Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I shall not be buying any AOS models, as I will play it with models I have from other systems. However a noob, who is buying AOS from the get go, if in a couple of years they decide they want to play something else, they will have a major job of rebasing on their hands.

This is not IMO a cunning plan by GW to put people off from other games. It is just that the circular bases are more artistic for model collectors.

Yes -- it sounds dumb, but one of the reasons I never much painted Fantasy models is because they were on square bases, and I don't like them as much for modelling; at the same time, I didn't want to paint up models that couldn't be used. So in that sense, the round bases appeal to me, though certainly, there are many other reasons I paint more scifi rather than Fantasy models -- mostly, that I like high tech, futuristic guns. I guess that would be a bit hard for GW to fix in a fantasy setting If only Wood Elves had Shuriken Cannons, and Sigmarites had Heavy Flamers!

Ironically, one of the reasons I paint less WMH models than I do is that I don't like lipped bases, LOL. Many times, I've actually prepped a WMH model, looked at the base, and then take it apart and shelve it.

Just go buy bases without lips?

So you have written it off without any knowledge of how the game plays or what will happen to it to expand it?

Nice one.

Marlov wrote:
Just go buy bases without lips?

Of course, I can base models on whatever I like. It doesn't really make it a good idea, though, because then I have models on bases not standard for the game. I'm just saying that I like the aspect of AoS which makes bases decorative only. It lets me put something on whatever size and shape of base I think looks best for the model, and (legally) play it. And yes, if this were 40k, someone could make a turret that was 24" long.. but that's ok, I just would not play with such a player anyhow.

 JamesY wrote:

 keezus wrote:
You're entirely right. Its the fault of the customers that GW couldn't sell enough Fantasy to keep it afloat in its old incarnation. Since market research is otiose in a niche and they do not perform play testing, clearly... GW had no other choice than to do what they did.

Who said they don't play test? They certainly do, and it isn't done by studio staff. They have a dedicated team for each system (well, not lotr anymore).
It's no ones fault, the market clearly isn't sustaining the game, and hasn't been for a long time. So they are making the right decision and moving on. No one expected Sony to continue making walkmans when people stopped buying cassettes.

Not doing it and being utter gak at it are synonymous in this context.

@ the OP: I for one do not want GW to die. I love the settings (WHFB, 40K and now AoS). What is absolutely needed (and I know a number of folks of this have said already) is new, fresh blooded management. Not a Tom Kirby minion who appears to function like a Kastelan robot.

I won't be buying any, I don't care for how the new models look. The only reason I've ever bought any of their fantasy line was to use it with Mordheim and these are just too crazy in design to fit in.

I like D&D styled stuff and general fantasy so I own a bunch of reaper models, stuff from Red Box Games etc but I've never cared much for GW's take on fantasy as I'm not interested in rank and file based units.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@ the OP: I for one do not want GW to die. I love the settings (WHFB, 40K and now AoS). What is absolutely needed (and I know a number of folks of this have said already) is new, fresh blooded management. Not a Tom Kirby minion who appears to function like a Kastelan robot.

Haha, I'd love to see a picture of Tom Kirby and Kevin Roundtree's heads photoshopped over the Kastellan kit!

 JamesY wrote:
So you have written it off without any knowledge of how the game plays or what will happen to it to expand it?

Nice one.

I'm not running around with my hair on fire, frothing at the mouth and ranting here, I'm just saying that the rules as presented are a steaming pile of dung. If they do something later to make them less dung-like, I'll be happy to play. But I'm not big on scenarios or a game dependent upon scenarios for a sense of balance. I have literally made my own rules for games better than the four pages of AoS crapness and I'm no genius by any stretch.

How do you know they're better?

Interesting things being posted in the Fantasy forum. The "model to model" measuring is asinine. To patch what was originally a terrible idea:

1. To stop guys with huge overhangs on their models, they've made it so each part of the model can only travel up to the max distance allowed by movement. This also has the side effect of making "long models" like the HE dragon unable to turn around even after using all its movement. Awesome!

2. To fix the issue that models in BTB can't meet the 0.5" melee range, they made it so its possible for enemy models to encroach on the bases of your models. I'm sure all the guys with scenic bases (i.e. standing on a bit of ruined bridge, or awash in foliage) thank you for this. The guy standing on the ruined bridge might never get into melee if the bridge pier is too high.

3. Guys on the 3" flying stands are largely invulnerable to melee due to the 0.5" range, but confer the "can't move" rule on enemy models within 3". Granted, you can still shoot the flying beastie, but I'm not sure that having un-engagable models is the design intent.

This could have all been avoided if they did base to base instead of model to model. Sure its an abstraction, but it wouldn't have needed so much patching.

I do not hope GW will fail.

I rather hoped that they would actually want my continued custom and that of my two lads and their mates and my own buddies.

AoS is not for me. It may have been since I have a resurgent interest in fantasy but the fluff, new naming conventions and what I have seen of the rules has seen me bowing out. My buddies feel the same. My lads took one look and decided not to buy.

