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.

Exalted! Well said Fafnir.

fresus wrote:
My main problem with the initiative system of AoS (turn order, not melee initiative), is that if the other player plays two turns in a row, you basically spend twice as long doing nothing, just looking at the other person play. When a player turn can easily take 30mins, it means you won't do much for a whole hour.
Obviously 40K could be played much faster with streamlined rules (fewer saves, fewer rerolls and special cases), but a player turn in a standard 2,000pts game will always last a while.
So, independently of any tactical or game design considerations, I don't like the initiative system because I get bored when I wait too long for my turn to play.

Agreed. The turn initiative system shouldn't be ported to 40k at all. I speculate that it was introduced, in the first place, to counter-balance the phenomenon of effectively staying at the rim of each others' threat bubbles and wait for the other's player nerves to break and possibly botch a charge roll (I guess it could have been introduced to promote a wilder, funnier game I suppose...). The random roll for charge, on the other hand, was IMO introduced to mitigate the older effect of the "sharper eye" in which you are at a disadvantage if you can't judge distances properly(I guess this could also have been introduced to promote a wilder, funnier game...). All in all it was all a chain of fixes that were in the context of a game in which the +1 bonus for charging could decide the match. IMO 40k doesn't need that. The melee initiative, OTOH, is something I would welcome in the new edition. It is maybe the only thing I can point and be 100% that I want to see it again.

The 'sharper eye' advantage could be mitigated more effectively and intelligently by developing a system that encouraged melee-minded players to maneuver and trap their opponents for an optimal and decisive blow, rather than simply having them rush forward and hope to be the first to hit.

As for the random turn order, there was this stream: Drakosath Sigmarines vs shooty Chaos Dwarves. Sigmarines got lucky, because they managed to win a second roll. It would've simply been a game over, had the Dwarves got two turns in a row.

We once lost a points battle, just because opponent was more lucky and got more turns. So no.

 Mayk0l wrote:
40k desperately needs a reset to lower the threshold for newer players. Systems like X-Wing are so simple yet so nuanced, 40k needs to get with the times.

While it is simpler I do hope that it doesn't go the route of "Buy these newest cards or be worthless". X-wing is just so highly competitive but it seems like if y ou want to run something functioning you need to grab things from all over with no guarantee that it'll be effective.

I played a game of AoS today, and not only was it very fun with virtually no arguing over the rules, but we also managed to finish it within two hours. I can't say the same for any of the games of 40k I've played recently. Whatever they do, they need to inject 40k with a new dose of that sense of fun and ease that AoS has.

What can 40k learn from AoS? That it is a bad idea to kill off 30 years of lore for sigmar-ines.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

The AOS rule pamphlet is an insult to wargaming. If this kind of ruleset will be implemented in 40K, it will alienate a lot of veteran players. But maybe this is what GW really wants. These old guys just don´t buy enough stuff anyway and instead glorify the golden days of the past. Thats bad for business, so just get rid of them.

Holy Tzeentch I'm sick of this. Did you actually give it a go? Just because it isn't what you specifically enjoy does not mean it's bad. Many people enjoy AoS.
Also OP asked us not to game bash really nicley.

As to what 40k can learn:
WARSCROLLS!
The hero phase and his magic is done.
One warscroll per unit. Complex units slow the game down and death stars are not fun to play against.
Decreasing effectiveness for big models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also rend and variable damage on weapon profiles.

I have actually tried it. It was at best a very shallow gaming experience.
The battle was fought between a Night Goblin warband and a Warriors of Chaos (Nurgle) warband. The Chaos Warriors chose the Sudden Death victory condition Assassinate. While the combatants brawled in the inevitable and hideous AOS mosh pit (there is no rank & file in the mortal realms), the mounted Chaos Lord slew the Night Goblin Warboss with ease and this travesty of a battle finally ended.
Just imagine to move every single Night Goblin around without the help of a regimental base. That fact alone is enough to drive any person insane. Also measuring the threat distance of close combat weapons to determine, if a model is eligible for combat is diplomatically formulated quite a hassle.
AOS is suited for twelve-year olds, who can´t comprehend or appreciate a more complex ruleset. If you favour a simple game, then you should go full AOS on 40K.

