures/models you want to actually have fun in the game, both WFB and AoS would be of similar cost, imo. How much models/units you used to play AoS/WFB to have fun is subjective.

Why would you let some arbitrary rules stop you from playing? If I would meet a new WFB player with only a unit of Wolf Riders and he would ask me if I would like to play against him, I would take a similar unit and play against him. Who cares that its not a legal army? You won't play a tournament with one model in AOS either. So the starting size is practically identical for both games.

GrandmasterWang
18-12-2015, 07:50
Why would you let some arbitrary rules stop you from playing? If I would meet a new WFB player with only a unit of Wolf Riders and he would ask me if I would like to play against him, I would take a similar unit and play against him. Who cares that its not a legal army? You won't play a tournament with one model in AOS either. So the starting size is practically identical for both games.
Exactly. No one NEEDS to field a legal 8th Edition Fantasy army to play or have fun, just like no one NEEDS to use Sudden Death RAW in AOS unless they want to. Both rulesets are a framework for gamers to have fun nothing more.

I personally consider 8th to be a much better framework than AOS but there you go.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Asmodios
18-12-2015, 07:55
Why would you let some arbitrary rules stop you from playing? If I would meet a new WFB player with only a unit of Wolf Riders and he would ask me if I would like to play against him, I would take a similar unit and play against him. Who cares that its not a legal army? You won't play a tournament with one model in AOS either. So the starting size is practically identical for both games.
The pro AOS crowd seems to thing that nobody that played WHFB ever played small points or house rule games. My friends and I played a really fun 1000 point mini tournament when we were all still learning to play. We do custom games with certain unique non legal army formations. Most pick up games i played people wanted to try something new and play a quick fast game at 1500 points. Nothing in WHFB stopped people from putting whatever they wanted down on the table during a fun game. I just think most people were rational enough to see that this might be fun for a game every now or then but not on a regular basis.

Holier Than Thou
18-12-2015, 08:05
Why would you let some arbitrary rules stop you from playing? If I would meet a new WFB player with only a unit of Wolf Riders and he would ask me if I would like to play against him, I would take a similar unit and play against him. Who cares that its not a legal army? You won't play a tournament with one model in AOS either. So the starting size is practically identical for both games.

Because inconsistency is their strongest weapon. They can justify whatever they like in Age of Sigmar by saying 'the rules are just a framework, ignore this section or change this bit to suit.' but Warhammer Fantasy Battles' rules are strictly enforced and restrict you from doing X, Y and Z.

2DSick
18-12-2015, 08:18
Am I the only one reading back and thinking...

But a shaman and two wolfrider units IS a legal army...

Spiney Norman
18-12-2015, 08:40
The pro AOS crowd seems to thing that nobody that played WHFB ever played small points or house rule games. My friends and I played a really fun 1000 point mini tournament when we were all still learning to play. We do custom games with certain unique non legal army formations. Most pick up games i played people wanted to try something new and play a quick fast game at 1500 points. Nothing in WHFB stopped people from putting whatever they wanted down on the table during a fun game. I just think most people were rational enough to see that this might be fun for a game every now or then but not on a regular basis.

The majority of wfb games are played at 2k for a reason, while the game does work as smal as 500pts or slightly lower (though some armies, such as ogres, cannot function at points values that low) it's a much better experience when the games get slightly larger and more options become available. I've nowhere said that nobody plays wfb at smaller points level, clearly that does happen, but the game is more restrictive, it has the three unit minimum and minimum of one hero or Lord character which causes issues for some armies at small points levels (note ogres), it also has the percentages which force you into certain molds, esp at low points levels.

AoS on the other hand has none of that.


Am I the only one reading back and thinking...

But a shaman and two wolfrider units IS a legal army...

No it isn't, p.134: 'three unit minimum'. A shaman, two wolf rider units and a troll is a legal army, probably about the smallest legal army you can get in wfb.

Asmodios
18-12-2015, 09:00
The majority of wfb games are played at 2k for a reason, while the game does work as smal as 500pts or slightly lower (though some armies, such as ogres, cannot function at points values that low) it's a much better experience when the games get slightly larger and more options become available. I've nowhere said that nobody plays wfb at smaller points level, clearly that does happen, but the game is more restrictive, it has the three unit minimum and minimum of one hero or Lord character which causes issues for some armies at small points levels (note ogres), it also has the percentages which force you into certain molds, esp at low points levels.

AoS on the other hand has none of that.



No it isn't, p.134: 'three unit minimum'. A shaman, two wolf rider units and a troll is a legal army, probably about the smallest legal army you can get in wfb.
Lets just ignore the fact that you could simply ignore the percentages in WHFB to play a small points game. But stating that WHFB doesn't play well under 2k is the same as me stating AOS doesn't play well under 30 models and with all the scenarios you have to buy. Once again you can play WHFB with no points just like AOS if you want. The only difference is I can play a pick up game without 1. Hoping my opponent plays the same comp pack 2. Bring a massive collection do to counter deployment being a focus of the game 3. Hope the opponent is in the same mindset of what he wants from the game.

GrandmasterWang
18-12-2015, 09:11
The majority of wfb games are played at 2k for a reason, while the game does work as smal as 500pts or slightly lower (though some armies, such as ogres, cannot function at points values that low) it's a much better experience when the games get slightly larger and more options become available. I've nowhere said that nobody plays wfb at smaller points level, clearly that does happen, but the game is more restrictive, it has the three unit minimum and minimum of one hero or Lord character which causes issues for some armies at small points levels (note ogres), it also has the percentages which force you into certain molds, esp at low points levels.

AoS on the other hand has none of that.



No it isn't, p.134: 'three unit minimum'. A shaman, two wolf rider units and a troll is a legal army, probably about the smallest legal army you can get in wfb.
8th provides those guidelines for pickup games. AOS has no such guidelines for pickup games.

When friends/gaming buddies play Warhammer using 8th Edition rules there are no restrictions besides what they want. They can ignore the %'s, choose units from different army books etc if they agree. No one has to follow every single army composition rule in the 8th rulebook. Those guidelines are simply that....guidelines. It is due to those guidelines that 8th worked very well for pickup games at agreed points levels.

People were free to ignore those 8th edition 'rules' in the same way that people choose to ignore the AOS 'rules' which dictate sudden death conditions or demand they measure from the model only (don't dare measure from the base RAW!!).



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
18-12-2015, 09:13
Lets just ignore the fact that you could simply ignore the percentages in WHFB to play a small points game. But stating that WHFB doesn't play well under 2k is the same as me stating AOS doesn't play well under 30 models and with all the scenarios you have to buy. Once again you can play WHFB with no points just like AOS if you want. The only difference is I can play a pick up game without 1. Hoping my opponent plays the same comp pack 2. Bring a massive collection do to counter deployment being a focus of the game 3. Hope the opponent is in the same mindset of what he wants from the game.

Someone has been talking about being 'inconsistent' above, it strikes me that there has been a lot of claims from the anti-AoS camp that using homemade points values is terribly wrong and makes the game 'not AoS', but apparently ignoring the army-building rules for wfb is completely acceptable. Of course you can house-rule the game in any way you wish to make it more playable, just like plenty of people do with AoS, but if you're going to insist on discussing AoS in a pure RAW format you can do me the courtesy of treating wfb in the same way.

For the record I'm a massive fan of 8th edition wfb, I think it is the best edition of the game, and I'm also a massive fan of AoS too, but this rose-tinted view of wfb needs to stop, it was not by any means a flawless game, the percentages were a pain and balance between armies was awful. AoS has its own set of (very different) problems, it is better than wfb in some ways and worse in others.

2DSick
18-12-2015, 09:27
Someone has been talking about being 'inconsistent' above, it strikes me that there has been a lot of claims from the anti-AoS camp that using homemade points values is terribly wrong and makes the game 'not AoS', but apparently ignoring the army-building rules for wfb is completely acceptable. Of course you can house-rule the game in any way you wish to make it more playable, just like plenty of people do with AoS, but if you're going to insist on discussing AoS in a pure RAW format you can do me the courtesy of treating wfb in the same way.

For the record I'm a massive fan of 8th edition wfb, I think it is the best edition of the game, and I'm also a massive fan of AoS too, but this rose-tinted view of wfb needs to stop, it was not by any means a flawless game, the percentages were a pain and balance between armies was awful. AoS has its own set of (very different) problems, it is better than wfb in some ways and worse in others.

Again. Another issue with 8th. It's scaled down poorly as a vehicle to increase sales.

I suppose that's why I'm less interested in 9th age. Too much like polishing a ****.

Arrahed
18-12-2015, 09:36
Someone has been talking about being 'inconsistent' above, it strikes me that there has been a lot of claims from the anti-AoS camp that using homemade points values is terribly wrong and makes the game 'not AoS', but apparently ignoring the army-building rules for wfb is completely acceptable. Of course you can house-rule the game in any way you wish to make it more playable, just like plenty of people do with AoS, but if you're going to insist on discussing AoS in a pure RAW format you can do me the courtesy of treating wfb in the same way.

Wait, I thought it was an AOS fan who claimed that AOS was superior for new players. The response was that there is basically no difference between AOS and WFB in that regard.
And there is a very big difference between ignoring a rule because otherwise you could not play with the things you want to play with and inventing rules because otherwise you could not play.



For the record I'm a massive fan of 8th edition wfb, I think it is the best edition of the game, and I'm also a massive fan of AoS too, but this rose-tinted view of wfb needs to stop, it was not by any means a flawless game, the percentages were a pain and balance between armies was awful. AoS has its own set of (very different) problems, it is better than wfb in some ways and worse in others.
The good old times of army composition rules. I loved those.

Allen
18-12-2015, 09:39
Again. Another issue with 8th. It's scaled down poorly as a vehicle to increase sales

A lot of GW games share this issue, though. When looking at post-90s GW products I'm hard pressed in finding something (games, editions, codices or army books) not designed with planned obsolescence and sales-inspired unbalance firmly in mind. Someone earlier in this thread used pay to win as a derogatory term describing AoS...everything produced by GW is pay to win. It has been so since GW decided their main objective was selling miniatures, and not selling wargames and miniatures.

Arrahed
18-12-2015, 09:45
A lot of GW games share this issue, though. When looking at post-90s GW products I'm hard pressed in finding something (games, editions, codices or army books) not designed with planned obsolescence and sales-inspired unbalance firmly in mind. Someone earlier in this thread used pay to win as a derogatory term describing AoS...everything produced by GW is pay to win. It has been so since GW decided their main objective was selling miniatures, and not selling wargames and miniatures.
That may be true to some degree for tournament players who need the best of everything.
I never played tournaments and I never used the power level of a unit as a motivation to buy something. I always built armies I liked and if there were better armies after a new release, who cares. At least it never felt like pay-to-win to me before AOS was released.

Wishing
18-12-2015, 09:54
Wait, I thought it was an AOS fan who claimed that AOS was superior for new players. The response was that there is basically no difference between AOS and WFB in that regard.

You're right that it would be very easy to just ignore the minimum army size and composition rules for WHFB, and just play WHFB with whatever models you have available, just like you would with AOS. In principle there isn't really any difference. Same models, similar rules, probably a similar experience.

The difference that I see is in how GW presented the games. Even though you could play WHFB with one hero and three wolf riders, by ignoring the army composition rules, GW didn't present this as the intended way to play WHFB. The intended way to play WHFB was with sizeable armies and force composition, percentages, and so on. That was what a new player was shown. This is a game of blocks of troops against other blocks of troops. That's the brand identity of WHFB.

AOS, as far as I can tell, is not presented like this. It is presented as a game of handfuls of models, whatever you have available, against other handfuls of models. Big blobs of models are there - units that get bonuses from having 30+ models and so on - but these are presented as options, not as requirements as they were in WHFB. A new player is shown a game where it doesn't matter whether you own 5 models or 100 models, you can play the game as intended either way. That's the brand identity of AOS.

So the barrier of entry - something mainly relevant to new players - is presented as being much lower in AOS than in WHFB, as far as I can tell.

Zywus
18-12-2015, 10:38
I don't know. I think it's debatable just how GW intend AoS to be played and how they have communicate that. Different people has came to different conclusions and GW has never clearly communicated their thoughts about the game with any kind of designer's notes or similar that I'm aware of.

Personally I found WHFB to be best played at the very most 2000p if you used a regular 6x4' board. Having smaller armies meant more space to actually maneuver and less points meant that you had to make some hard choices in the army selection. You generally couldn't afford both a big mage and a mighty fighter general but had to choose. It also somewhat strengthened the difference between different armies as only the cheaper and weaker troops could be fielded in big full-ranked units in greater numbers. It seems though that in many places the normal WHFB battle was creeping up towards 2500 points or even more (!).

While the escalation of game-sizes is at least partly the doing of the community itself, I'd say GW had a big influence on the escalation by generally only showcasing larger armies in the White dwarf battlereports in the later years (at least as far as I read it regularly) as well as focusing a lot of resources to creating big showcase models rather than more sensible rank 'n file. While AoS can of course be played with only one model, I'd say that recommended size of the force that GW de-facto communicates to it's audience is the size of the armies showcased in their battlereports and Warhammer World tournaments.

Arrahed
18-12-2015, 11:26
You're right that it would be very easy to just ignore the minimum army size and composition rules for WHFB, and just play WHFB with whatever models you have available, just like you would with AOS. In principle there isn't really any difference. Same models, similar rules, probably a similar experience.

The difference that I see is in how GW presented the games. Even though you could play WHFB with one hero and three wolf riders, by ignoring the army composition rules, GW didn't present this as the intended way to play WHFB. The intended way to play WHFB was with sizeable armies and force composition, percentages, and so on. That was what a new player was shown. This is a game of blocks of troops against other blocks of troops. That's the brand identity of WHFB.

AOS, as far as I can tell, is not presented like this. It is presented as a game of handfuls of models, whatever you have available, against other handfuls of models. Big blobs of models are there - units that get bonuses from having 30+ models and so on - but these are presented as options, not as requirements as they were in WHFB. A new player is shown a game where it doesn't matter whether you own 5 models or 100 models, you can play the game as intended either way. That's the brand identity of AOS.

So the barrier of entry - something mainly relevant to new players - is presented as being much lower in AOS than in WHFB, as far as I can tell.
So the awesome new lower barrier of entry is nothing but an advertisement thing.
.

Yowzo
18-12-2015, 11:42
I suppose that's why I'm less interested in 9th age. Too much like polishing a ****.

And yet it works :D

A shiny, shiny tvrd indeed.

They're working on warbands (500-1000pt) rules as an intro to the big game, though.

I ran for several years a 750pt intro league and the games were quick and fun, and it served perfectly right to get newcomers to slowly build their army.

Some minor tweaks, though. 2d3 winds of magic, reducing some min unit size and even allowing champions to be general/bsb.

We always played match-rematch, so that cut most of the unbalances.

2DSick
18-12-2015, 11:49
And yet it works :D

A shiny, shiny tvrd indeed.

They're working on warbands (500-1000pt) rules as an intro to the big game, though.

I ran for several years a 750pt intro league and the games were quick and fun, and it served perfectly right to get newcomers to slowly build their army.

Some minor tweaks, though. 2d3 winds of magic, reducing some min unit size and even allowing champions to be general/bsb.

We always played match-rematch, so that cut most of the unbalances.

Haha, I guess I'll go as far to say that it has been successfully rolled in glitter :-D

There's a local event planned for Jan. No warscrolls over 20 wounds and sudden death rules enforced. I'm a very sad goblin.