From having virtually all of the gaming bases covered AoS looks leaving 'Games Workshop' with One core system and something with which to fill up the space in their stores.

Nomeny wrote:
How do you know they're better?

Just like any expressed, personal opinion, my views are subjective. Do you require a byline or disclaimer to every post or just those that don't mesh with your views?

 keezus wrote:
Interesting things being posted in the Fantasy forum. The "model to model" measuring is asinine. To patch what was originally a terrible idea:

1. To stop guys with huge overhangs on their models, they've made it so each part of the model can only travel up to the max distance allowed by movement. This also has the side effect of making "long models" like the HE dragon unable to turn around even after using all its movement. Awesome!

2. To fix the issue that models in BTB can't meet the 0.5" melee range, they made it so its possible for enemy models to encroach on the bases of your models. I'm sure all the guys with scenic bases (i.e. standing on a bit of ruined bridge, or awash in foliage) thank you for this. The guy standing on the ruined bridge might never get into melee if the bridge pier is too high.

3. Guys on the 3" flying stands are largely invulnerable to melee due to the 0.5" range, but confer the "can't move" rule on enemy models within 3". Granted, you can still shoot the flying beastie, but I'm not sure that having un-engagable models is the design intent.

This could have all been avoided if they did base to base instead of model to model. Sure its an abstraction, but it wouldn't have needed so much patching.

#1 - I suppose this does disadvantage some models. I guess you could say, it actually makes some sense that large, awkward units are less nimble? I don't think it's game-breaking, anyhow, but it's a valid point.

#2 - I imagine these are the exception, rather than the rule. If you base something for a competition/showcase to be highly scenic, and want to play it, just agree to something before the start of the game. But how often do you actually see that?

#3 - By that logic, there's no inequity, because a flying model couldn't melee the ground model either. In some ways, it makes sense, you can't smack an eagle with a sword, or punch an fighter jet. However, for fantasy gaming purposes you could just say that the stem is part of the model, rather than part of the base. Why? A griffon might swoop down, for instance, coming low enough to melee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
So you have written it off without any knowledge of how the game plays or what will happen to it to expand it?

Nice one.

I'm not running around with my hair on fire, frothing at the mouth and ranting here, I'm just saying that the rules as presented are a steaming pile of dung. If they do something later to make them less dung-like, I'll be happy to play. But I'm not big on scenarios or a game dependent upon scenarios for a sense of balance. I have literally made my own rules for games better than the four pages of AoS crapness and I'm no genius by any stretch.

By the way agnosto, it seems that there WILL be scenarios and campaign rules -- or so allegedly stores have been told.

http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2015/07/information-being-given-now-to-stores.html

I know you just mentioned that they aren't for you, so maybe that isn't helpful. In our group, scenario-play is HUGE (like, 75% of our games), so this would make AoS much more attractive for us. If campaign play is some kind of miniature warfare based RPGish thing, we'd probably actually make AoS more of a regular game, and less of a time filler.

From what it looks to be, GW isn't trying at all to make AoS a competitive/tournament friendly format (though no doubt different groups will try to make that a thing).

GW do not see this as a tournament set of rules. It is obviously something cobbled together rather quickly without much thought or testing.

GW will rely on players to make suitable adjustments to make it playable. We have already spoken about factors such as the bases (don't ignore them as the rules specify), how to balance forces, how to attack flying units, and so on.

Why am I sorely tempted to start a thread titled 'Who Isn't Buying Age of Sigmar - Negative Things Only'?

(Not gonna... but my inner child thinks that it would be funny....)

More seriously, how long do folks think that AoS is going to last before the game dies the death?

I... give it a year.

With no later resurrection of Warhammer to follow.

The Auld Grump... that... Khorne... thing... has skulls coming out of its knees!

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Why am I sorely tempted to start a thread titled 'Who Isn't Buying Age of Sigmar - Negative Things Only'?

(Not gonna... but my inner child thinks that it would be funny....)

More seriously, how long do folks think that AoS is going to last before the game dies the death?

I... give it a year.

With no later resurrection of Warhammer to follow.

The Auld Grump... that... Khorne... thing... has skulls coming out of its knees!

I think the models will sell the the box-set; there are enough people interested in those just based on comment around Dakka. That doesn't mean people will play the game, though I imagine some will. The first true test for GW will be when they start to release supplemental books, then you'll have a better idea of how successful the game itself will be.

If GW are true to the Living Rulebook concept the supplementary books will be free.

GW plan to make all of their money from selling model kits.

GW do make all their money selling model kits.

Just not that much from fantasy for a while it would appear.

I am looking forwards to 40K rules and codexes being free.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am looking forwards to 40K rules and codexes being free.

Me too!

If GW going down makes my collection more valuable then die baby die! The game I loved is now a tedious and expensive exercise in lazy rules design. I'd just like to trade out all my crap for more games my family will enjoy...

 BladeWalker wrote:
If GW going down makes my collection more valuable then die baby die! The game I loved is now a tedious and expensive exercise in lazy rules design. I'd just like to trade out all my crap for more games my family will enjoy...