So you basically went in, played with no matched play, played no scenario, played in a way that benefitted the opponent, and lost. Whow, what a tragedy and such an indicative.

I've played greentide in 40k. Your whinning on moving many bases doesn't move me. Spears/2''= extra rank. Simple as that. Seriously speaking, your comments can be milked quite further but I don't really want to.

The above mentioned gaming experience example was a test game in which I controlled both armies to learn the rules of the game. My usual tabletop buddies are computer gamers who don´t even own a single miniature. And who should blame them for it? Nowadays an army costs a fortune. I introduced them to the 2nd edition (Battle Bible found on the interwebz) & 5th edition ruleset from 40K and the WHFB ruleset that comes with the boxed set of Battle for Skull Pass .
So I told them that GW published a new edition for Fantasy Wargaming with a ruleset that is comprised of only four pages. Even as my buddies are no tabletop experts they instinctively knew that GW screwed up badly. There are cardgames like Magic the Gathering or roleplaying games like D&D which have rulebooks/rulesets that are more sophisticated and done with more love than AOS.
I told them no further details of this game but showed them instead a guy on youtube who can explain AOS in a nutshell better than anybody on the various interwebz forums. It is a spoof for sure but his revelations of this brand new game from GW coincide with my own POV that I gleaned from my above mentioned test game.

Here you go (Laughing Guy Plays Warhammer Age of Sigmar)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ke7LuZUFv4

We had a blast watching this and surely you will too. Oh my gosh, watching this again cracks me up. Ten Bloodthirsters.Hilarious! So from this moment on we agreed that AOS is simply not worth the time & effort for our gaming group. Period.

Have you played D&D by yourself before? It isn't fun no matter how much rules you have.

So he played against himself? Nice job proving his own argument void of any validity then. For all that we know he could have simply thrown the grot at the chaos lord and handle the victory the chaos forces the victory on a platter, contrary to what would happen on a battlefield, and no matter what he says afterwards the assumption remains.

Now, something more that I've thought: you run in the movement phase. Forget about moving the minis twice, just make the roll and move. Plenty of people do this already but I've met with enough TFG to know this can't always be done. It would make the game faster for assault based armies, something that I can give you solid proof as I play a black orc army (Ironjaws) . Sure, it would be detrimental for eldar's battlefocus, but we could switch that rule to: you roll on the movement phase but you can decide where to use it.

Davor wrote:
I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.

Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.

So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.

Great post Davor. Complexity is not a bad thing. Convolution is. Exalted!

 Mymearan wrote:

Davor wrote:
I keep seeing a few people are saying 40K is too complex and others are saying 40K is not complex. After reading the 40K is not complex, they could be correct. Maybe instead of saying 40K is too complex maybe we should say 40K is too convoluted.

Let 40K keep the complexity it has, but don't make 40K convoluted. Age of Sigmar now has lots of complexity, but it's not convoluted.

So now I will say 8th edition of 40K should have no convolution at all. Make it clear, concise and well written.

Great post Davor. Complexity is not a bad thing. Convolution is. Exalted!

Yes that's the perfect way to discribe it! 40k is a complex and convoluted game, with rules cancelling each other out and too much random rolling. AoS is still complex but everything works together like a well oiled machine.

I like how MCs/Vehicles work in AoS. Theres no arbirrary line that makes a world of difference.

For example what makes a Riptide an MC and a Dreadnought a walker? If anything it should be reversed as a Dreadnought is hard wired into his giant battlesuit.
And when does a regular infantry become a monstrous creature? That makes a world of difference but is at least reasonably clear cut.

I'd also like a rerevamped psychic phase, did 5th ed really have it so bad?

Personally I thibk AoS did so well since it's simpler than 40k. People can choose rhe quick and cheerful AoS or the more indepth 40k. If people want an indepth 40k Ao40k would kill that. And 30k is seriously expensive.

I have never played a single game of AoS in my life.. but from what I could understand in this thread, I would really like to see the MC getting weaker by taking wounds.
I would also greatly appreciate free unit cards and I would love to have the armor save modifiers back (rending?).

Initiative that could lead to one player, having two turns back to back seems like a bad idea in 40k.