Yowzo
18-12-2015, 12:47
Haha, I guess I'll go as far to say that it has been successfully rolled in glitter :-D


If you're talking about AoS then it's basecoated with retributor armour :D

theunwantedbeing
18-12-2015, 13:06
So the awesome new lower barrier of entry is nothing but an advertisement thing.

...but there is a lower barrier of entry for AoS than there was for 8th edition.

You didn't need to buy
-the core rules
-the army rules
-specific miniatures to make the army you wanted to field legal
-a minimum of 2000points (as that's the lowest level most groups were willing to drop to for newer players)

The barrier for entry for AoS really is very low.
You need
-the core rules, which are free
-your army rules, also free
-some miniatures, which are not free but are no more expensive than they are/would be in 8th edition and you're not forced to buy specific things

So it's not an advertising gimmick, it's actually true.

Allen
18-12-2015, 13:39
...So it's not an advertising gimmick, it's actually true.

Kind of. While AoS can be less expensive than WHFB because fewer miniatures are needed to play it, current GW prices for AoS are still way too high for a skirmish game whose aim is to recruit new players for the customer base. If you're a little trigger happy with the "add to cart" button on GW store you'll end with an AoS force that cost less than a WHFB one, but way too much to be interesting for someone approaching GW for the first time.

akai
18-12-2015, 14:52
Why would you let some arbitrary rules stop you from playing? If I would meet a new WFB player with only a unit of Wolf Riders and he would ask me if I would like to play against him, I would take a similar unit and play against him. Who cares that its not a legal army? You won't play a tournament with one model in AOS either. So the starting size is practically identical for both games.


Exactly. No one NEEDS to field a legal 8th Edition Fantasy army to play or have fun, just like no one NEEDS to use Sudden Death RAW in AOS unless they want to. Both rulesets are a framework for gamers to have fun nothing more.

I personally consider 8th to be a much better framework than AOS but there you go.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I would not stop those from playing or me from playing someone that is starting to play the game from using something that is not legal as written in the rules. I agree, you should ignore the rules and houserule as much as you want so that both you and your opponent can have fun with a game. Houserule as much as you want and, sure, I agree AoS and WFB are exactly the same. If someone is to follow the guidelines/rules to play the game as written, you absolutely can start playing AoS with a smaller starting size than 8E.

About sudden death in AoS, there are many official battleplans, rules as written, where the Sudden Death rule from the default battleplan is not needed/told to be ignored.


Am I the only one reading back and thinking...

But a shaman and two wolfrider units IS a legal army...

I think you would be in the minority! 1 Hero/Lord plus 3 non-character units. You are missing one additional non-character unit.

ewar
18-12-2015, 15:05
Someone earlier in this thread used pay to win as a derogatory term describing AoS...everything produced by GW is pay to win. It has been so since GW decided their main objective was selling miniatures, and not selling wargames and miniatures.

Factually incorrect - new models are as likely to be woefully under powered as over powered. Unless you were somehow getting destroyed by slaughter brutes and their ilk. Welcome to the GW new model power fallacy.

Casper Hawser
18-12-2015, 15:21
I've played a couple of games with my 40k daemons but like fantasy I just don't get excited playing it.
The reality in my area is everyone plays Mantics Kings of War with their Warhammer fantasy armies and nobody plays AOS or Warhammer anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Asmodios
18-12-2015, 15:22
Someone has been talking about being 'inconsistent' above, it strikes me that there has been a lot of claims from the anti-AoS camp that using homemade points values is terribly wrong and makes the game 'not AoS', but apparently ignoring the army-building rules for wfb is completely acceptable. Of course you can house-rule the game in any way you wish to make it more playable, just like plenty of people do with AoS, but if you're going to insist on discussing AoS in a pure RAW format you can do me the courtesy of treating wfb in the same way.

For the record I'm a massive fan of 8th edition wfb, I think it is the best edition of the game, and I'm also a massive fan of AoS too, but this rose-tinted view of wfb needs to stop, it was not by any means a flawless game, the percentages were a pain and balance between armies was awful. AoS has its own set of (very different) problems, it is better than wfb in some ways and worse in others.
Sorry this is a page back. But WHFB provided a strict rule set that allowed you to play a pick up game with anyone really easily. But when playing house rules you can choose to ignore whatever rules you want. AOS RAW is so poor that it has to be discussed at length before play. There is no uniform game I could expect of I went to 10 different clubs looking for a pick up game. Maybe you need to take off the "rose tinted glasses" for AOS. House rules are not an issue with any game, but when AOS essentially forces you to house rule stuff off the bat, it is taking away the chance for pick up games. I'm lucky that I have a good group of friends who play, but nobody wanted to play AOS because if everyone was busy who would want to play a stranger with those rules.

Krenz
18-12-2015, 16:18
When the ruleset is solid from the start you are free to play it as is or customize it. When the ruleset is loose you don't have the same options. You have to customize it. Your choices in that respect are diminished.

I rewrite 40k often and play battles inspired by the background. Or I can play 40k standard, though I enjoy that less.

I stopped using my fantasy armies after a few test runs of AoS because there was no option to play a competitive game. I started playing GW games in the nineties and have never attended a tournament.

Asmodios
18-12-2015, 16:25
When the ruleset is solid from the start you are free to play it as is or customize it. When the ruleset is loose you don't have the same options. You have to customize it. Your choices in that respect are diminished.

I rewrite 40k often and play battles inspired by the background. Or I can play 40k standard, though I enjoy that less.

I stopped using my fantasy armies after a few test runs of AoS because there was no option to play a competitive game. I started playing GW games in the nineties and have never attended a tournament.
Exactly.... having a tight ruleset never hurts because you can always edit it with friends or a specific gaming group / tournament. A game with no real structure forces you to rewrite the rules every time you play.

akai
18-12-2015, 16:35
Exactly.... having a tight ruleset never hurts because you can always edit it with friends or a specific gaming group / tournament. A game with no real structure forces you to rewrite the rules every time you play.

If you are playing with friends or a specific gaming group, why would you need to rewrite the rules every time you want to play AoS? Once you rewritten/adapt the rules it does not just disappear that you have to rewrite every time you play. Unless, of course, you just throw away what you wrote or have memory issue. But then, you would have the same issue when you edit Fantasy Battle. Now if you decide you want to play AoS or Fantasy Battle every time with a different structure, sure, you will have to rewrite every time for both games.

Arrahed
18-12-2015, 16:42
...but there is a lower barrier of entry for AoS than there was for 8th edition.

You didn't need to buy
-the core rules
-the army rules
-specific miniatures to make the army you wanted to field legal
-a minimum of 2000points (as that's the lowest level most groups were willing to drop to for newer players)

The barrier for entry for AoS really is very low.
You need
-the core rules, which are free
-your army rules, also free
-some miniatures, which are not free but are no more expensive than they are/would be in 8th edition and you're not forced to buy specific things

So it's not an advertising gimmick, it's actually true.

Okay, the rules are a little less free for WFB.

On the other hand, I would not expect a new player to buy a rule book. There are usually veterans who already have it. The same goes for army books: you just buy a unit you like and you can play with someone.
In the case where both players are new these points are more or less irrelevant anyway. In that case the only realistic starting point would be the starter kits which are similarly priced for both games.

Spiney Norman
18-12-2015, 16:44
So the barrier of entry - something mainly relevant to new players - is presented as being much lower in AOS than in WHFB, as far as I can tell.

That's mainly down to initial layout costs for starting the game, players of wfb had to buy the core rule book for 45, or as part of a 75 starter set (which was a pretty bad deal unless you wanted to play high elves or skaven) and then an army book for 30. That's a 75 startup cost minimum before you even think about buying a model.

Niall78
18-12-2015, 17:06
That's mainly down to initial layout costs for starting the game, players of wfb had to buy the core rule book for 45, or as part of a 75 starter set (which was a pretty bad deal unless you wanted to play high elves or skaven) and then an army book for 30. That's a 75 startup cost minimum before you even think about buying a model.

I've introduced and been introduced to many gaming systems over the years. In none of these cases were buy-in costs ever mentioned. That comes much later in my opinion.

I'm pushing Black Powders Anglo-Zulu war at the moment. I bought the rules and a force for both sides - then started introducing guys at my club to it. Three are now collecting armies - made easy because of reasonable prices. I certainly didn't rock up to the club with one force and tell everyone the buy-in cost and hope others would be interested. I'd be left with a set of rule books, one army and no players if I did.

Ayin
18-12-2015, 17:25
That's mainly down to initial layout costs for starting the game, players of wfb had to buy the core rule book for 45, or as part of a 75 starter set (which was a pretty bad deal unless you wanted to play high elves or skaven) and then an army book for 30. That's a 75 startup cost minimum before you even think about buying a model.

Alternatively, that army book cost is what one needs to pay if they'd like to own the information that explains the history of the faction they like and gives comprehensive information on their land, people, and detailed background on each of the unit types.

So, I want to play (pick three armies) for AoS. Which books can I find this information in and how much do they cost?

Kahadras
18-12-2015, 18:07
That's mainly down to initial layout costs for starting the game

The intial buy in for both games really boils down to the starter sets IMHO. With Warhammer it was the starter set and an army book. With AoS it's the starter set and a scenario book. The instant we move away from that the cost of both games ramps up. Even if I was to decide to take, say, an Undead army for AoS rather than a Sigmarine or Khorne dude one I'd still be faced with GW's prices. The start box set for AoS has a couple of heroes on each side and three to four units of troops. Nagash's Black Host then, seems like a good starting point for an AoS Undead army and is 127.

Asmodios
18-12-2015, 19:40
If you are playing with friends or a specific gaming group, why would you need to rewrite the rules every time you want to play AoS? Once you rewritten/adapt the rules it does not just disappear that you have to rewrite every time you play. Unless, of course, you just throw away what you wrote or have memory issue. But then, you would have the same issue when you edit Fantasy Battle. Now if you decide you want to play AoS or Fantasy Battle every time with a different structure, sure, you will have to rewrite every time for both games.
The issue isn't with friends as i stated. The issue with AOS is trying to adjust the game every time you want to game outside a close knit group. WHFB had a system that was supported around the world. AOS has a system that changes based on what each individual player wants out of the game. Any game can be played any way inside a closed group, but what AOS lacks is uniformity that allows it to become a popular game around the world. You have to rewrite the rules for AOS every time you go to a different store, play a different opponent, go to a different tournament, ect. WHFB had a worldwide excepted rules set that could then be modified if you were in a small group looking for something different. This is why so many people left Warhammer with the release of AOS.

theunwantedbeing
18-12-2015, 20:04
The issue isn't with friends as i stated. The issue with AOS is trying to adjust the game every time you want to game outside a close knit group. WHFB had a system that was supported around the world. AOS has a system that changes based on what each individual player wants out of the game. Any game can be played any way inside a closed group, but what AOS lacks is uniformity that allows it to become a popular game around the world. You have to rewrite the rules for AOS every time you go to a different store, play a different opponent, go to a different tournament, ect. WHFB had a worldwide excepted rules set that could then be modified if you were in a small group looking for something different. This is why so many people left Warhammer with the release of AOS.

Yes, people left AoS because it was hard to play outside of their groups.
That was the number 1 reason.

It wasn't the rules being almost non-existant.
It wasn't the rules being wildly different to the ones we were used to and liked.
It wasn't the destruction of the world they loved already.
It wasn't that the game they liked was discontinued.
It wasn't the inherent imbalance in a system where you can take anything.
It wasn't the prices continually rising.

It was because for Age of Sigmar, you have to talk to your opponent about how you want to play.

2DSick
18-12-2015, 20:14
Age of Sarcasm is strong.

Powerful retort!

Buddy Bear
18-12-2015, 20:15
No, it's because the rules are flat out terrible, and who wants to add a "Fix the Rules Phase" to the games they play? That'd be like expecting people to buy a broken X-Box knowing that every time they want to play it they need to disassemble it and rejigger the wires before they can use it.

HelloKitty
18-12-2015, 20:32
I know what you mean. I get that exact same feeling whenever I have kings of war pitched to me. (the part about the terrible rules)

Buddy Bear
18-12-2015, 21:04
I know what you mean. I get that exact same feeling whenever I have kings of war pitched to me. (the part about the terrible rules)

Difference is that very few people playing Kings of War feel the need to have to fix the game before they play it. And I'm certain that the number of people who think Age of Sigmar has terrible rules exceeds the number of people who think Kings of War has terrible rules by a massive, massive margin, while the number of people who think Age of Sigmar has great rules is miniscule in comparison to the number of people who think Kings of War has great rules.

There'll always be people who think something is terrible, but people thinking your game is terrible only becomes problematic when the number of players who think so represents a sizable number of your potential customer base.

HelloKitty
18-12-2015, 21:07
oh my. I guess I should conform to what everyone else thinks is good then. PC gaming it is.

Folomo
18-12-2015, 21:10
I read that currently there are 3 times more people playing on their smartphones than on PCs.

Buddy Bear
18-12-2015, 21:13
Age of Sarcasm is strong.

Powerful retort!

LOL! I thought he was serious at first. It's pretty bad when you look at someone making a sarcastic remark and someone making a serious argument defending AOS and can't easily tell them apart. :P

Asmodios
18-12-2015, 21:28
No, it's because the rules are flat out terrible, and who wants to add a "Fix the Rules Phase" to the games they play? That'd be like expecting people to buy a broken X-Box knowing that every time they want to play it they need to disassemble it and rejigger the wires before they can use it.
Thank you for putting it so well. The game has to be fixed as a premise. This ties into bad rules and thus a million different ways to play the game. People don't want to negotiate a game when they could just be playing another

Wishing
18-12-2015, 21:39
And I'm certain that the number of people who think Age of Sigmar has terrible rules exceeds the number of people who think Kings of War has terrible rules by a massive, massive margin, while the number of people who think Age of Sigmar has great rules is miniscule in comparison to the number of people who think Kings of War has great rules.

This statement seems to just be a wordy version of "I feel that lots of people love Kings of War's rules and that lots of people hate Age of Sigmar's rules".

It's hard to agree or disagree with this on anything but an anecdotal basis. "Everyone hates AoS!" "No they don't!" etc.

To me it's more interesting to talk about the qualities of products rather than trying to gauge how popular they are in any case.

Asmodios
18-12-2015, 21:50
This statement seems to just be a wordy version of "I feel that lots of people love Kings of War's rules and that lots of people hate Age of Sigmar's rules".

It's hard to agree or disagree with this on anything but an anecdotal basis. "Everyone hates AoS!" "No they don't!" etc.

To me it's more interesting to talk about the qualities of products rather than trying to gauge how popular they are in any case.
I think all the major tournaments switching to KOW provides evidence that more people think KOW rules are better then AOS rules.

Buddy Bear
18-12-2015, 22:06
This statement seems to just be a wordy version of "I feel that lots of people love Kings of War's rules and that lots of people hate Age of Sigmar's rules".

It's hard to agree or disagree with this on anything but an anecdotal basis. "Everyone hates AoS!" "No they don't!" etc.

We have a ton of anecdotal stories to back it up, though, as well as copious amounts of comp systems released for AOS right from the day it first came out attesting to people not enjoying the way it plays as standard. Has there ever been any other game which has produced one comp system after another starting from the very first day it was released? I'm not aware of them. Tournaments comp games and people, in due time, occasionally tweak games on occasion for whatever reason, but that's nothing in comparison to the sheer breadth of people who've been house ruling Age of Sigmar from the day it hit and the large variety of different ways it's being played worldwide. The tendency seems to be that there is no standard way to play AOS, because the standard rules set is just not very popular or held in any regard.

