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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
For the record, the apparent dumbing down of society informing the creation of AOS was a genuine thought, not an attempt to "troll."

People with poor grammar/spelling/sentence construction have always been a thing. The difference is that today we "see" more poor writers past the teen years and into adulthood as more people use written communication than ever before. You can pour scorn on teenagers and young adults for their twitterspeak and textspeak all you like, but when I think back to my own teenage years, we didn't send letters to one another, so it's more of a golden age in terms of written language being used by everyday people to transmit communication rather than simply only receive it via printed media.

Of course, none of this has jack gak worth of relevance for an AoS discussion, and trying to strawman one poster's typo or grammatical mistake on a forum discussion is a pointless and kinda dick move, as is trying to draw a link between all of these modern "dumbed down young people" and a simpler set of rules in the form of the AoS set.

Seriously, there are lots of legit ways to argue about AoS' shortcomings. The above are not them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW dumbing down the game and removing any sense of balance by dumping army list construction/points values is a "ballsy move". No it wasn't. It was a lazy move. Creating a new points system for the new game went in the too hard basket, and that's that. There's nothing "ballsy" about making a game less playable, less balanced, and more vague.

I don't get the 'they were too lazy to give points' argument, since surely if they were lazy they would've just done nothing.

They'd just sort of let Fantasy die without bringing out anything new or changing the rules at all, just let it slowly peter out over the next few years, a bit like Specialist Games or SoB.

Instead, they wrote up brand new rules for every single model they make, spent months on releasing new battleplans, scenarios, and models for the new system, and continue to do so. That takes at least a modicum of effort, leaving aside arguments about the quality of said content.

I mean, I'm not saying leaving points out was a good idea, but it would've been a very simple matter to just add them in whilst they were writing up all the new rules anyway, so I don't think laziness came into it.

An argument I could believe would be that GW decided that they weren't in the position to assign points, instead deciding that local communities would be better off creating their own systems to balance games (which is exactly what ended up happening). I mean, how many times have we seen people proclaiming "GW can't balance the game to save their lives, I/We/the Community could balance the game better!", maybe GW was calling those people on their bluff?

 Vermis wrote:

Manchu wrote:That's the most legitimate complaint about AoS I have seen, it is not going to do much for gamers looking for pick-up play.

Are pick-up players the new 'competitive' players? The only section of gamers who might appreciate a bit of inbuilt balance?

You can sort of work that one out, right? What is "balance"? What is its role? And of course, we're talking about balance and the more specific mechanic of points valuation as if they are interchangable, and they are not, but we can assume that for the purposes of this tangent. Really basically, when it comes to points, we are talking about rendering liquid, that is, into interchangeable units, some increment of whatever quality makes an element of the game contribute toward victory over the opponent, other than that which the players contribute in terms of experience and skill. We're in pretty murky, theoretical waters here but that is the reality of "points." Well, fine, let's just hand wave away all the arbitrariness of this. So assume this thing the Point is accurate. What does it do? It isolates everything it represents away from the "experiment" represented by the game. Points allow us to "control" for the game pieces so that we may observe how the independent variable, the skill of the players, resolves into the dependent variable, the result of the match. In other words, the inherent purpose/function of points is competitive. Whenever the concept of "balance" comes up around the issue of points valuation, the real topic is fairness in a competition.

The reason you have to write the word this way, 'competitive,' is because it has been somehow confused for a slur. Look at it this way, you are playing a competitive game every time you play poker. You don't have to go to a poker tournament to be playing a game that is in its essence competitive. Somehow we have started to think that the word competitive is the opposite of good sportsmanship or fun or something, which is nonsense. In this sense, pick-up play has always been competitive and that's exactly why gamers who want pick-up play have a concern about the lack of points in AoS. Now again the idea that points actually contribute to any kind of actual balance (in the sense of controlling for the rest of the game as described above) is really a matter of religious-like faith rather than anything objective. But the association is there all the same, even considering it is mostly a superstition. Gamers feel better about the fairness of a game if they can add up to a rather arbitrary number that happens to be the same as the number someone else summed. The really important role of points, however, is nothing to do with balance; it actually facilitates the list-building "mini game" that so many people enjoy.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
I don't get the 'they were too lazy to give points' argument

Well it's pure ad hominem so entirely safe to ignore.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
An argument I could believe would be that GW decided that they weren't in the position to assign points, instead deciding that local communities would be better off creating their own systems to balance games (which is exactly what ended up happening).