Cheers

 Iron Angel wrote:
I have never played a single game of AoS in my life.. but from what I could understand in this thread, I would really like to see the MC getting weaker by taking wounds.
I would also greatly appreciate free unit cards and I would love to have the armor save modifiers back (rending?).

Initiative that could lead to one player, having two turns back to back seems like a bad idea in 40k.

Cheers

It is a bad idea in 40k but can lead to some hilarious results. Imagine it, orks and dark eldar may actually have a chance of winning in those scenarios!

Another thing would be the points. Age of Sigmar's system, the general's handbook, is actually the result of using the SGCT system on the PPC scale. Those two were two methods made by fans and, more to the point, tournament players. As of now we know that at least two tournament players still participate in the game's design, specifically being consulted on points and balances. Competiitvely speaking, there's still disparity between armies, but the community has reached the consensus that on a casual or even semi-casual level, we have a good scenario. 40k needs the tournament players from ALL armies to participate on matters of balance. You know, doing actualy playtesting.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Iron Angel wrote:
I have never played a single game of AoS in my life.. but from what I could understand in this thread, I would really like to see the MC getting weaker by taking wounds.
I would also greatly appreciate free unit cards and I would love to have the armor save modifiers back (rending?).

Initiative that could lead to one player, having two turns back to back seems like a bad idea in 40k.

Cheers

Another thing would be the points. Age of Sigmar's system, the general's handbook, is actually the result of using the SGCT system on the PPC scale. Those two were two methods made by fans and, more to the point, tournament players. As of now we know that at least two tournament players still participate in the game's design, specifically being consulted on points and balances. Competiitvely speaking, there's still disparity between armies, but the community has reached the consensus that on a casual or even semi-casual level, we have a good scenario. 40k needs the tournament players from ALL armies to participate on matters of balance. You know, doing actualy playtesting.

I agree on that, I'd like to see people that actually try to min/max and abuse etc. the rules and points to be involved in testing and balancing.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Mayk0l wrote:
40k desperately needs a reset to lower the threshold for newer players. Systems like X-Wing are so simple yet so nuanced, 40k needs to get with the times.

While it is simpler I do hope that it doesn't go the route of "Buy these newest cards or be worthless". X-wing is just so highly competitive but it seems like if y ou want to run something functioning you need to grab things from all over with no guarantee that it'll be effective.

I definitely agree with you on this. It's a habit that FFG have (I have the same issue with the LCGs); their release rate tends to be very high whilst also basically all mandatory. You need three of every new ship.

The reason I mentioned X-Wing is because it's a very rich and tactically engaging game while being a very 'simple' game at its core at the same time. It has a healthy set of basic rules and core mechanics on which they build.
I don't feel 40k needs to be this simple, but they can definitely learn from games like X-Wing how streamlining rules can help.

40k needs, imho, an overhaul in its core mechanics, not just some fat-trimming. Sigmarfying it would be one way to do that but doesn't necessarily have to be the way. However, I think if they want to change the bloated mess the rules are right now (instead of just adding bits here and taking away bits there) they will have to apply changes at a fundamental/core level.

Edit: I also feel they should ignore the naysayers.. but that's my personal opinion. People will complain whether they go left or right. They do, however, have the opportunity to change things to get more players into the game. AoS did. Why not 40k.

Don't concentrate on one faction to the detriment of others. Oh wait....

 Mayk0l wrote:

Edit: I also feel they should ignore the naysayers.. but that's my personal opinion. People will complain whether they go left or right. They do, however, have the opportunity to change things to get more players into the game. AoS did. Why not 40k.

The thing about this point is that most of the players who are content with the clusterfeth of rules that we call Warhammer 40k are going to generally be the same kind of people that will stick with whatever GW gives them. So, while a good portion of the fanbase suffers from some serious battered-wife-syndrome, it can actually be put to good use in keeping a playerbase that's already attached to the IP playing whatever they throw our way, regardless of how drastic the changes might be. I can only hope the changes are sufficiently drastic and, most importantly, good.

To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.

The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mayk0l wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


Edit: I also feel they should ignore the naysayers.. but that's my personal opinion. People will complain whether they go left or right. They do, however, have the opportunity to change things to get more players into the game. AoS did. Why not 40k.