On the other hand, my experience and the experience of many other people is that most people have no problems playing Malifaux, Infinity, Kings of War, Warhammer Fantasy, Warmachine, X-Wing, and other games straight out of the box, without feeling that it's necessary to house rule or comp it first. There's a big difference between feeling a game is workable as-is while exercising an option to house rule it on occasion, and feeling a game is unworkable without first house ruling it.


To me it's more interesting to talk about the qualities of products rather than trying to gauge how popular they are in any case.

My suggestion, then, would be not to discuss a topic that doesn't interest you. The popularity of a product, however, is a worthwhile discussion topic, especially when the thread is about myths and realities about AOS, so the reality of how it's performing is a discussion worth having.

Dosiere
18-12-2015, 22:06
I don't think it really matters. It's certainly possible to like both. Or neither.

Edit- hmmm now that I think about it there is some value in a games popularity.

Wishing
18-12-2015, 22:23
My suggestion, then, would be not to discuss a topic that doesn't interest you. The popularity of a product, however, is a worthwhile discussion topic, especially when the thread is about myths and realities about AOS, so the reality of how it's performing is a discussion worth having.

I dunno, this thread seemed to be to be more about "what is AoS about?" and not so much "how popular is AoS?" There seems to be lots of other threads about the latter.

But you're right, people can talk about anything they want and have any discussions they find interesting.

I think many people find it interesting, or at least satisfying, to simply shout it as loudly as possible that they think AoS sucks and to make arguments that anyone who somehow doesn't think it sucks must have brain damage. It's one of those things that I wonder how long will last. If we fast forward two years, will this warhammer forum still be full of "these are some of the reasons that AoS sucks" threads? Or will we get tired of it eventually?

I suppose the answer I'll get is that most people think that AoS will be long dead and buried in two years. :) We shall see.

Dosiere
18-12-2015, 22:33
oh my. I guess I should conform to what everyone else thinks is good then. PC gaming it is.

I don't think it's really like that, but there is value in having a large gaming community around you. It's easier to get games in, you have more people to talk to about it, more stock on the shelves, much easier to have organized play, etc... It's also much easier to find that niche within the niche that is more like you.

Kind of like RPGs, there are many different types of gamers looking for different things from an Rpg. If there are ten groups playing, you've got a better chance of finding one where you fit in that if there were only one or two.

I like xwing and armada for example, but xwing gets about 10x the play armada does. It just has a larger more passionate community here. It's great to show up on Star Wars game night and see the place packed and so many great games going on, it helps me get and stay excited as well. It's mostly x wing though, and if I want to get a game of armada in I usually have to organize it in advance on our forums. Occasionally I can't even set one up in time.

wFB and 40K used to be that way as well. They each had a dedicated night and it was packed. 8th edition stayed pretty strong for about 2 years, but it started waning after that, although we always right up until the end had strong showings for organized play. We had campaigns and tournaments, and the tournaments I went to were always fun. Not because I won (I never did :cries:) but because it was just so much good gaming, beautiful miniatures, and great opponents. I always wanted to get in on the campaigns but they're so involved over an extended period of time I just never could.

It's all about the community. If the game is your thing, as opposed to being more a collector type, it helps tremendously to have that large community around you.

HelloKitty
18-12-2015, 23:10
I dont disagree with you, i stated basically that a few pages ago.

My fantasy community largely rolled to kings of war for the simple reason all of the tournaments did and thats what drives my community (playing what the majority plays)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

akai
18-12-2015, 23:29
The issue isn't with friends as i stated. The issue with AOS is trying to adjust the game every time you want to game outside a close knit group. WHFB had a system that was supported around the world. AOS has a system that changes based on what each individual player wants out of the game. Any game can be played any way inside a closed group, but what AOS lacks is uniformity that allows it to become a popular game around the world. You have to rewrite the rules for AOS every time you go to a different store, play a different opponent, go to a different tournament, ect. WHFB had a worldwide excepted rules set that could then be modified if you were in a small group looking for something different. This is why so many people left Warhammer with the release of AOS.

I agree AoS is more difficult to play pick-up games with complete strangers which you have stated earlier but not in your post that I quoted (you went from talking about playing one game type with a group of friends/gaming group; then jumped topics about another game type for pick-up games...apples and oranges). So to bring it back to the topic is there a myth going around that people think AoS actually works well in a pick up games with strangers?

theunwantedbeing
18-12-2015, 23:42
So to bring it back to the topic is there a myth going around that people think AoS actually works well in a pick up games with strangers?

I'm just wondering how many house rules people are using that makes it take so long to explain.

akai
19-12-2015, 00:22
I'm just wondering how many house rules people are using that makes it take so long to explain.

There is a myth on Warseer for a long time that the comps / houserules are greater in number of pages compared to the official rules that it completely changes the game. So I imagine those that actually believe that would think it would take a very long time to get a game up and running. I played mostly with a group of friends at our homes so I don't know how long it takes for those that played exclusively pick up games or hopping around different stores to play games to negotiate :). How long does it take you?

Asmodios
19-12-2015, 00:37
I agree AoS is more difficult to play pick-up games with complete strangers which you have stated earlier but not in your post that I quoted (you went from talking about playing one game type with a group of friends/gaming group; then jumped topics about another game type for pick-up games...apples and oranges). So to bring it back to the topic is there a myth going around that people think AoS actually works well in a pick up games with strangers?
Both of these are tied in together though. Even if you have a dedicated group of friends to play with, your still going to want to be able to play outside that group. I play 90% of my games against the same 8 people but there are often times I'm out of town or they are simply to busy and one of us will go to a store or local tournament for our fix. This isn't really possible with AOS (at least not in my area or most posters areas). A thread was closed a couple days ago because people were arguing that AOS is more balanced then WHFB so this would imply that you could go anywhere and play this balanced game. I could go from Texas all the way to Canada and play WHFB with no change to rules and a relative balanced game.

The simple way to explain what I'm talking about is that most people don't only want to play with a group of friends or only play with strangers. Players want to be able to play both in and out of their respective groups. Most systems work perfectly with friends (house rule what you want) and with strangers (tight rules that are excepted everywhere). Why would i play a game like AOS when it makes playing a pick up game a chore?

AngryAngel
19-12-2015, 01:54
I think all the major tournaments switching to KOW provides evidence that more people think KOW rules are better then AOS rules.

I would say KoW has better, cleaner rules for tournament play. You just need to look at who does the rules for them, as he did rules for GW for a time. When he did it was a golden age for 40k tournaments around here. Haven't seen this latest KoW edition of rules, back when fantasy was still around with KoW I stuck with fantasy as I liked the rule nuances more. Just as disclosure that I'm not a KoW fan boy.

Spiney Norman
19-12-2015, 03:36
I know what you mean. I get that exact same feeling whenever I have kings of war pitched to me. (the part about the terrible rules)

I wouldn't say KoW rules are terrible, they just don't excite me at all, it's another fairly bland generic fantasy game in a market that is pretty full of them. Nobody round here plays the game and I'm just not interested enough to be the guy that makes it happen. Besides I see little point in supporting (or encouraging others to support) a company that puts such little effort into their miniature production, Mantic need to massively up their game in the model dept to make me even want to look at their products.

Besides there is a lot of 8th edition wfb being played locally still, which is a far better game than KoW in my opinion. KoW has been the game that people have retreated to because wfb is not an option for them or for some reason they think that lack of official support for wfb somehow makes the game unplayable. I have no such problem about playing a discontinued game so why would I retreat to the fall-back position?

Wishing
19-12-2015, 08:57
Besides there is a lot of 8th edition wfb being played locally still, which is a far better game than KoW in my opinion. KoW has been the game that people have retreated to because wfb is not an option for them or for some reason they think that lack of official support for wfb somehow makes the game unplayable. I have no such problem about playing a discontinued game so why would I retreat to the fall-back position?

I agree with this question - I don't get why WHFB tournaments have felt the need to switch to a different system, when nothing at all prevents them from playing next year with the exact same rules as last year. But I guess there is a culture in the GW wargaming world where there is at least an idea that nobody wants to play a dead game, there has to be at least the potential for new releases for a system, otherwise the playerbase withers away...

Krenz
19-12-2015, 10:47
I think one reason so many organized events stopped using 8th was that the core fanbase was demoralised by this whole aos debacle.

I know a bunch of people so sick of the whole thing that they don't even want to chat about warhammer.

It is going to sink in eventually for gw just how large an effect their decision to axe warhammer is going to have.

They weren't loved before. Going by just impulse buys and random kid purchases, collectors if you will is not going to sustain the status quo.

Arrahed
19-12-2015, 11:24
I'm just wondering how many house rules people are using that makes it take so long to explain.
Consider this: since AOS is awesome for narrative gaming you built yourself a nice thematic skaven army with a detailed background and take it to your local gaming store for a game.
Once you get there you are told: 'Sorry, we are using a different set of house rules today. You cannot field your army like that. But don't worry, just replace your regiment of clan rats with Archaon and Nagash and we can play.'

If you like that, good for you. I won't play a game like that and that has nothing to do with some anti-social aversion towards communication.

Zywus
19-12-2015, 11:27
I agree with this question - I don't get why WHFB tournaments have felt the need to switch to a different system, when nothing at all prevents them from playing next year with the exact same rules as last year.


I think one reason so many organized events stopped using 8th was that the core fanbase was demoralised by this whole aos debacle.

I know a bunch of people so sick of the whole thing that they don't even want to chat about warhammer..
I believe there was also the case that much of WHFB's fanbase was getting increasingly dissatisfied with 8th edition already before the end times releases. People still kept playing since the infrastructure was established, the tournaments was up and running, the community was organised etc. And the balance issues could be fixed with extensive comps or people voluntarily not creating the most effective armies they could.

AoS being released served as a clean break. You could either keep plugging away with 8th ed, parching it, comping it and make more and more additions and rebalancing GW's increasingly sloppy creation. Or you could cast it away wholesale and try something new. Something that many had kinda wanted to do for a long time but never had the inertia for so long as the 8th infrastructure was still up and running.

2DSick
19-12-2015, 11:28
I know what you mean. I get that exact same feeling whenever I have kings of war pitched to me. (the part about the terrible rules)

Nice trolling skills. More practice needed though.


I think all the major tournaments switching to KOW provides evidence that more people think KOW rules are better then AOS rules.

Good point well made.



Besides there is a lot of 8th edition wfb being played locally still, which is a far better game than KoW in my opinion. KoW has been the game that people have retreated to because wfb is not an option for them or for some reason they think that lack of official support for wfb somehow makes the game unplayable. I have no such problem about playing a discontinued game so why would I retreat to the fall-back position?

While your opinion is valid, I wouldn't try to project it on how you think other people, who clearly aren't in your environment, feel about it as a game.

My opinion, and one shared by a majority is that the KoW core game, internal and external balance is well above that of 8th edition. It's far more suitable for gamers who seek a challenging experience.

Please feel free to list aaaaaaall these generic r&f fantasy tabletop games over and above, 9th age, warthrone, KoW and....? Such a saturated market.

Age of imbalance. truth. They need to add one more page of rules for a GM or get rid of the win/lose conditions. Might be better to have a conversation with your opponent afterwards to decide who won.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Warhammer%20age%20of%20sigmar%2C%20Kings %20of%20war&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT

Just saying.

Spiney Norman
19-12-2015, 11:38
Nice trolling skills. More practice needed though.

So saying that you don't like AoS is expressing a valid opinion but saying you don't like KoW is trolling, I see what you did there...


My opinion, and one shared by a majority is that the KoW core game, internal and external balance is well above that of 8th edition. It's far more suitable for gamers who seek a challenging experience.

That's great, of course there has to be a section of the market for which KoW is suitable, otherwise they wouldn't sell anything, I'm not in that section otherwise I'm sure I'd be into what they're selling.

I'm interested though, if KoW is such a wonderful game, why was it virtually unheard of before GW announced they were no longer supporting wfb? It seems to me it's surge in popularity is mostly down to people who are hacked off with GW and don't want to support them as a company and people who want a ranked fantasy game but are bothered that wfb is no longer 'live'. If KoW is so wonderful why didn't more people (and tournement circuits) play it before wfb was cancelled?

2DSick
19-12-2015, 11:48
Just chiming in with a reactionary statement is noob level trolling. Especially from someone with a Sig like that...

Same reason almost every other superior fantasy system has fallen flat in the past.

Market saturation.

It's no mystery.

Zywus
19-12-2015, 11:58
I'm interested though, if KoW is such a wonderful game, why was it virtually unheard of before GW announced they were no longer supporting wfb? It seems to me it's surge in popularity is mostly down to people who are hacked off with GW and don't want to support them as a company and people who want a ranked fantasy game but are bothered that wfb is no longer 'live'. If KoW is so wonderful why didn't more people (and tournement circuits) play it before wfb was cancelled?
Partly, some people just don't like the mechanics.

A huge part though is Inertia. Among WHFB players there were always a percentage that would have prefered the KoW mechanics before WHFB. However, they already played WHFB and as long as they enjoyed it; it wasn't enough to just producing a slightly (or even substantially) better game to draw people out of a game that they're used to play, have configured their armies towards, are familiar with and invested in the lore accompanying the game and so on.


It's the same problem that GW will struggle with if they ever produce a 9th edition of sorts going back to their roots some years down the line. Even if a large part of KoW players would actually find that game system better (would they choose in a vacuum) it will be hard to create the inertia needed to draw them out of the game that they are now invested in.

Also, while I haven't played it, only read through the rules I don't think 1st edition KoW was that much better than 8th ed WHFB. Both had one of my biggest pet-peeves "true-line-of sight:mad:" and the balance was quite lacking in KoW 1st ed as well as 8th ed WHFB (although Mantic of course attempted to fix issues with comps and erratas unlike a certain other "Games" company).

2nd Edition KoW is IMO vastly better than 8th edition WHFB, yet I think it would only have slowly taken gamers from warhammer if WHFB had kept going despite dissatisfaction with the apparent return to herohammer and monsterhammer in the endtimes books.

Dosiere
19-12-2015, 12:07
There is a myth on Warseer for a long time that the comps / houserules are greater in number of pages compared to the official rules that it completely changes the game. So I imagine those that actually believe that would think it would take a very long time to get a game up and running. I played mostly with a group of friends at our homes so I don't know how long it takes for those that played exclusively pick up games or hopping around different stores to play games to negotiate :). How long does it take you?

Apparently both sides have no idea how it actually works, since you've never really tried.

What happens is this:

I show up to the club with xxx in my collection, really hoping to play with an army composed of a particular set of models, like a battalion set. This assumes a few things though, like maybe using the Azyr comp system, or that I really don't like Summoning. Random dude A is down for a game but has such a drastically different desired game that one of us ends up playing something we don't really like. One of us wants summoning to stay the same, the other wants shooting to stay the same, one has an army of state troops and really only wants to play if we ignore sudden death rules, the other loves the sudden death rules and its one of the reasons he likes the game, etc....

It's a ******* mess. Of course you can have this negotiation phase and work it out, we did it for weeks. But it's all rather unsatisfactory in the long run because much of it is dependent on what people brought in the first place, and everyone kind of has their own little pet rules they want to use as well. I generally was perfectly fine with shooting staying RAW but I detested the way summoning works, as an example. In the end we did kind of settled on using Azyr comp as the baseline but there was always a little push and pull about the shooting and summoning.