I guess you have to keep in mind that there are no game police knocking on your door in the night because you didn't play the Right Way. Rules are something we all voluntarily submit to and the really interesting phenomenon is, as someone mentioned earlier ITT, it seems like on average people prefer to play with published rules that they complain about rather than unpublished rules they personally think are better. I guess the biggest reason is, because we assume that by publishing a rulebook, GW is calling into existence a kind of social contract that transcends whether any given player knows or trusts or respects any other given player. "As long as we play by the rules, the game will be fair." That is the ideal and we seem to act as if it is true even if we know that following the published rules seems to produce slanted results.

Dr. Delorean wrote:I don't get the 'they were too lazy to give points' argument, since surely if they were lazy they would've just done nothing.

They wanted to make money (which is fine), and they wanted to revitalise a brand that was withering on the vine. And, I suspect, they had to be quick about it. Hence 4 pages of rules.

Manchu wrote:
Well it's pure ad hominem so entirely safe to ignore.

No it's not. Replace laziness then with 'path of least resistance'. I'd even wager that the people writing the rules weren't given much time to do them, given how GW operates (models are decided upon, given to the rules guys and the rules guys are told how high to jump).

But I'm not going to get into an argument with you Manchu. I no longer have the stamina for that sort of thing. All I want is proof that AoS is failing, 'cause right now I don't see any.

January is gonna be veeeery interesting

@HBMC

It would be nice to have something more than a series of self-selected anecdotes but honestly that is exactly all we have here and, and barring some intrepid GW employee risking their livelihood, that's all we will have. Here's my anecdote BTW: I had pretty much given up on ole GW over the last three years (barring licensed properties like FFG's stuff) but feel a bit of the old enthusiasm again thanks to AoS.

But maybe your point was, prove X or stop passively asserting X by posing loaded questions no one present can answer. I agree there, too.

As to AoS being the fruit of laziness and stupidity, establishing that would also require support beyond a given poster's feelings. You and many others say, well there are no points, but that observation doesn't carry the issue for reasons I have already explained in the post to which you originally objected.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dr. Delorean wrote:I don't get the 'they were too lazy to give points' argument, since surely if they were lazy they would've just done nothing.

They wanted to make money (which is fine), and they wanted to revitalise a brand that was withering on the vine. And, I suspect, they had to be quick about it. Hence 4 pages of rules.

Manchu wrote:
Well it's pure ad hominem so entirely safe to ignore.

No it's not. Replace laziness then with 'path of least resistance'. I'd even wager that the people writing the rules weren't given much time to do them, given how GW operates (models are decided upon, given to the rules guys and the rules guys are told how high to jump).

But I'm not going to get into an argument with you Manchu. I no longer have the stamina for that sort of thing. All I want is proof that AoS is failing, 'cause right now I don't see any.

We've got the evidence presented on this forum, consisting of the general tenor of comments from users, a poll on how much people are spending on the game (not much), a poll on whether it's growing or shrinking locally (75% say shrinking), and statements from shop owners such as Mikhaila, who started off keen and quickly found there wasn't much demand for the game.

This can't be taken as definitive proof, because there could be many people who never post, who are keen supporters of the game. ut equally, it shouldn't be ignored. We will only really know for sure at the time that GW can the game.

I suspect if a year you had asked questions about how WHFB was doing, a lot of people on DakkaDakka would have said it was doing badly, but no-one actually forsaw that it would be canned this summer.

Looking at Manchu's point that people seem to prefer bought rules to home-brew rules, there are two reasons for this:

The first is that people tend to like things they have paid for. (There was a very interesting study a few years ago, that proved that people prefer advice they have paid for, over free advice, even if they know objectively it is of lower quality.) This is exploited in Marketing by pricing goods at a premium to make them more desirable.

The second is that people expect a game that has been written by a well-paid, professional design team, to be better than a game that was knocked out by a couple of guys in their garage.

AoS being free, it partakes of both these factors.

Sadly for the game, a lot of people have formed the opinion that whilst it might have emerged from the massive GW design studio, it was in fact bashed together by a couple of guys, and that it isn't very good.