This is the result of hiring someone from Mantic as a rules designer.

Nomeny wrote:
How do you know they're better?

Because virtually any rules would be better than this garbage. GW is clearly treating their new game like one of those games on the back of a cereal box: a quick "screw around for a few minutes" thing you can do with the toys you're already buying, with a primary goal of keeping "development" expenses to an absolute minimum. You'd have to deliberately create the worst possible game you can think of to even have a chance of matching GW's sheer incompetence.

Next step will be a small plastic catapult - which you use to shoot dice at the figures on the table.

When a figure is hit then it loses whatever number comes up on the die.

No fair using Sex Dice for your Slannesh armies!


Pretty tame, but spoilered anyway.

The Auld Grump

@ Auldgrump, in fairness, crossbows and catapults was a phenomenal game...

^And surely Slaaneshi Sex Dice can only make it better?

CrashGordon94 wrote:


Hate to dredge up some stuff from last page but jah_joshua's replies got on my nerves a bit.
Dude, they are NOT getting mad at you because you still like GW's stuff, it's because you give the impression that you're not even TRYING to understand why they're upset or unsatisfied at all. If it was more along the lines of "I get what you're saying but it doesn't personally bother me, I'd personally suggest focusing on the old stuff you still like, that might soften the blow a bit." or "I don't really understand why this in particular is such an issue, could you explain it to me?" then you probably wouldn't be getting much hostility, if any. Hell they'd probably still be fine if it was you were just trying to explain your views in return. A little bit of empathy goes a long way and the big thing causing these spats is that you don't seem to be coming across as trying to have any.

where did i ever say that anyone was getting mad at me???
i have never made a "woe is me, people are attacking me and i can't see why" post...

i have stated multiple times in this thread alone that i understand why people would be upset, but i am not one of those upset people...
those two quotes you have in your post for how you would like to see me present my stance are pretty much exactly what i have already said...
it looks like you don't even bother reading what i write...

i don't really feel any hostility from anyone here, and all i ever do is explain my views in return...
i have never once told anyone they are wrong, or that their opinion is invalid...
everyone is welcome to their opinion, even you...

as for empathy, well, i have a lot of sympathy, but not much empathy...
there is often a post in these debates that says, "you are happy with the way things are, but i am not, so you are being selfish"...
so, the only way for me to not be selfish is for GW to cater to you, and not me...
of course, in an ideal world, we could both be happy...
in the reality before us, it is not working out like that...
i can totally sympathise...

should i empathize with someone who wants to see a company that makes a product i love fail, because they don't like the new direction AoS is taking...
i'm sorry, but that just seems like a very vindictive, negative attitude, which doesn't jive with me...
walk away, fine...
i have never told anyone what they should buy, or do...
i am simply saying NO to the OP's question...
anyone else's choice is fine, for them...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:


should i empathize with someone who wants to see a company that makes a product i love fail, because they don't like the new direction AoS is taking...
i'm sorry, but that just seems like a very vindictive, negative attitude, which doesn't jive with me...
walk away, fine...
i have never told anyone what they should buy, or do...
i am simply saying NO to the OP's question...
anyone else's choice is fine, for them...

cheers
jah

This is the net after all man, people are showing off left right and centre when they are upset, if anything it speaks volumes about the individuals that wish failure on others simply because they dislike the changes they make.
Im with you on the vindictive part but I think its childish as much as vindictive also, kind of a, "if I cant have my way then no one can" attitude !!

I get people are upset, but lifes not long enough to waste time hating !

 Rayvon wrote:
I get people are upset, but lifes not long enough to waste time hating !

I could not possibly agree more. When it comes to entertainment, people should do things that they enjoy, because you have only 25,000 days, give or take, to do so.

Gaming isn't like climate change or government corruption or public safety. The consequences of a bad game is that you go do something else -- that you enjoy more. If you want to take up arms and march on a crusade, do the world a favor and pick a cause that actually matters, like the well-being of our planet. "You should be ashamed of yourself for having such a massive carbon footprint" is something I can get behind. "You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting such a crappy gaming company" sounds just ridiculous

Now back on the topic of Age of Sigmar, WD75 is totally sold out in my town, and stores have huge Sigmar preorder lists -- exceeding Space Marines releases, and even Deathstorm/Stormclaw. So this may be something that gains traction, or it may be something that flames out quickly, but it's probably going to be GW's most successful Fantasy release going back a long while -- if you define success as sales volumes.

 Talys wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I get people are upset, but lifes not long enough to waste time hating !

Now back on the topic of Age of Sigmar, WD75 is totally sold out in my town, and stores have huge Sigmar preorder lists -- exceeding Space Marines releases, and even Deathstorm/Stormclaw. So this may be something that gains traction, or it may be something that flames out quickly, but it's probably going to be GW's most successful Fantasy release going back a long while -- if you define success as sales volumes.

That's just sales in your little part of Canada.. The U.S. Market is going to make or break this release. There are zero pre orders in the three shops I frequent here. So if I base it on my little corner of the world it's going to be a flop