The only time I think it really works is when you have two veterans, with large collections, willing and able to simple counter deploy on a per unit basis without all the negotiating beforehand. Some of my best games of AoS were done in exactly this way, RAW with the single exception of model to model measuring (which is simply a stupid rule no matter how you spin it). That has it's own set of problems of course, the two foremost being that it requires a large collection (impossible for someone even remotely new), and requires you to bring said collection to the store.

Look, I know you guys think AoS is like the second coming of wargaming and all, and I have said before it actually can be a good game under certain conditions. It is not natively good at pick up games though, at all, certainly not in a club setting. It's the primary reason it was dropped like a bad habit around here.

Dosiere
19-12-2015, 13:37
So saying that you don't like AoS is expressing a valid opinion but saying you don't like KoW is trolling, I see what you did there...



That's great, of course there has to be a section of the market for which KoW is suitable, otherwise they wouldn't sell anything, I'm not in that section otherwise I'm sure I'd be into what they're selling.

I'm interested though, if KoW is such a wonderful game, why was it virtually unheard of before GW announced they were no longer supporting wfb? It seems to me it's surge in popularity is mostly down to people who are hacked off with GW and don't want to support them as a company and people who want a ranked fantasy game but are bothered that wfb is no longer 'live'. If KoW is so wonderful why didn't more people (and tournement circuits) play it before wfb was cancelled?

Answer is very simple for me - I was already playing WFB at the time. I simply wasn't in the market to try another game. Same reason I don't really care about Gate of Antares right now, I'm still playing 40K and I don't have time or money for an entirely new system. It seems like a good game, certainly there is a small group at my club that seem to be really passionate about it. But I just don't care, since at this time I just don't care to invest in a new system.

I suspect the answer is broadly similar for most who have picked it up since WFB was discontinued.

Buddy Bear
19-12-2015, 14:08
Answer is very simple for me - I was already playing WFB at the time. I simply wasn't in the market to try another game. Same reason I don't really care about Gate of Antares right now, I'm still playing 40K and I don't have time or money for an entirely new system. It seems like a good game, certainly there is a small group at my club that seem to be really passionate about it. But I just don't care, since at this time I just don't care to invest in a new system.

I suspect the answer is broadly similar for most who have picked it up since WFB was discontinued.

Pretty much. Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are both very expensive games. I was well aware that there were other, probably better games out there, but I was happy with both and invested in both, so I had no need to seriously consider other games (although I'd never even heard of Kings of War until Age of Sigmar hit, and Beyond the Gates of Antares is another recent discovery). GW decided to push me out of the game, however, so I find myself with a suddenly freed up budget, so now I'm able to explore all these other games I felt no need to explore and couldn't afford even if I wanted to. And since I expect 40k to suffer the same fate as fantasy sooner rather than later, I've already invested in Warpath and I'm taking a long, hard look at Beyond the Gates of Antares.

Niall78
19-12-2015, 14:58
Pretty much. Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 are both very expensive games. I was well aware that there were other, probably better games out there, but I was happy with both and invested in both, so I had no need to seriously consider other games (although I'd never even heard of Kings of War until Age of Sigmar hit, and Beyond the Gates of Antares is another recent discovery). GW decided to push me out of the game, however, so I find myself with a suddenly freed up budget, so now I'm able to explore all these other games I felt no need to explore and couldn't afford even if I wanted to. And since I expect 40k to suffer the same fate as fantasy sooner rather than later, I've already invested in Warpath and I'm taking a long, hard look at Beyond the Gates of Antares.

One thing I'd advise any war-gamer to do is invest in many different rule-sets and don't be afraid to proxy miniatures between systems. Why bother adding another couple of hundred points to a ten thousand point 40K army when you could buy Beyond the Gates of Antares instead? Buy at least the starter boxes or core rules for many systems. You might just find another game or setting you love. At the very least you'll see how other games are designed and the mechanics that make them interesting - this can then be used to make your core games better if you are into comping.

I played 40K first and second edition. I have nearly a chapter of Blood Angels in the attic - nearly every metal marine mini released to the end of 2nd edition, two dozen or so official and non-official kit bashed tanks and APCs. My brother has a sick amount of Chaos from the same time period. If I'd continued to collect I'd need a new house to store miniatures I'd never use even playing the massive ten thousand points battles we used to fight. Instead I have a diverse collection of games that span twenty-five years of the table-top, board and RPG industry - some of which are firm favourites to this day. I'm even very careful with my go-to game which is Battletech. I only buy what I need miniature wise - which is very little - to actually play the game instead of making the mistake of owning hundreds of miniatures I don't need for the sake of collecting. The money is much better spent investigating other things within my hobby.

You'll still have your 40K armies and I'm not saying stop playing that game. But what do you have to lose by checking out all the other cool games out at the moment? Once you hit a certain point with any game system you stop buying for the war-gaming experience these new miniatures bring and are buying for the sake of collecting instead.

I'm probably preaching to the converted at this stage as I feel AoS has opened up a whole new vista for you on the fantasy side of war-gaming. If one good thing comes out of the AoS debacle it'll be that many gamers are now much more open about trying different products rather than being fanatical about only one or two gaming systems from the same company.

akai
19-12-2015, 15:08
Apparently both sides have no idea how it actually works, since you've never really tried.

I have played pick me up games at gaming stores only several times (no setting up time/date or asking on FLGS), but not enough that I would think the time it took to get started for pick up games is actually the average time it would normally take others to play. Which is why I openly mentioned and asked a question. I admit I was ignorant and that is the reason I asked a question to be less ignorant on the discussion of pick up games. I would think that is better for discussions than some people just stating their "fact/opinion" in ignorance?

But since you went in such great detail explaining your experience with pick-up games which I have already agreed AoS is not as easy of other games for pick up games, you still have not answered my question that you quoted. How long does it take someone to "negotiate" and get a pick up game to be played on average for AoS?


Look, I know you guys think AoS is like the second coming of wargaming and all, and I have said before it actually can be a good game under certain conditions. It is not natively good at pick up games though, at all, certainly not in a club setting. It's the primary reason it was dropped like a bad habit around here.

If you think people who enjoyed AoS and have stated the negatives of AoS thinks that AoS is the second coming of wargaming and all...you have a highly "selective hearing" / reading issue.

Dosiere
19-12-2015, 16:08
I have played pick me up games at gaming stores only several times (no setting up time/date or asking on FLGS), but not enough that I would think the time it took to get started for pick up games is actually the average time it would normally take others to play. Which is why I openly mentioned and asked a question. I admit I was ignorant and that is the reason I asked a question to be less ignorant on the discussion of pick up games. I would think that is better for discussions than some people just stating their "fact/opinion" in ignorance?

But since you went in such great detail explaining your experience with pick-up games which I have already agreed AoS is not as easy of other games for pick up games, you still have not answered my question that you quoted. How long does it take someone to "negotiate" and get a pick up game to be played on average for AoS?



If you think people who enjoyed AoS and have stated the negatives of AoS thinks that AoS is the second coming of wargaming and all...you have a highly "selective hearing" / reading issue.

First of all I apologize, I meant to quote the unwanted being and wasn't paying enough attention. None of that was (meant to be) directed at you. My bad. However,

As far as time specifically there really is no answer I think, since it depends totally on the two people. Could take 30 seconds if you are both already basically on the same page, or 30 minutes if you are nowhere near. If it takes more than about 5 or 10 something is probably wrong, and in those situations I would actually decline to play, something I hardly ever have done before. I would rather just wait for someone closer to what I wanted to play than play a game I knew I wouldn't really enjoy. This was before I had really accepted the elite-only nature of the rules though and before we started using a decent comp system club-wide, and I would show up with things like an empire state troop heavy army and expect it to just jive with whatever and whoever.

Dosiere
19-12-2015, 16:28
I wouldn't say KoW rules are terrible, they just don't excite me at all, it's another fairly bland generic fantasy game in a market that is pretty full of them. Nobody round here plays the game and I'm just not interested enough to be the guy that makes it happen. Besides I see little point in supporting (or encouraging others to support) a company that puts such little effort into their miniature production, Mantic need to massively up their game in the model dept to make me even want to look at their products.

Besides there is a lot of 8th edition wfb being played locally still, which is a far better game than KoW in my opinion. KoW has been the game that people have retreated to because wfb is not an option for them or for some reason they think that lack of official support for wfb somehow makes the game unplayable. I have no such problem about playing a discontinued game so why would I retreat to the fall-back position?

When I first looked at the rules for KoW I had the same response. It honestly just seemed a bit boring, and some (although not all) of their miniatures do not warrant me purchasing them at any price. I like the game more the more I play it though, it's just so.. well.. playable compared to WFB. Not having to remove model individually and set them back up, rank them back up, between every game is just so dang convenient for example. Every change so far has been like a scale. You've got to give up something you liked about WFB to get something also nice in KoW. The rules are just so much cleaner than WFB, it's also refreshing. I do miss things about WFB 8th for sure, but despite being skeptical at first I like KoW very much.

Also, I was ready for a change. I was eager for a new edition. WFB 8th was probably my favorite edition so far but it was getting a bit stale, and it does have issues that I was hoping GW would address with a new edition. I loved it then but I don't want to just keep playing it forever. It was the reason why I gave AoS a chance when it came out, I was just ready for something different.

theunwantedbeing
19-12-2015, 16:43
First of all I apologize, I meant to quote the unwanted being and wasn't paying enough attention. None of that was (meant to be) directed at you. My bad.

Have another go at it :)

HelloKitty
19-12-2015, 16:54
As of this afternoon i no longer own any miniatures. 32 years of miniatures and the time has come to divorce myself of it and put my time into other things.

KoW is certainly not something im interested in but in my community is the only option now.

Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2DSick
19-12-2015, 16:56
As of this afternoon i no longer own any miniatures. 32 years of miniatures and the time has come to divorce myself of it and put my time into other things.

KoW is certainly not something im interested in but in my community is the only option now.

Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Strong!

Stronger than I.

Niall78
19-12-2015, 17:14
As of this afternoon i no longer own any miniatures. 32 years of miniatures and the time has come to divorce myself of it and put my time into other things.

KoW is certainly not something im interested in but in my community is the only option now.

Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you sell your collection? :(

I thought AoS was doing OK in your area?

Screw GW for AoS. This is the end result for many - not a change of game but an end to their involvement in the hobby as a whole. It's destruction on a grand scale - gaming clubs, tournaments, pick up gaming. A disaster for many many players.

We didn't see eye to eye on much to do with AoS but I think you'd make a fine addition to any gaming group. Maybe you'll regroup and come back at a later date.

Buddy Bear
19-12-2015, 17:24
Yeah, Age of Sigmar has proven to be a great big stink bomb hurled into gaming groups and clubs worldwide. Thanks, Games Workshop, for damaging gaming communities the world over.

doyouevenrealisebro?
19-12-2015, 17:36
Yeah, Age of Sigmar has proven to be a great big stink bomb hurled into gaming groups and clubs worldwide. Thanks, Games Workshop, for damaging gaming communities the world over.

Spot on.
My biggest gripe with AOS, is not the game, but how it has fractured the community completely.
Some people leaving completely, some holding onto 8th, some trying 9th or KOW or others sticking with AOS.
We used to have a whole, dare I say, strong group of fantasy players at our GW store and club.
Now I struggle to find an opponent even for AOS.
It is such a shame to happen to once was a vibrant and fun community to be in.
Great move GW.

Kahadras
19-12-2015, 17:52
A huge part though is Inertia. Among WHFB players there were always a percentage that would have prefered the KoW mechanics before WHFB. However, they already played WHFB and as long as they enjoyed it; it wasn't enough to just producing a slightly (or even substantially) better game to draw people out of a game that they're used to play, have configured their armies towards, are familiar with and invested in the lore accompanying the game and so on.

This is pretty much it at the moment. People stay because it's what they're used to. In my area people played Warhammer more than KoW so I was more inclined to stick with 8th ed rather than strike out to investigate a whole new system. Even if some of my friends praised Mantic for making such a cool game I was still happy to play Warhammer because I was invested in the lore, invested in the game (rules) and I had plenty of people to play against.

Then along comes AoS and the Warhammer community pretty much collapsed overnight. Now I suddenly had a reason to start looking around for another Fantasy game (lets give Frostgrave a try for example). I honestly think GW was banking on inertia amoung it's fans when it came to AoS; that they'd stay and invest in the new system rather than move over to another company's game (which obviously wouldn't be as good as GW as GW make the best models in the world yadda yadda yadda etc etc)

akai
19-12-2015, 18:19
First of all I apologize, I meant to quote the unwanted being and wasn't paying enough attention. None of that was (meant to be) directed at you. My bad. However,

As far as time specifically there really is no answer I think, since it depends totally on the two people. Could take 30 seconds if you are both already basically on the same page, or 30 minutes if you are nowhere near. If it takes more than about 5 or 10 something is probably wrong, and in those situations I would actually decline to play, something I hardly ever have done before. I would rather just wait for someone closer to what I wanted to play than play a game I knew I wouldn't really enjoy. This was before I had really accepted the elite-only nature of the rules though and before we started using a decent comp system club-wide, and I would show up with things like an empire state troop heavy army and expect it to just jive with whatever and whoever.

Thanks for answering my question and clarifying what you wrote. At times I feel there are some animosity between us that I think we would both rather prefer to just leave out of our discussions.

My first AoS games at a store was in an escalation league that was already going on for a month or two. They were using wound counts as the structure for the army. I went into the event with regular Empire state troops, an empire general, and battle wizard...not exactly knowing what I was going into. I played against forces that were made up mostly of heroes and monsters, and basically got destroyed :D. So my bad for entering a league competition with a rather quickly made army rather than bringing an army specifically for competitive play. I did met a person at the league that is now part of the regular gaming group not played at stores.

Voss
19-12-2015, 18:36
So to bring it back to the topic is there a myth going around that people think AoS actually works well in a pick up games with strangers?
Not really. If some people have tried to push that as an idea they mostly get laughed at. The reality is AoS simply fails to work at casual pick up games. Hence why it gets tossed in the rejected pile, with groups and stores moving further and further away from GW as a whole as a consequence.

Gorthor21
19-12-2015, 18:42
As of this afternoon i no longer own any miniatures. 32 years of miniatures and the time has come to divorce myself of it and put my time into other things.

KoW is certainly not something im interested in but in my community is the only option now.

Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

im glad that youre making proactive steps towards making things better for yourself. i haven't played age of sigmar and i doubt i ever will. for me it was a last ditch effort to make something refreshing collecting all this stuff for it but the more and more i read this thread and others like it i become so disheartened with it all.
the lack of unity and polarization it has created has just become too much. i might just shelf it all or sell it and start a roman legion like I've always wanted to do.
just like my avatar, age of sigmar is looming over us all for the good or bad. might just keep my stormcasts as a reminder of what once was

Buddy Bear
19-12-2015, 19:19
One thing I'd advise any war-gamer to do is invest in many different rule-sets and don't be afraid to proxy miniatures between systems. Why bother adding another couple of hundred points to a ten thousand point 40K army when you could buy Beyond the Gates of Antares instead? Buy at least the starter boxes or core rules for many systems. You might just find another game or setting you love. At the very least you'll see how other games are designed and the mechanics that make them interesting - this can then be used to make your core games better if you are into comping.