I think we can safely ignore a trend in self-selected anecdotes regarding AoS posted on a site focused on 40k. Perhaps this becomes apparent when one considers that the trend in question is perfectly predictable.

Disregarding one or two citations as anecdotal is just fine, but when you do have a trend which involves quite a bit of store owners chipping in about AoS not doing well... Well that is hard to ignore now, isn't it? Unless one aims to become an ostrich...

As Grump said, it comes a time in which there are just too many anecdotes to safely disregard.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second is that people expect a game that has been written by a well-paid, professional design team, to be better than a game that was knocked out by a couple of guys in their garage.

Now here I want to limit my comments just to what we see from the demographic that seeks out a message board like Dakka to discuss these issues, because I don't see the same kind of thing IRL or even on Facebook. I think the expectation you mention exists mostly as an effigy to be burnt while criticizing the game. That is, the criticism derives a certain enhanced force for being directed at something that should be "better than it is" for the purposes of criticizing it. This drills down specifically to each facet: for example, whoever designed the rules is only a professional to the extent that we should expect more from him than the shoddy mess we are tearing down but for all other purposes he is simply and clearly just stupid and lazy (i.e., in no way professional). The only thing that holds this kind of thinking together is its sheer snideness, as it is otherwise incoherent.You see the same incoherence on KS, albeit in a different direction, when certain backers portray the project creator as infallible up until another backer complains about something in which case they excuse the creator as being overworked and understaffed, without ever seeming to wonder whether such systemic problems might reflect poorly on the creator.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Disregarding one or two citations as anecdotal is just fine

Whether purported evidence is anecdotal is not a matter of quantity. A thousand anecdotes don't add up to anything more than a thousand anecdotes.

Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second is that people expect a game that has been written by a well-paid, professional design team, to be better than a game that was knocked out by a couple of guys in their garage.

Now here I want to limit my comments just to what we see from the demographic that seeks out a message board like Dakka to discuss these issues, because I don't see the same kind of thing IRL or even on Facebook. I think the expectation you mention exists mostly as an effigy to be burnt while criticizing the game. That is, the criticism derives a certain enhanced force for being directed at something that should be "better than it is" for the purposes of criticizing it. This drills down specifically to each facet: for example, whoever designed the rules is only a professional to the extent that we should expect more from him than the shoddy mess we are tearing down but for all other purposes he is simply and clearly just stupid and lazy (i.e., in no way professional). The only thing that holds this kind of thinking together is its sheer snideness, as it is otherwise incoherent.You see the same incoherence on KS, albeit in a different direction, when certain backers portray the project creator as infallible up until another backer complains about something in which case they excuse the creator as being overworked and understaffed, without ever seeming to wonder whether such systemic problems might reflect poorly on the creator.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Disregarding one or two citations as anecdotal is just fine

Whether purported evidence is anecdotal is not a matter of quantity. A thousand anecdotes don't add up to anything more than a thousand anecdotes.

The thing is, if it comes to a point in which we have thousands of players and store owners are coming forth and saying "AoS is crashing and burning where I am at" (or the other way around) can you really disregard it as not being a clear sign of what is happening? It's much easier to disregard a smaller number of anecdotal statements and evidences in a worldwide "pool", so to say, than when it's nearing four digits - do note I am not saying it is currently nearing that number.

At what moment common sense come in and you start thinking "Ok, maybe there's something wrong."

To me, main problem of AoS is that it's not friendly to pick-up play.

Since there is a lack of "common ground" in the rules, ie points system to have a "fairly balanced game by default", you have no choice but talking with your game partner/opponent so that you both agree on a game.

There are already a lot of talking in that "pre-game" phase in 40k, so it's not really surprising it's even more important in AoS.

Why? Because we don't have the same views on what is balanced or not. It's already difficult to agree in real life even when we are talking about the same topic, so why should it be different with games? Because it's games?

AoS is great when you already know the people you play with and you are all on the same mindset (competitive, narrative, "just for fun"...). It's different when you play with a "stranger"; you don't know him, you don't know his playstyle, you even don't know if he has the same views as you on the game. That's why tournaments/organized events aren't so many, IMHO; because it's too much a hassle to organise since you have to create that "common ground" by yourself. And GW is not paying you for that.

Sure, players can do this themselves. The real question is; why would they bother? If GW didn't make, why should they? Aren't they paying enough for their "premium prices" models and books, already?