I'd like to see some concrete proof that AoS managed to get in some new players. My guess would be that any spike in AoS/Fantasy players will have a lot more to do with GW new business practices than because of AoS itself.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
How to completely kill your sales.

This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.

Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).

But again, these numbers are obvously false.

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
How to completely kill your sales.

This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.

Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).

But again, these numbers are obvously false.

Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.

The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).

Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?

Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.

Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.

@ Lord Karagan

Finally, a sensible contribution. I was laughing at how much of a silly hate fest this thread was becoming.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Lord Karagan

Finally, a sensible contribution. I was laughing at how much of a silly hate fest this thread was becoming.

TLR What can 40k learn from AoS? That it must learn from infinity or else there will be a masive chimp-out of rodney-king-esque proportions amongst the fanbase.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
How to completely kill your sales.

This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.

Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).

But again, these numbers are obvously false.

Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.

The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).

Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?

Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.

Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.

First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.



Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)

 streetsamurai wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
How to completely kill your sales.

This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.

Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).

But again, these numbers are obvously false.

Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.

The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).

Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?

Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.

Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.

First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.



Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)

On atia's blog AOS was 30% before the report before the last.
https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/784

This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....

People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.

This is what he said before the analysis.

I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.

He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.

Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.

Lord Kragan wrote:


Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?

Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.

Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.

First of all, its not because I disagree with you that I haven't been paying attention. About all the things you've listed, I feel 40k could do way better than simply adopting what is done in Aos (even if in sone cases, it would be an upgrade, just not the optimal outcome). Specifically, of the things youve listed,I'd much rather have formations completely removed and replaced with a grater variety and restrictived FOC instead of adding point costs to them (and points for formations was something 40k did before AoS was even a thing). I'm not interested in getting free rules (though a free quick set would help get new players in) if the tradeoff is them not being developed to the same extent. This is definitely the case, imo, with AoS where the 4 pages feels not only incomplete but also incredibly shallow (and considering you practically need the GHB and at least a battletome to play AoS, it having free rules is highly debatable ). AoS point costing being based on fan play-testing (though highly unlikely for new releases afaik) is definitively an improvement over 40k current nonsensical approach . Still, I feel a way better altetnative would be for GW to hire a statisticians team complemented by rigorous in-house play testing (with yearly revision and maybe a army building application/software where points cost are adjusted continuously ). As for running in the movement phase and no deathstar, I don't feel it's something specific to AoS, just a major fumble that it isn't the case in 40k.

Finaly, I mostly agree with your last paragraph, I just don't feel it's as bad as you claim. I'd much rather have them hire technical writers capable of laying down a tight ruleset instead of simplifying things (and removing the thousand, all so similar,special rules provided by formations would definitely help).

Many in my store do agree they would like to see the monster rules transferred to vehicles somewhat and paying for formations. Those are the two things I could see carrying over.

 shinros wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
How to completely kill your sales.

This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.

Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).

But again, these numbers are obvously false.

Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.

The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).

Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?

Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.

Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.

First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.



Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)

On atia's blog AOS was 30% before the report before the last.
https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/784

This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....

People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.

This is what he said before the analysis.

I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.

He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.

Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.

If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.


And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.

Hastings also happens to hate the living guts of AoS. I'm not going to take the account of someone who's been confirmed to be viased at face value either.

Curiously enough, though, we had this "source" from another rumormonger on august:

AoS makes 35% or GWs Sales.

Comparing to Fantasy ?
Before it was squatted WFB was ~5% (and therefore lower than paints & tools)


This, by the way, are two different individuals and at different blogs and dates.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Hastings also happens to hate the living guts of AoS. I'm not going to take the account of someone who's been confirmed to be viased at face value either.

Curiously enough, though, we had this "source" from another rumormonger on august:

AoS makes 35% or GWs Sales.

Comparing to Fantasy ?
Before it was squatted WFB was ~5% (and therefore lower than paints & tools)


This, by the way, are two different individuals and at different blogs and dates.

lol. so Hasting was a good source when you tought he was saying AOs sales were good, but since it was shown to you that he in fact claimed the oppositite, he's no longer a good source Nice logic

And no, a few random unkwown posters claiming something won't convince me, and shouldn't convince anyone who have a minimum of rationality.