I played 40K first and second edition. I have nearly a chapter of Blood Angels in the attic - nearly every metal marine mini released to the end of 2nd edition, two dozen or so official and non-official kit bashed tanks and APCs. My brother has a sick amount of Chaos from the same time period. If I'd continued to collect I'd need a new house to store miniatures I'd never use even playing the massive ten thousand points battles we used to fight. Instead I have a diverse collection of games that span twenty-five years of the table-top, board and RPG industry - some of which are firm favourites to this day. I'm even very careful with my go-to game which is Battletech. I only buy what I need miniature wise - which is very little - to actually play the game instead of making the mistake of owning hundreds of miniatures I don't need for the sake of collecting. The money is much better spent investigating other things within my hobby.

You'll still have your 40K armies and I'm not saying stop playing that game. But what do you have to lose by checking out all the other cool games out at the moment? Once you hit a certain point with any game system you stop buying for the war-gaming experience these new miniatures bring and are buying for the sake of collecting instead.

I'm probably preaching to the converted at this stage as I feel AoS has opened up a whole new vista for you on the fantasy side of war-gaming. If one good thing comes out of the AoS debacle it'll be that many gamers are now much more open about trying different products rather than being fanatical about only one or two gaming systems from the same company.

Well, something I like doing is having a wide variety of list options with my favorite armies. So I'm not just buying Space Marines for the sake of clogging my shelves with them, but to be able to build any variety of list that I might like. I can and have hit my opponents with wildly different armies from game to game, all while still playing Ultramarines. In addition, I've collected other armies on and off, like Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Tyranids, Adeptus Mechanicus, and Imperial Knights (I have 11 at the moment. One of each kind plus a spare Knight Paladin). I sold off most of those, however, and only have the Ultramarines, Blood Angels, and Imperial Knights after AOS hit.

But yeah, I think I'll be hocking a bunch of my Space Marines on eBay sooner rather than later. Not all of them and certainly not any of my Rogue Trader models that I have from way back in the day, but a good chunk. I'll use the funds from that to support my pursuits into other games. So far I've already started on the following:

WARMACHINE
- Khador, 20 points (Starter set force)
- Protectorate of Menoth, 56 points (Starter set force + All-In-One Army Box force)
- Cygnar, 35 points (All-In-One Army Box)

KINGS OF WAR
- Undead, 2000+ points (almost entirely Mantic with a couple character models using Reaper Miniatures)

X-WING
- Original starter set
- New starter set
- Millennium Falcon
- Slave-1

ARMADA
- Starter set

STAR WARS: IMPERIAL ASSAULT
- Core game
- C-3P0 and R2-D2
- Boba Fett

DEADZONE
- Starter set (got it the other day courtesy of a 50% off Black Friday sale)

WARPATH
- I put in $235 on the Kickstarter, which gets me three sizable forces to start. Two of them will definitely be Enforcers and Forge Fathers, while I'm still undecided on the third (Veer-Myn, Plague, or Asterians)

Once I hock those Space Marines, I want to expand on the ships I have for both X-Wing and Armada, add a 2000+ point Abyssal Dwarf army for Kings of War (Partially because I've always been a fan of the original Chaos Dwarfs, and because I'm thinking of becoming a Pathfinder, so I'll need two fully painted armies to demo), get some more Menoth models for Warmachine, and pick up Beyond the Gates of Antares. I'm also seriously interested in getting into a historical game, with appropriate models which I can use for not only the historical but also as a Kingdoms of Men army in Kings of War. Probably using a Warlord Games system. Hail Caesar! will probably be my most likely candidate, and maybe use some Perry Bros. miniatures for it. Those look really good.

But yeah, Age of Sigmar has definitely opened up some vistas for me. I'm loving Kings of War and Warmachine so far, and I'm really anxious to give X-Wing and Armada a shot as well, and Deadzone looks like it's a lot of fun.

Your opinion of Kings of War is very similar to mine as there are things which I think Warhammer did better while there are things Kings of War does better. KOW is a lot more maneuverable, what with everyone moving at least 1" faster than their Warhammer equivalents and the pivot action being free as opposed to costing movement like with a wheel. I've been able to get off a lot more flank and rear charges thanks to that maneuverability than I would in most games of Warhammer. I also love the fixed regiment sizes and not removing models, as it removes the necessity to have extra movement trays to account for a regiment which changes its formation or which has been seriously depleted in combat, as well as making it easier to set up for your next game (I've been able to get in two games of Kings of War in less time than it takes to play a single game of Warhammer Fantasy).

On the other hand, I like having magic play an important factor in my games and seeing more impressive displays of power from my spell casters. I also like being able to have more customization with my characters, as I'm big on making up my own characters and making them feel special. And I like that it's possible to arrange my missile troops in such a way that every single member of the unit can shoot. And of course, Warhammer Fantasy is a game intrinsically linked to a setting which I love. I've read up on the Kings of War setting and I like it, but it's hard to top the investment I've made into the Old World or seeing the likes of Nagash or the Steam Tank properly represented on the tabletop. But while I'd like to have more impressive heroes and spellcasters in my armies, the speed and maneuverability offered in a Kings of War game definitely seems like an overall improvement to me.

Claymore
19-12-2015, 19:41
Well the one good thing about AOS is it's saving me quite a large amount of money, it's pretty amazing how cheap the alternative companies are like X-wing which cost me about the same as a Tactical marine squad would.

ihavetoomuchminis
19-12-2015, 21:38
As of this afternoon i no longer own any miniatures. 32 years of miniatures and the time has come to divorce myself of it and put my time into other things.

KoW is certainly not something im interested in but in my community is the only option now.

Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? I just don't believe it. Peoppe was spending thousands in AoS in your area
I remember a post of yours telling that 3 khorne fortresses had been sold there, amongst many other posts saying that AoS was being played and good.

Whats happening here?

HelloKitty
19-12-2015, 21:48
What? I just don't believe it. Peoppe was spending thousands in AoS in your area
I remember a post of yours telling that 3 khorne fortresses had been sold there, amongst many other posts saying that AoS was being played and good.

Whats happening here?

The players that bought the 3 khorne fortresses don't play a lot, they model and put things in for armies on parade. It was actually four that were bought. The only one that plays a decent amount is the campaign organizer, who is equally frustrated that there are few players now. You can also use the fortresses in Kings of War. People did spend a ton on Age of Sigmar in my area. The manager at the GW store here has a plaque for best sales of this year in North America from the company.

But just because you are buying models does not mean you are interested in the game and aren't using the models in other games (here it is Kings of War).

AOS was doing good until about the beginning of September. Once the US Masters said that it was all Kings of War, nearly my entire community flipped the switch and said bye bye GW. There are still AOS players here but the small handful remaining won't use comp and aren't interested in campaigns except for maybe 3 or 4. The public players in my community are and have pretty much always been very sensitive to playing the games that have the biggest crowd and the biggest tournament presence, and the players that don't really care about that as much are still going to play what the majority are playing because no one wants to struggle to find a game (which is why I sold my stuff today because its not worth the heart ache any longer)

40k is also beginning to decline as people are pushing for the big tournaments to drop 40k in favor of gates of antares but so far that is obviously stagnant and people are holding their breath waiting to see.

Wishing
19-12-2015, 23:21
Well, good luck in future endeavours kitty.

One thing I wonder when people say that all these WHFB tournaments are switching to Kings of War.

I presume that the reason this is an option is that people play KoW with their existing WHFB armies. Otherwise I don't see this switch as making any sense.

So.. Does KoW actually have army rules for all the old WHFB armies? When I go on the site, I see different army types, but not that many. I don't see anything that resembles lizardmen, chaos, skaven. So I'm wondering if KoW don't have these model ranges, do they then not have rules for them either? Or do they in fact make army rules for the GW armies that they don't make models for too?

I have to say that I really like the KoW ogres. They seem like really nice models.

HelloKitty
19-12-2015, 23:22
The tournaments here dont' care what models you use. In fact, I'd say I haven't really seen any mantic models used yet.

Yowzo
19-12-2015, 23:30
The tournaments here dont' care what models you use. In fact, I'd say I haven't really seen any mantic models used yet.
For now.

Battlefront was all use minis from whatever manufacturer at the beginning and now they only allow their minis at official events.

They even talk about "the flames of war hobby".

I guess they didn't like so much of their business going to zvezda and plastic soldier.

Enviado desde mi Aquaris E4.5 mediante Tapatalk

HelloKitty
19-12-2015, 23:31
My expectation is that in a couple of years you'll need mantic models in those tournaments yes. But in a couple of years I think people will have bought their tournament armies so that won't be a problem. Its just that they know you cant expect people to just magically have a fully painted tourney army ready to go in a month, they are giving them time to transition.

Wishing
19-12-2015, 23:34
I figured. I was just wondering what the people with, say, lizardmen armies do in the KoW tournaments. Assuming there are no lizardmen rules, some kind of proxy? I guess skaven would make a logical goblin proxy.

2DSick
19-12-2015, 23:35
Well, good luck in future endeavours kitty.

One thing I wonder when people say that all these WHFB tournaments are switching to Kings of War.

I presume that the reason this is an option is that people play KoW with their existing WHFB armies. Otherwise I don't see this switch as making any sense.

So.. Does KoW actually have army rules for all the old WHFB armies? When I go on the site, I see different army types, but not that many. I don't see anything that resembles lizardmen, chaos, skaven. So I'm wondering if KoW don't have these model ranges, do they then not have rules for them either? Or do they in fact make army rules for the GW armies that they don't make models for too?

I have to say that I really like the KoW ogres. They seem like really nice models.

in the main rule book there are army lists for;

Basileans (pious crusading knights types)
Dwarfs
Elves - many flavours... treekin in here too.
Kingdoms of men (can represent mant human factions)
forces of nature (treemen and driads fit in here amongst many other things)
Ogres
The abyss (daemons)
abysal dwraves (chaos dwarves)
orcs
undead

Then ther is the Uncharted kingdoms book.

That has 9 new lists which cover;

salamanders (lizard men.. they already have a unit in forces of nature but now port well for LM)
Vermin (skaven)
Ther herde (beastmen)
The League of Rhordia - horsemasters (bretonia sit in here I think)
Varangur - chaos.... spot the name?
The Brotherhood.... not got a clue what that one is yet, anyone?
Night-Stalkers (again not surre)
The Empire of Dust (tombking type stuff)
The Trident Realms of Neritica (freeking water-world mutants!!!! well not quite XD)

The ogres are some of their better models.

They have the plastic demons of the abyss, plastic salamanders and a narrative campaign book coming out in the new year.

The reason many of their units arn't represented on the store are becaus ethey have been expanding their range by crowd funding, which takes time.

They are very supportive of other manufacturers models and actively encourage you to use alternatives. The even stock Avatars of War minis as far as I know.

Buddy Bear
19-12-2015, 23:37
I presume that the reason this is an option is that people play KoW with their existing WHFB armies. Otherwise I don't see this switch as making any sense.

So.. Does KoW actually have army rules for all the old WHFB armies? When I go on the site, I see different army types, but not that many. I don't see anything that resembles lizardmen, chaos, skaven. So I'm wondering if KoW don't have these model ranges, do they then not have rules for them either? Or do they in fact make army rules for the GW armies that they don't make models for too?

I have to say that I really like the KoW ogres. They seem like really nice models.

Just about every Warhammer army is represented to one degree or another with rules, split between the rulebook or recent Uncharted Empires supplement, and it's perfectly alright to use models from other companies. The only instance is an officially sanctioned Mantic tournament, and even then it only matters for painting contests, as contestants have to be predominantly Mantic miniatures, but that's the only place where it matters, as yo can compete and win their officially sanctioned events with armies which don't contain a single Mantic model. As for what it what, RB = Rulebook, UE = Uncharted Empires.

- Empire = Kingdoms of Men (RB), League of Rhordia (UE)
- Bretonnia = The Brotherhood (UE)
- High Elves/Wood Elves = Elves (RB)
- Tomb Kings = Empire of Dust (UE)
- Vampire Counts = Undead (RB)
- Dwarfs = Dwarfs (RB)
- Lizardmen = Salamanders (UE)
- Orcs & Goblins = Orcs(RB), Goblins (RB)
- Beastmen = The Herd (UE)
- Warriors of Chaos = Varangur (UE)
- Daemons of Chaos = Forces of the Abyss (RB)
- Ogre Kingdoms = Ogres (RB)
- Skaven = Ratkin (UE)
- Dark Elves = Twilight Kin (Soon to be revamped)
- Chaos Dwarfs = Abyssal Dwarfs (RB)

And Kings of War have additional armies besides those listed above, with more to come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2DSick
19-12-2015, 23:40
yeah, the "Mantic models only" rule only applies to their painting awards.

Buddy Bear
19-12-2015, 23:44
Brotherhood is the Bretonnia equivalent. League of Rhordia is the Empire equivalent with Demigryph Knights, Helblaster Volley Guns, Helstorm Rocket Battery's, Steam Tanks, and Engineers. They also have a lot of Halflngs.

Some armies port better than others, though. Bretonnia is one of the best. Not only does the Brotherhood have everything Bretonnia has access to, but they add more. So Mantic gave the Bretonnia player base an update before GW did, giving Bretonnian players foot knights, water elementals, an extra war machine, and even the Bowmen of Bergerac.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zywus
19-12-2015, 23:55
My expectation is that in a couple of years you'll need mantic models in those tournaments yes. But in a couple of years I think people will have bought their tournament armies so that won't be a problem. Its just that they know you cant expect people to just magically have a fully painted tourney army ready to go in a month, they are giving them time to transition.
We'll see, but I think it would be foolhardy for Mantic to make any such demands before quite some time. I don't think "a couple of years" would be enough time before any such edict could be passed (assuming that's something they'd even want in the first place). There are after all entire lists that currently have no official mantic models at all. Such demands would also cost goodwill among the fanbase and due to unitbasing being more and more popular, it creates additional problems, since you can't easily remove certain models from a unit if they're not individually based.

HelloKitty
20-12-2015, 00:12
Fortunately for mantic they dont need to make a lot of money to consider their work successful and they have no shareholders to appease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zywus
20-12-2015, 00:20
Fortunately for mantic they dont need to make a lot of money to consider their work successful and they have no shareholders to appease.We don't really know what level of profit they deem as a success but regardless of what it may be, I don't see what that has to do with them potentially demanding that their models be used in tournaments though?

HelloKitty
20-12-2015, 00:22
It means that model sales arent as big a deal to them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NoobLord
20-12-2015, 00:24
Fortunately for mantic they dont need to make a lot of money to consider their work successful and they have no shareholders to appease.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mantic is not a miniatures and games making charity. They almost certainly have sizeable debts and, unlike dividend payments, which are discretionary, interest payments have to be met on a regular basis. While it is not a publicly owned company it does have owners and those owners don't invest their capital in the equity of a business planning not to make a return on that investment. As a fairly new and growing company Mantic would be a fairly risky investment in the global scheme of things. In short, I would imagine that Mantic's cost of capital is significantly higher than GW's.

Zywus
20-12-2015, 00:24
It means that model sales arent as big a deal to them.If we take that to be true; wouldn't that speak against the theory that Mantic will demand people use Manic models in tournaments?

Malagor
20-12-2015, 00:31
One thing I wonder when people say that all these WHFB tournaments are switching to Kings of War.

Not all as it seems mostly in the US that switched over to KoW.
Being danish I see I can imagine 9th age being more of a thing in your area since 9th age is the more popular choice in Europe it seems.

AngryAngel
20-12-2015, 02:52
As of this afternoon i no longer own any miniatures. 32 years of miniatures and the time has come to divorce myself of it and put my time into other things.

KoW is certainly not something im interested in but in my community is the only option now.

Good luck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As much as we have had words before, I am sorry to hear that, honestly. You found out what I saw in the beginning, and I'm sorry for it. They made a bold experiment but it isn't succeeding in many places. Warhammer has been what it was for too long, to just toss it all up like that and it was just too soft of a system for people to care long term. As much as I don't think only tournaments should be played, a game needs to be competitive when its player vs player, that system at least needs a strong base from the core company, as comp and house ruling will near always happen to one extent or another. It is why I always argued for having a strong standard, before it broke off into narrative and free form. I am however, sorry to hear, it was DOA around here however so I couldn't watch the decline it just died.




Yeah, Age of Sigmar has proven to be a great big stink bomb hurled into gaming groups and clubs worldwide. Thanks, Games Workshop, for damaging gaming communities the world over.

I would agree with this, and many could have and did call it. A game needs a solid core and can't exist on nice models alone.




The players that bought the 3 khorne fortresses don't play a lot, they model and put things in for armies on parade. It was actually four that were bought. The only one that plays a decent amount is the campaign organizer, who is equally frustrated that there are few players now. You can also use the fortresses in Kings of War. People did spend a ton on Age of Sigmar in my area. The manager at the GW store here has a plaque for best sales of this year in North America from the company.

But just because you are buying models does not mean you are interested in the game and aren't using the models in other games (here it is Kings of War).

AOS was doing good until about the beginning of September. Once the US Masters said that it was all Kings of War, nearly my entire community flipped the switch and said bye bye GW. There are still AOS players here but the small handful remaining won't use comp and aren't interested in campaigns except for maybe 3 or 4. The public players in my community are and have pretty much always been very sensitive to playing the games that have the biggest crowd and the biggest tournament presence, and the players that don't really care about that as much are still going to play what the majority are playing because no one wants to struggle to find a game (which is why I sold my stuff today because its not worth the heart ache any longer)

40k is also beginning to decline as people are pushing for the big tournaments to drop 40k in favor of gates of antares but so far that is obviously stagnant and people are holding their breath waiting to see.

They had to know they were going down this road. The system was too soft, and they scoffed at and mocked the tournament mindset, which was the systems undoing. It will end up 40ks if they stay on the same path, but hopefully they take heed at this point.

Buddy Bear
20-12-2015, 04:13
Agreed. Requiring that so many fans spend so much of their time trying to fix this game didn't bode well at all for its future. A tournament centric game is the best option because it allows for all options. You want a competitive game suitable for tournaments? It's competitive right out of the box. You want a game suitable for pickup games? It has a solid rules set which you can expect most people using. You want a narrative campaign style game? Ignore the points and build your forces according to your homemade scenario.

Age of Sigmar, is useless on all fronts. As a narrative game it's poorly suited because of how shot full of holes its setting is, and it's totally useless for anything else as you can't play it straight out of the box for pickup games and it's nowhere near suitable as a tournament game. GW really screwed the pooch with this one.

And to top it off, they put themselves in a situation where they not only annihilated their second major product line, but they put a legitimate fear into the hearts of their player base that 40k would end up AOSed as well. Between that and several months where 40k got absolutely nothing new, they've probably done a pretty good job of shooting themselves in the foot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wishing
20-12-2015, 08:42
Just about every Warhammer army is represented to one degree or another with rules, split between the rulebook or recent Uncharted Empires supplement, and it's perfectly alright to use models from other companies.

Cool, thanks for the explanation. It's obvious that it's OK to use WHFB models to play KoW, otherwise the whole switch from WHFB to KoW that so many people are talking about doesn't make sense to me. But I didn't know that they had a book where they wrote rules for lizardmen, skaven and so on. It makes sense, it just didn't appear clearly on their site.

Would they be allowed to actually put up a banner on their site saying "You can use your WHFB armies to play KoW, click here to see the conversion table" I wonder?

Because that is clearly the entire point of Mantic and KoW, right? Ex-GW employees who make alternative products for gamers who come from within the GW universe. GW make great but expensive miniatures, but less great rules, so the ex-GW staff see that there is a market where they provide the good rules, that the fans can use their GW models for. Or, alternatively (which I guess is how they got started), people can buy the really cheap Mantic miniatures to play WHFB with, or KoW if it strikes their fancy.

If Mantic ever went and said that you can't use GW models in their events, that would seen to be a killing blow to their entire raison d'etre. They clearly provide supporting products to GW games, that can't stand on their own. They provide cheap models, which can be used in those cases where players want big units of troops at a discount. Or they provide alternate rules for people who don't want the GW rules anymore. But I can't see anyone actually thinking that buying and painting a full army, including characters, monsters and centrepiece models, of Mantic models alone will be anywhere near as appealing to people as buying and painting an army of GW models. Just my opinion, but I can't see Mantic surviving in any way on its own, only when propped up by GW products.

2DSick
20-12-2015, 09:19
If Mantic ever went and said that you can't use GW models in their events, that would seen to be a killing blow to their entire raison d'etre. They clearly provide supporting products to GW games, that can't stand on their own. They provide cheap models, which can be used in those cases where players want big units of troops at a discount. Or they provide alternate rules for people who don't want the GW rules anymore. But I can't see anyone actually thinking that buying and painting a full army, including characters, monsters and centrepiece models, of Mantic models alone will be anywhere near as appealing to people as buying and painting an army of GW models. Just my opinion, but I can't see Mantic surviving in any way on its own, only when propped up by GW products.

The thing is, they are surviving WITH gw products. Without them, there'd be much less alternative. More market share for everyone else.

If you ever watch any interviews with Ronnie, you get a real sense of his passion for playing wargames. He's turbo chilled out. As long as he's in charge I'm certain that as long as you're playing their games, it doesn't matter what models or counters you use.

I'm half way through building and painting (generous there... Mor like 25%) a 98% Mantic army. My mounted wiz is converted from a gw goblin shaman and my goblin king is from avatars of war. It's so refreshing to know they're welcome at clash of Kings.

Wishing
20-12-2015, 09:48
I'm half way through building and painting (generous there... Mor like 25%) a 98% Mantic army. My mounted wiz is converted from a gw goblin shaman and my goblin king is from avatars of war. It's so refreshing to know they're welcome at clash of Kings.

That's cool. Makes me wonder how people who play KoW with their GW armies see their armies in terms of background. Do they originate from the Warhammer World, or the Mantic World? If someone takes their Chaos army and uses it as a Varangor army in KoW, does it keep being a Nurgle or Slaanesh army, or does it change in their mind so that it now comes from a world where there are Basileans and Abyssals instead of Brettonians and Kislev? Do you get what I mean?

Or do most people not see their armies as belonging to a specific game world, but instead just see them as a collection of plastic toys with paint on them?

2DSick
20-12-2015, 09:59
It's got to be different for everyone I suppose.

I've always been the Orc and never the goblin. With the mantic stuff, they're no longer the comedy relief slapstick ****** of the world. They're small and weak but inherently paranoid psychopaths. The ultimate in small man syndrome XD.

But then I've started a new. Not sure how I'd feel carrying through with my middenheimers or chaos...

Wishing
20-12-2015, 10:09
It's got to be different for everyone I suppose. [...]

But then I've started a new. Not sure how I'd feel carrying through with my middenheimers or chaos...

That's what I thought was interesting to think about. If big WHFB tournaments in the US have switched to KoW, I wonder what kind of attitude both the players and organisers have about the background. Are they still playing in the Warhammer universe, just with a different ruleset?

The key situation here being something like a Chaos Nurgle army facing off against a Basileans army. I wonder if either player would care about the fact that this would be a crossover game, where either army doesn't exist in the other army's home universe. Like Batman vs. the Hulk.

As you say, it would be different for each player. But it would be interesting to hear example thoughts on it. And from the organisers. Are the organisers completely uninterested in the background setting of their tournament, and only interested in the rules?

HelloKitty
20-12-2015, 13:58
That's what I thought was interesting to think about. If big WHFB tournaments in the US have switched to KoW, I wonder what kind of attitude both the players and organisers have about the background. Are they still playing in the Warhammer universe, just with a different ruleset?

The key situation here being something like a Chaos Nurgle army facing off against a Basileans army. I wonder if either player would care about the fact that this would be a crossover game, where either army doesn't exist in the other army's home universe. Like Batman vs. the Hulk.

As you say, it would be different for each player. But it would be interesting to hear example thoughts on it. And from the organisers. Are the organisers completely uninterested in the background setting of their tournament, and only interested in the rules?

Here at least few care about the background. The rules are really what matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dosiere
20-12-2015, 15:02
That's what I thought was interesting to think about. If big WHFB tournaments in the US have switched to KoW, I wonder what kind of attitude both the players and organisers have about the background. Are they still playing in the Warhammer universe, just with a different ruleset?

The key situation here being something like a Chaos Nurgle army facing off against a Basileans army. I wonder if either player would care about the fact that this would be a crossover game, where either army doesn't exist in the other army's home universe. Like Batman vs. the Hulk.

As you say, it would be different for each player. But it would be interesting to hear example thoughts on it. And from the organisers. Are the organisers completely uninterested in the background setting of their tournament, and only interested in the rules?

For many it started and probably continues to be that your Warhammer minis are still playing in the Warhammer world just using the KoW ruleset to do so. I think of my Empire Army in KoW as still being an Empire Army for example. Since most of the other guys are also using GW minis and backgrounds it works just fine. A few use Mantic models already, or historicals though. It doesn't bother me at all. Now, keep in mind this is just pick up gaming. The point is to have fun playing a one-off game at the club, have fun, get some good food, etc... It's not a role-playing game. IF the game is good, the minis look cool, and we're having fun I have zero problems with what manufacturer the other guy used to build his orc army. Fact is the players can make of it what they will, you can forge whatever narrative you want to if it helps.

One big difference is that Mantic is pushing organized play, and that includes campaigns. There, I think I would run into some issues, but we'll see. I think it would break the fun and immersion of a Mantica campaign to throw down my Empire minis and just pretend they look like Basilieans or something. Good thing for me is that I am building a new army using historicals as a Kingdoms of Men project. It's so much more affordable while still looking awesome. Perry sculpts FTW.

Ayin
21-12-2015, 14:17
The key situation here being something like a Chaos Nurgle army facing off against a Basileans army. I wonder if either player would care about the fact that this would be a crossover game, where either army doesn't exist in the other army's home universe. Like Batman vs. the Hulk.


Some of the original and best crossovers from Marvel and DC were the ones done simply, where Batman simply one day runs into Daredevil because two of their villains have teamed up, and they act as if it's completely reasonable for them to run into each other, although they never have before. The worst are generally the stories where they actively explain two universes and try and do a complicated crossover plot.

For the Nurgle player, the Basileans are likely just an undiscovered part of the world. One of the many other sections of the Warhammer World that was not detailed, or a group within it they hadn't yet encountered. For the other side, the reverse.

Ayin
21-12-2015, 14:20
Here at least few care about the background. The rules are really what matters.


Indeed they are. With solid rules you can play any game you want. Marius vs Archaon, Karl Franz vs Grom the Paunch, Leitpold the Black vs Azhag the Slaughterer or Borgio the Besieger vs Crom. None of these battles work from a background perspective, they are all unlikely or flat out impossible (in a world with linear time), but they were still played and enjoyed, often without either player raising concern (or even noticing).

Ayin
21-12-2015, 14:42
But just because you are buying models does not mean you are interested in the game and aren't using the models in other games (here it is Kings of War).


Someone should have told GW that this was a potential problem. They seemed fairly certain that they would continue to thrive as a model (only) company and that customers were vastly more interested in High Quality GW miniatures than 'overly-complicated rule sets built for competitive gamers'.

Mage
21-12-2015, 14:59
I think thats the problem given the corporate, shareholder driven nature of the company

veterannoob
21-12-2015, 15:18
The thing is, they are surviving WITH gw products. Without them, there'd be much less alternative. More market share for everyone else.

If you ever watch any interviews with Ronnie, you get a real sense of his passion for playing wargames. He's turbo chilled out. As long as he's in charge I'm certain that as long as you're playing their games, it doesn't matter what models or counters you use.

I'm half way through building and painting (generous there... Mor like 25%) a 98% Mantic army. My mounted wiz is converted from a gw goblin shaman and my goblin king is from avatars of war. It's so refreshing to know they're welcome at clash of Kings.

Agreed, Ronnie is a wonderful positive force for Mantic and the community. And Mantic KoW 2nd is selling much better than first ed. I posted my interview with Ronnie last night for Combat Phase podcast episode 124 (Women in Wargaming) and in that Ronnie reveals that over the first 2-3 months sales of KoW is three times that of first ed. and pre-orders for Uncharted Empires are very encouraging. It's great how Mantic supports its game and community. I can only speak for the US but the guys here who organize KoW events won't deny a newcomer an army with less than 50% Mantic models but it is a goal for later as that player gets into the game (or if he/she doesn't like it, no harm done). I also know GW makes the best models on the planet (IMO) but my cohost convinced me, and walking through KoW tournaments, that Mantic models really shine with a complete army, as opposed to each individual troop.:)

And that Avatars of War goblin rocks!

Zywus
21-12-2015, 15:25
I think thats the problem given the corporate, shareholder driven nature of the company
I think that the problem is that they make no effort in discovering or catering to what their customers desire.

broxus
21-12-2015, 15:57
I think that the problem is that they make no effort in discovering or catering to what their customers desire.

What some of their customers don't desire. Don't speak for all of us.

I personally think AoS was the right decision and will pay off in the long run. The massive rule books of old were not going to attract the next generation of gamers. I can't count how many people I tried to get into the hobby found the rules tome cost and length a none starter for them. Many of the old time WHFB players have now left and AoS is gaining many younger and new players. It is all fresh blood for a hobby that was dying. Of note tons of parents and kids have started to build, paint and play AoS together.

AoS is grooming the next generation of miniature wargame players which will pay off for GW in the long run. As for KoW I think many find it new I and interesting but that will wane over time. They simply don't have the staff and output to keep intrest of players for extended periods of time. Regardless of how anyone feels about GW, most would have to admit their release schedule, books and IP used by so many companies helps keep your intrest going in this hobby.

Zywus
21-12-2015, 16:04
Many of the old time WHFB players have now left and AoS is gaining many younger and new players. It is all fresh blood for a hobby that was dying. Of note tons of parents and kids have started to build, paint and play AoS together.

AoS is grooming the next generation of miniature wargame players which will pay off for GW in the long run.
Oh I'm sure AoS gaining many new players all right. Is that influx more than a fraction compared to the ones it scared off?

I have my doubts, but maybe if you wish it hard enough it might come true.

Buddy Bear
21-12-2015, 16:10
What some of their customers don't desire. Don't speak for all of us.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't speaking for every customer ever. But clearly there are many things which the majority of their potential customers have in common and would like, and GW has no interest in finding out what those things are.


I personally think AoS was the right decision and will pay off in the long run. The massive rule books of old were not going to attract the next generation of gamers. I can't count how many people I tried to get into the hobby found the rules tome cost and length a none starter for them.

And you think $50-$58 for five models, $100 for three cavalry models, $165 for a hero model, that'll be more appealing to new customers? What good is eliminating the cost of books if everything else becomes so much more expensive?


Many of the old time WHFB players have now left and AoS is gaining many younger and new players. It is all fresh blood for a hobby that was dying. Of note tons of parents and kids have started to build, paint and play AoS together.

If that's the case, I'd be interested in seeing evidence for that, because the idea that new players are swarming in to replace the old ones doesn't seem to be supported by anything.


AoS is grooming the next generation of miniature wargame players which will pay off for GW in the long run.

That assumes they're bringing in new players, when all available evidence points to the opposite. There is no longterm future for AOS if, shorter term, it bombs. Its release was GW's best chance at bringing in new players, and that seems to have fallen flat on its face. So how is GW supposed to get new players longterm if almost no one is interested in playing it in the short term?


As for KoW I think many find it new I and interesting but that will wane over time. They simply don't have the staff and output to keep intrest of players for extended periods of time. Regardless of how anyone feels about GW, most would have to admit their release schedule

What good is an accelerated release schedule if you can't afford what they release?


...books and IP used by so many companies helps keep your intrest going in this hobby.

Which IP is that? The one they burned to the ground and threw into a landfill, replaced by a new setting which has less depth than your average Saturday morning cartoon?

Malagor
21-12-2015, 16:13
What some of their customers don't desire. Don't speak for all of us.

Well what we all desire is ultimately to have fun and GW did overall poorly in this area with AoS since it's only fun for a certain amount of people.
There have been several examples in other threads(maybe even in this one, not sure) of games written to provide fun for as many different people as possible(you can't get them all of course) something GW should have taken a note of. Instead they barged in like a bull in a china shop and wreck everything, destroying their own community, customers who do the majority of the work for them by playing their games and recommending it to other people.
AoS will not pay off in the long run if in the long run people are being told to stay away from AoS and GW in particular.
Only thing a new possible player will hear is that the rules for AoS while free isn't very good, GW's models are too expensive and their management is utterly incompetent and that the player should invest in X-wing, Warmahordes, KoW, 9th Age, Saga, The warlord game's games and so on instead.

Also the hobby does not equal GW. The hobby wasn't and isn't dying, GW however slowly is. When GW dies the hobby will remain.

Ayin
21-12-2015, 16:33
Also the hobby does not equal GW. The hobby wasn't and isn't dying, GW however slowly is. When GW dies the hobby will remain.

I have no opinion on GW's current position, but the hobby CERTAINLY isn't dying. The number of successful companies out there right now, alternative games and play styles should show that.

Allen
21-12-2015, 16:39
I think thats the problem given the corporate, shareholder driven nature of the company

I don't know. Appeasing both shareholders and customer base isn't really rocket science - there are many companies able and willing to do so. The problem, IMHO, lies in the management team. It seems to be extremely resistant to change, for example: a certain level of resistance is usually expected, but GW is able to set new records on a yearly basis. Their propension to choose candidates for management posts internally is something that on the long run can be more of a hindrance than an asset: under a certain point of view they're placing trusted people in key positions, professionals that already know the company and its practices. On the other hand, without new ideas, external contributions and new perspectives they risk promoting a groupthink mentality...and some of the clues are pointing exactly in this direction.

Customers in the last five years repeatedly described GW as disconnected from their market and the playerbase. A rather simple explanation for that could be groupthink: GW management drifted promotion after promotion away from the market their customers live in - without no one from outside trying to analyze problems from a different perspective and trying to propose different solutions they stick to the same, old, trusted interpretations and solutions...until GW found itself in a place no company should ever be: unable and unwilling to ask what their customers want and completely clueless on why their customers does not buy their products.

Malagor
21-12-2015, 16:57
I have no opinion on GW's current position, but the hobby CERTAINLY isn't dying. The number of successful companies out there right now, alternative games and play styles should show that.
Indeed. GW might have made the hobby "popular" but they are not the hobby, never have been, never will be.
GW slow demise doesn't mean that the hobby is dying, it's GW own incompetence that is the cause for that.
Now that is one of the biggest myths, GW=The hobby and as false as the Loch Ness monster.

Ayin
21-12-2015, 17:14
Now that is one of the biggest myths, GW=The hobby and as false as the Loch Ness monster.

Yep. The majority of gamers I know or see and gaming stores i go into are all about X-Wing, WarmaHordes and various other systems as well as 40k. It's been a LONG time since I walked into a store and everyone was playing GW games. Just like D&D doesn't rule their market despite defining the hobby and being targeted heavily towards "new players" through brand awareness (and just like their main sinlge competitor didn't fall by the wayside, despite much slower releases and being a "more complicated" system built on being "rules heavy" and for more "competitive" and less "narrative" players).

Holier Than Thou
21-12-2015, 17:56
I personally think AoS was the right decision and will pay off in the long run. The massive rule books of old were not going to attract the next generation of gamers. I can't count how many people I tried to get into the hobby found the rules tome cost and length a none starter for them.

I suppose the ridiculously expensive scenario books are perfectly acceptable for them though?



Many of the old time WHFB players have now left and AoS is gaining many younger and new players. It is all fresh blood for a hobby that was dying. Of note tons of parents and kids have started to build, paint and play AoS together.

Really? And where exactly are these tons of parents playing? Judging by the numerous reports from all around the globe they are very hard to find.



AoS is grooming the next generation of miniature wargame players which will pay off for GW in the long run. As for KoW I think many find it new I and interesting but that will wane over time. They simply don't have the staff and output to keep intrest of players for extended periods of time. Regardless of how anyone feels about GW, most would have to admit their release schedule, books and IP used by so many companies helps keep your intrest going in this hobby.

AOS is NOT going to pay off in the long run, there is not going to be a long run based on the overwhelming anecdotal evidence. GW have lost a huge portion of their customer base and have replaced it with a customer base less than a quarter of the size. The majority of this smaller new customer base have admitted they aren't buying a great deal of the products GW have released (this is backed up by the failure to sell out ANY of the Limited Edition books). The exorbitant prices of the models are also apparently putting a lot of the new customers off.

AOS appears to be a complete failure unless you can provide any sort of evidence to suggest otherwise?

Ayin
21-12-2015, 18:00
AOS appears to be a complete failure unless you can provide any sort of evidence to suggest otherwise?

I know a guy who bought a starter box. He plays the game with some friends.

(That is true, and it's likely the level of "evidence" that you're going to get, as there's little else to pull from now than anecdotal experience.)

2DSick
21-12-2015, 18:14
I know a guy who bought a starter box. He plays the game with some friends.

(That is true, and it's likely the level of "evidence" that you're going to get, as there's little else to pull from now than anecdotal experience.)

If you accept search engine trends as a form of evidence...

https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F01sgsy%2C%20Kings%20of%20war%2C%2 0Age%20of%20Sigmar&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT

It's rather telling that warhammer has-been under steady decline. KoW has gained traction since 2nd edition and, whist AoS had an initial spike that even exceed search trends for 40k, has since dropped rapidly.

Lexington
21-12-2015, 18:23
(That is true, and it's likely the level of "evidence" that you're going to get, as there's little else to pull from now than anecdotal experience.)
Well, to a certain point. BigRed/Larry Vela from Bell of Lost Souls posted this (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?62650-Did-the-Summer-of-Sigmar-kill-interest-in-40k&p=524928&viewfull=1#post524928) in the BoLS Lounge a few days ago:


What we've heard from every retailer out there was a strong robust year up until AoS hit on July 4th weekend - followed by the worst 12-week summer for GW sales they had ever seen. (One retailers said is was the worst summer of GW sales in 17 years!), followed by a leveling off and slow regrowth with the arrival of Tau. Still, not back up up to the pre AoS levels.

Several retailers told us they would never treat GW the same after that summer and are strongly diversifying product lines away from them.

I would assume that many people lost interest in GW over the summer and are slowly percolating back. Also note that Tau was never that much of a favorite army and Heresy while a wet dream for veterans is still kind of a niche within a niche for new players. If GW can kickoff 2016 with some strong popular armies getting good releases, I would expect to see interest and traffic pick up again. But Harlequins and Ad-Mech is a hard act to follow.[...]

I'm certain GW has felt the pain of AoS behind the scenes, regardless of the public face they are putting out. Not one retailer talked about it in positive terms with us.
It's not an annual report, but BoLS is pretty huge, and is non-trivially connected to many large retailers. January is going to be interesting.

HelloKitty
21-12-2015, 18:35
Allegedly per our local GW manager (i know i know) there is something coming out in Q1 for AoS that includes points and a structure for setting up pick up games. There is some kind of in-store competitive league for 40k starting up as well (i actually saw the email on this one so I believe that)

Claymore
21-12-2015, 18:42
AoS is grooming the next generation of miniature wargame players which will pay off for GW in the long run. As for KoW I think many find it new I and interesting but that will wane over time. They simply don't have the staff and output to keep intrest of players for extended periods of time. Regardless of how anyone feels about GW, most would have to admit their release schedule, books and IP used by so many companies helps keep your intrest going in this hobby.


How can it groom anybody when very few are even playing it, if anything it's games like X-wing thats taking the lead those days.

Ayin
21-12-2015, 18:52
Allegedly per our local GW manager (i know i know) there is something coming out in Q1 for AoS that includes points and a structure for setting up pick up games.

At this point I am very interested to see such a thing. Whether it was something originally intended (as many kept insisting in the first days of AoS) or something that has been constructed afterwards will be interesting (and I think rather telling). The concept was such a unicorn (no one had seen any evidence of it, but some seemed absolutely certain it must exist and would appear eventually) for so long that I'll just be extremely curious to check it out if it does show up.

HelloKitty
21-12-2015, 19:00
My bet is that if it exists, its going to be in line with the 40k in-store league. That it will be a way to facilitate an AoS in-store league.

Spiney Norman
21-12-2015, 19:36
At this point I am very interested to see such a thing. Whether it was something originally intended (as many kept insisting in the first days of AoS) or something that has been constructed afterwards will be interesting (and I think rather telling). The concept was such a unicorn (no one had seen any evidence of it, but some seemed absolutely certain it must exist and would appear eventually) for so long that I'll just be extremely curious to check it out if it does show up.

Given the timescale I'd guess it was a post-release effort, six months down the line they've probably had time to review how the game was received, put together a 'fix' and write out the P45 for whichever idiot came up with the idea of a no-points game in the first place.

In some ways this is a shame, fan-made comp packs like Azyr and SDK are likely to be a billion times better balanced than any points system GW comes up with and manages, but it probably is the only way to get the game moving.

Tyranno1
21-12-2015, 20:10
My bet is that if it exists, its going to be in line with the 40k in-store league. That it will be a way to facilitate an AoS in-store league.

"If" being the important part though.

I remember at the beginning of AoS that rumors and word spoke of GW releasing stuff for points-based play. And that did not materialize.
Not calling you a liar, just that people were misled by stuff before (Not sure where those rumors even came from originally).

And even if it does. The damage has unfortunately been done to alot of communities and clubs.

Flipmode
21-12-2015, 20:31
Imagine it will be a league comp system that has been blown out of proportion.

Hopefully it will be presented as such. Already had enough of people saying the game 'has to be played with 100 models because GW said so'.

theunwantedbeing
21-12-2015, 20:35
And even if it does. The damage has unfortunately been done to alot of communities and clubs.

They'de come back.

The real question is does GW really have a set of rules in the pipeline.
I say no.

Lars Porsenna
21-12-2015, 20:44
If people are flooding into AoS, not so sure it's happening where I am. I was at the FLGS just last week and saw all WH Fantasy & AoS stuff was on clearance at 40% off. Too bad it was pretty well picked over before I got there, but if the new players are flooding in, then we're not seeing it where I am at...

Damon.

HelloKitty
21-12-2015, 20:59
Overwhelming anecdotal evidence suggests there are no new players coming in.

My anecdotal evidence is that there were close to thirty people at our end times event, and six for our AoS event that wrapped up last month. Six.

Our club got several new gamers in since July but peer pressure has moved them far away from AoS. Actually none of them even picked up kings of war (the new players this year I mean, KoW is popular with the old WHFB players that play tournaments), they just went to infinity or x-wing or warmahordes because thats where a good bulk of the players are and they want to play whatever everyone else is.

One guy posted a month ago or so that he bought the AoS box wanting to play but since everyone told him not to bother with it and there are only two or three of us out there that play that he was selling the models off for like $40 for the entire box just to be rid of it and he went full in on infinity.

I don't think a points system would save the game at this point. I think there are a lot of people here at least dancing around the bonfire and cheering GW's demise because what they want is:
* 50% or more price cut
* world tournament circuit supported by the company
* better "core" rules
* visible support of just "core" rules at official events (stop treating expansions as core)
* no large models / superheavies allowed
* no forge world allowed as core
* no expansions being treated as core
* no more rotating army books

The list of things that my community wants would not be fixed by GWs attempts at putting points on AoS simply because we see how well that worked with whfb and 40k today and with so many companies out now doing everything else above, a missing point system is just one in a very long list of issues that most of my community has with AoS and GW in general.

Again it should be noted though that my community is very very tournament/competitive driven. The GW manager swears he has sold more AoS this year than he had in fantasy the past two years combined but those players either just model / paint (i know we have a lot of those types because they are always at the shop painting visibly) or they play at home in private so I have no idea how many of those exist.

broxus
21-12-2015, 22:15
Wow funny how much hate their is in these forums towards AoS. Regardless of what all you guys want, many people like AoS. Just because in your local areas no one plays that doesn't mean everywhere else is the same. Find players on FB, Twitter, Forums and local stores. If you are in the US, well Fantasy was never really a big deal so nothing has changed with AoS. In other places games are pretty easy to find and the the numbers are growing. In regards to sales who knows. All the new players are actually buying models, unlike the older players who already owned almost everything. So less people buying more = more people buying less?

Regardless AoS does have a future.

Holier Than Thou
21-12-2015, 22:39
Wow funny how much hate their is in these forums towards AoS. Regardless of what all you guys want, many people like AoS. Just because in your local areas no one plays that doesn't mean everywhere else is the same. Find players on FB, Twitter, Forums and local stores. If you are in the US, well Fantasy was never really a big deal so nothing has changed with AoS. In other places games are pretty easy to find and the the numbers are growing. In regards to sales who knows. All the new players are actually buying models, unlike the older players who already owned almost everything. So less people buying more = more people buying less?

Regardless AoS does have a future.

It's got nothing to do with hate. It's realism. Where exactly are you that it's so easy to find games?

We've had reports from all over America, all around England and Scotland, as well as many different places in Europe and even reports from Australia all saying there is virtually no AOS games visible. Every now and then someone says it's flourishing but never seems to say where this is happening.

Zywus
21-12-2015, 22:44
Wow funny how much hate their is in these forums towards AoS. Regardless of what all you guys want, many people like AoS. Just because in your local areas no one plays that doesn't mean everywhere else is the same. Find players on FB, Twitter, Forums and local stores. If you are in the US, well Fantasy was never really a big deal so nothing has changed with AoS. In other places games are pretty easy to find and the the numbers are growing. In regards to sales who knows. All the new players are actually buying models, unlike the older players who already owned almost everything. So less people buying more = more people buying less?

Regardless AoS does have a future.
Very funny indeed.

None of us can know anything for certain of course. Still; has it occurred to you that perhaps your local area is the anomaly? (if indeed AoS is a hit there)

Regardless of what you want reality to be, maybe not that many people like AoS.

Buddy Bear
21-12-2015, 22:44
It isn't a matter of what people want, but what "is", and what you consider to be "many people" doesn't appear to be anywhere near sufficient to make AOS anything remotely resembling a success. AOS certainly appears to be selling worse than Fantasy, for instance, given that nobody ever sold Fantasy for a loss, whereas AOS is frequently sold for a loss. Fantasy always sold out limited edition books, while AOS hasn't succeeding at selling any. So to say nothing has changed doesn't reflect what's going on. Things have changed. They've gotten worse. So if there are so many new players buying stuff, well, could you point to where that's reflected? Could you explain why retailers are dumping AOS stock at a massive discount or even at a loss if those new players exist? Can you explain why GW hasn't sold out a single limited edition if there are new players buying stuff?

And if AOS is indeed doing worse financially than Fantasy, then what future could it possibly have? None at all.

AngryAngel
21-12-2015, 23:31
What some of their customers don't desire. Don't speak for all of us.

I personally think AoS was the right decision and will pay off in the long run. The massive rule books of old were not going to attract the next generation of gamers. I can't count how many people I tried to get into the hobby found the rules tome cost and length a none starter for them. Many of the old time WHFB players have now left and AoS is gaining many younger and new players. It is all fresh blood for a hobby that was dying. Of note tons of parents and kids have started to build, paint and play AoS together.

AoS is grooming the next generation of miniature wargame players which will pay off for GW in the long run. As for KoW I think many find it new I and interesting but that will wane over time. They simply don't have the staff and output to keep intrest of players for extended periods of time. Regardless of how anyone feels about GW, most would have to admit their release schedule, books and IP used by so many companies helps keep your intrest going in this hobby.

It really depends on how long the future will be. I will say I disagree, as the game needs a thriving community to grow and people to come into to survive and grow. I do like how AoS will grow, but KoW is a passing fade, I will go ahead and say whatever the more refined, competitive friendly system will be, will survive and thrive. That is what people want. Narrative can be made by like minded people, but it all starts from solid game rules to work from.




Allegedly per our local GW manager (i know i know) there is something coming out in Q1 for AoS that includes points and a structure for setting up pick up games. There is some kind of in-store competitive league for 40k starting up as well (i actually saw the email on this one so I believe that)

If so, I can only imagine it was a panic creation the points and structure for AoS, a way to try and stop the bleeding from their bad roll out.


Wow funny how much hate their is in these forums towards AoS. Regardless of what all you guys want, many people like AoS. Just because in your local areas no one plays that doesn't mean everywhere else is the same. Find players on FB, Twitter, Forums and local stores. If you are in the US, well Fantasy was never really a big deal so nothing has changed with AoS. In other places games are pretty easy to find and the the numbers are growing. In regards to sales who knows. All the new players are actually buying models, unlike the older players who already owned almost everything. So less people buying more = more people buying less?

Regardless AoS does have a future.

You keep making these claims, but that is all they are, claims without any proof. It is nice to have faith in AoS future, but all it ends up as is hope in a future that may not be there unless they find a way to turn it around quick. However if the system isn't competitive minded and solid, KoW will be eating up the players. You can't wait this long on a roll out, alienate so many players and not think there will be a cost. First impressions and all that.

Niall78
21-12-2015, 23:46
It isn't a matter of what people want, but what "is", and what you consider to be "many people" doesn't appear to be anywhere near sufficient to make AOS anything remotely resembling a success. AOS certainly appears to be selling worse than Fantasy, for instance, given that nobody ever sold Fantasy for a loss, whereas AOS is frequently sold for a loss. Fantasy always sold out limited edition books, while AOS hasn't succeeding at selling any. So to say nothing has changed doesn't reflect what's going on. Things have changed. They've gotten worse. So if there are so many new players buying stuff, well, could you point to where that's reflected? Could you explain why retailers are dumping AOS stock at a massive discount or even at a loss if those new players exist? Can you explain why GW hasn't sold out a single limited edition if there are new players buying stuff?

And if AOS is indeed doing worse financially than Fantasy, then what future could it possibly have? None at all.

AoS is a disaster for GW. Whole areas that once had healthy WFB communities are now barren. Tournament scenes destroyed, pick-up games unavailable, shops dumping stock and 'fantasy games nights' becoming X-Wing, Magic or whatever nights instead.

The forums for fantasy on Warseer, BoLS and Dakka point to a near complete market failure with fantasy scenes collapsing all over the world. The rage many veterans feel will resonate for years. Even more worrying for GW is the anecdotal evidence that this is effecting 40K as well as destroying the old fantasy community.

As for all this nonsense about new players flocking in droves? How? GW don't advertise - for decades they've relied on the veterans to introduce new players to the 'GW hobby'. Now those veterans are actively working against them in many areas. They've also damaged the businesses of many independent stores with their lame release - these guys won't be pushing GW hard after the mess they were left in. GW has a near invisible presence - companies that are tiny in comparison seem to be far better at getting their products onto websites, reviews and magazines. Where do new customers come from?

It's hard to imagine a bigger failure for GW than this tripe they tried to foist on their customer base.

Flipmode
21-12-2015, 23:54
Any customers who stop buying 40k because of AoS are not worth trying to appease.

Niall78
21-12-2015, 23:56
They'de come back.

The real question is does GW really have a set of rules in the pipeline.
I say no.

The problem for GW is that once players start discovering other cool games that are heavily supported by their developers. That are much cheaper and have much better rules many will never come back.

A guy whose just bought the 70 Hail Caeser : Conquest of Gaul starter box with 96 miniatures and hard back rule book and has had great fun with the rules isn't going to come running back to the expensive mess that GW products have become.

Same with any ex-GW customer who is currently getting involved in any of the great games now available due to AoS. GW just looks like organised robbery after sampling other companies offerings.

Niall78
22-12-2015, 00:03
Any customers who stop buying 40k because of AoS are not worth trying to appease.

Again this nonsense that a company involved in a niche hobby can just dump customers and not live to regret it. Even in non-niche markets there is a whole range of studies that show how expensive it is to recruit new customers rather than retain old ones. In a small niche market those studies apply even more as there simply isn't the customer base to replace old buyers with new.

40K according to guys and girls who play it in my area is a complete mess of broken points, broken scales and massive expense. AoS for many may be the final straw. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for 40K - GW aren't capable or even interested in turning it around - AoS proves this.

broxus
22-12-2015, 00:04
And if AOS is indeed doing worse financially than Fantasy, then what future could it possibly have? None at all.

So it will have the same fate as the future of WHFB had which is none. This is not a short term change but a long term change for wargaming to a new generation. Most of the angry past old WHFB crowds have moved on (and now only troll forums) and new players are slowly coming to the game. Many people fail to realize this is a new game and WHFB is dead. It shouldn't be compared to a game that was 30 years old (even though it was on life support). The only thing the games share in common are some of the same models.

People saying AoS is doomed and dying should use the same logic that LoW, KoW, 9th Age and other systems which WHFB players went to are also doomed and dying since they are also smaller. If you consider that the WHFB community fractured and for arguments sake most went to KoW/9th Age, which are actually getting new players since the split? I have yet to meet a single KoW/9th Age player that wasn't a previous angry at GW WHFB. In contrast over half the new AoS players I have met or talked to have never played a single WHFB game.

What system do you think will last KoW, LoW, 9th Age, AoS? My money is on AoS considering the trends I and others have seen. The game is only 7 months old and looks like it is a pretty good spot for such a new game.

Lars Porsenna
22-12-2015, 00:16
AoS is in such a great position that my FLGS just announced a holiday sale where all AoS & WH Fantasy stuff in now 50% off. Guess my area is a anomaly and it is booming everywhere else...?

Damon.

Flipmode
22-12-2015, 00:18
As you say, 40k has plenty of problems and reasons to drop it.

Still, people who would drop it because a different (failing) game was replaced, are not the kind of people who would recruit new customers.

GW have said that they want to get back into more standard toy stores to reach new customers. I still don't think they have the right products for this, but it is better than it was 2 years ago. I mention this because that was how I got into the hobby with Space Crusade and Heroquest, not being recruited by someone.

Long term customers are important, but sometimes I think people overstate the importance of veterans' opinions.

Spiney Norman
22-12-2015, 00:19
You keep making these claims, but that is all they are, claims without any proof. It is nice to have faith in AoS future, but all it ends up as is hope in a future that may not be there unless they find a way to turn it around quick. However if the system isn't competitive minded and solid, KoW will be eating up the players. You can't wait this long on a roll out, alienate so many players and not think there will be a cost. First impressions and all that.

imho GW still have plenty of time to remedy the situation, as much as people crow about KoW on these forums I'm not seeing it catch on large-scale which it needs to do to take WFB's place. Many KoW advocates are pursuing a vendetta against GW and need an alternative system to promote in its place, but Mantic's release schedule is too sparse and their models too poor to pretend that they can possibly compete for the fantasy wargame crown, they're just too small-time.

If GW put out a competitive points packet for AoS tomorrow and followed it up with some less-stormcast-centric world building literature I'm pretty confident that it would be back on top of the fantasy market inside 6 months because their models are super-high quality and the constant stream of new releases keeps people interested and most importantly you can find opponents for GW games almost anywhere. Try walking into any gaming club and asking for a game of beyond the gates of Antares and see how many hands go up, now ask for a game of 40k and see what happens.

However much people complain about burnt bridges and hurt feelings unwilling to forgive the big bad Corp the reality is that people would come back to GW because there is no other wargames company out there that is big enough to do what GW do.

GW may not be the entirety of the fantasy wargaming hobby but they are the reason it is as 'mainstream' as it is, they're the reason so many people got into the hobby and stayed in it, if they were to disappear fantasy wargaming would gradually slide back to the obscure, almost-unheard-of state that it used to be, similar to historical wargaming is now.

broxus
22-12-2015, 00:19
AoS is in such a great position that my FLGS just announced a holiday sale where all AoS & WH Fantasy stuff in now 50% off. Guess my area is a anomaly and it is booming everywhere else...?

Damon.

What is the store name? I'd love to place an order with them. You said it was only 40% off a few hours ago did it drop 10% more in 2 hours?

Niall78
22-12-2015, 00:22
My money is on AoS considering the trends I and others have seen. The game is only 7 months old and looks like it is a pretty good spot for such a new game.

All evidence points to the opposite. A market failure of gigantic proportions for a company of GWs scale in a niche market.

This is what happens when a company feels market research is 'otiose'. Probably the stupidest thing I've ever read in public release from a company.

Lars Porsenna
22-12-2015, 00:25
What is the store name? I'd love to place an order with them.

http://theportalcomicsandgaming.com/main/

Don't know if they would be willing to do mail order though. Suppose it might be worth a call...

Also saw it says boxed sets, so maybe they're talking about the starters? I didn't care enough to get a clarification though...

Sale ends 12-24-15.

Damon.

Edit: just noticed Horus Heresy boxes 50% off!!! Too bad I'm broke buying presents for the family...

Kahadras
22-12-2015, 00:27
Long term customers are important, but sometimes I think people overstate the importance of veterans' opinions.

Problem is that GW kind of rely on its veterans. GW doesn't do any marketing so promotion for its games falls on its existing player base. If it's 'games in the toy store' approach works then there might be less need for the existing community to bring in new players. Sad fact of the matter is that most new players will be quickly driven away by GW's prices. At the moment GW needs the 20 to 30 year old vets who are holding down a job and have plenty of income to keep buying. If they go then the company folds.

Niall78
22-12-2015, 00:27
As you say, 40k has plenty of problems and reasons to drop it.

Still, people who would drop it because a different (failing) game was replaced, are not the kind of people who would recruit new customers.

GW have said that they want to get back into more standard toy stores to reach new customers. I still don't think they have the right products for this, but it is better than it was 2 years ago. I mention this because that was how I got into the hobby with Space Crusade and Heroquest, not being recruited by someone.

Long term customers are important, but sometimes I think people overstate the importance of veterans' opinions.

Space crusade and Heroquest are products from nearly thirty years ago - they also required GW to team up with Milton Bradley to get the exposure that made them successful. GW do no advertising or market research. They've relied on word of mouth from established players for decades. How do they gain new customers with such an approach when they've alienated many of these veteran players? Not only will these vets stop pushing GW games they'll actively push other competing systems - a double whammy for GWs hopes of new player growth.

Spiney Norman
22-12-2015, 00:28
http://theportalcomicsandgaming.com/main/

Don't know if they would be willing to do mail order though. Suppose it might be worth a call...

Also saw it says boxed sets, so maybe they're talking about the starters? I didn't care enough to get a clarification though...

Sale ends 12-24-15.

Damon.

Edit: just noticed Horus Heresy boxes 50% off!!! Too bad I'm broke buying presents for the family...

So Betrayal at Calth was as big a failure as AoS at that store then, working on the basis that they wouldn't be flogging it at half price if it was a successful product right?

2DSick
22-12-2015, 00:29
imho GW still have plenty of time to remedy the situation, as much as people crow about KoW on these forums I'm not seeing it catch on large-scale which it needs to do to take WFB's place. Many KoW advocates are pursuing a vendetta against GW and need an alternative system to promote in its place, but Mantic's release schedule is too sparse and their models too crap to pretend that they can possibly compete for the fantasy wargame crown, they're just too small-time.

If GW put out a competitive points packet for AoS tomorrow and followed it up with some less-stormcast-centric world building literature I'm pretty confident that it would be back on top of the fantasy market inside 6 months because their models are super-high quality and the constant stream of new releases keeps people interested. However much people complain about burnt bridges and hurt feelings unwilling to forgive the big bad Corp the reality is that people would come back to GW because there is no other wargames company out there that is big enough to do what GW do.

GW may not be the entirety of the fantasy wargaming hobby but they are the reason it is as 'mainstream' as it is, they're the reason so many people got into the hobby and stayed in it, if they were to disappear fantasy wargaming would gradually slide back to the obscure, almost-unheard-of state that it used to be, similar to historical wargaming is now.

I get your view that many peopl feel like GW owe them something... but reading your point there makes it sound like we should all owe GW something?

I've got nothing but good to say about KoW but it's not about the models. It's the game. It really is excellent. Play it with your GW minis, play it with paper counters, playing it with lumps of gold bullion... it's still a great game.

AoS has some belting models but the game is an abortion (exreme subjectivity). I don't think any amount of band-aid point schemes, ret-cons or .... anything is going to repair it.

Hell even 40k is leaking interest...

I mean look at the decline in search trends https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F0mbr2

Malagor
22-12-2015, 00:34
Long term customers are important, but sometimes I think people overstate the importance of veterans' opinions.
Well I can tell you that here, GW doesn't exist as a entity.
There isn't a store for miles and only 2 stores I think in the entire country(Sweden) and I know with one of those stores you are only allowed into the store to play if it is your first time there. Otherwise you will have to find another game store or player group if you want to play the game.
So I would say that 95% of the advertisment for GW is done through veterans in this country. As I said before, they are the ones in the game stores(most of the time) playing the games, they are the ones helping new people and if the new player is gonna play, he/she will be playing against those veterans.
This might be different in the UK where GW has alot better coverage but as I said, here in Sweden, GW doesn't exist except through the words and actions of veterans.

Spiney Norman
22-12-2015, 00:36
I somehow doubt Mantic can survive just by selling rule books though, at some point they're going to need to start producing models that are worth spending actual money on. If GW are selling models to KoW players they still going to be making money.

Flipmode
22-12-2015, 00:51
Beer is too expensive in Sweden, I wouldn't be able to afford anything. ;)