Not really surprising, then, that people go to others games with other rulesets - where that common ground is already here. And also not really surprising new players don't seem to be that many on the market for now...since it's difficult to have a "pick-up game", that's not really pushing you to keep on.

Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Disregarding one or two citations as anecdotal is just fine

Whether purported evidence is anecdotal is not a matter of quantity. A thousand anecdotes don't add up to anything more than a thousand anecdotes.

But one thousand anecdotes does ad up to a lot more than five conflicting anecdotes.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Disregarding one or two citations as anecdotal is just fine

Whether purported evidence is anecdotal is not a matter of quantity. A thousand anecdotes don't add up to anything more than a thousand anecdotes.

But one thousand anecdotes does ad up to a lot more than five conflicting anecdotes.

"Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true. Facts schmacts!"
-Homer Simpson

A huge problem with this oft-cited 75% poll is evident when you read the thread itself. With some exceptions, you tend to see people who dislike AoS saying the game is dead, and people who like the game saying its picking up steam. Why? There are a number of reasons:

- people who dislike the game are more likely to be participants in a community that also dislikes the game, who actively promote other games, who play those games at home or at the club etc, and vice versa. This is already a huge red flag.
- people's subjective opinion (is the game "dying" or "picking up steam") is colored by their opinions of the game itself. The same amount of players playing AoS in two different places is likely to garner a different response depending on the respondents personal preferences.

These points would lead me to, like Manchu, safely disregard the poll as a reliable indicator. Now store owners are an entirely different story, and from them we have quite a few polar opposites.

THAT SAID, I still don't think Age of Sigmar is doing too well. But I don't think the poll specifically is an indicator either way.

Also it will be very interesting to see the whole "most sold models" list from GW leading up to Christmas! Now that's an indicator

 Mymearan wrote:
Also it will be very interesting to see the whole "most sold models" list from GW leading up to Christmas! Now that's an indicator

GW can easily manipulate that. I am actually inclined to believe they will put Archaon as #1

To those who can't accept that the great number of anecdotes about AoS failing does indeed indicate that AoS is in fact failing:

Can you honestly say that you'd say the same thing if it was reversed? If the polls results showed the majority of those answering them were satisfied and known store owners reported that sales was through the roof. Would you still claim that, nah... we can't know if AoS is doing good. Sure a lot of people seem to like it but perhaps the majority of Fantasy players has rage-quit and just stopped buying stuff but haven't told anyone about it?

Similarly. Do you dispute that Betrayal at Calth seem to have been a success when it comes to sales? It sure seems to me that it has solt like hotcakes but using your logic I should be adamant that we cannot possibly draw any conclusions yet. All we have is anecdotal reports of people buying lots of sets and store owners saying they have sold a bunch of them. I sure haven't seen any reports from GW telling us the exact numbers.

While all anecdotal evidence should be looked at knowing that it doesn't tell the whole story; assuming that it can tell us nothing is as ignorant as assuming it can tell us everything.

I work as a statistician so yes I would still claim that we couldn't know.

 Mymearan wrote:
I work as a statistician so yes I would still claim that we couldn't know.

And that's a strawman basically.

No one is saying that the information we have 100% proves that AoS is failing. Simply that from what we know a lot point towards that it is. You even say yourself that you don't think it's doing well. I draw the same conclusion and that's based partly on the polls and anecdotal reports. They don't prove anything conclusively but they are a piece of the puzzle.

The point about it is that the methodology does have flaws. This does not mean the results are wrong, or right, only that the results can't be considered absolute proof.

The thing is, we won't know for sure if the game is a failure or a massive success until either (A) GW can it suddenly, or (B) GW consistently pump out new kits and books for a sustained period to rival 40K.

However it's also possible the game will pootle along, selling a reasonable amount of stuff and not costing GW a lot to keep in print, without it becoming a rival to 40K.

Yeah at this point we're sort of agreeing but arguing semantics. I think we all have our own idea of how AoS is doing, and we won't ever know the exact details. Personally the only thing I oppose is people saying "yep it's tanking, dead within 6 months" etc. and there aren't many of those thankfully.

I have always thought GW will back it for two years at least.

For one thing, it is highly unlikely GW have a second potential replacement lined up for WHFB, because naturally they reckon AoS will do the job.

 Vermis wrote:

With AoS, it's been cut out almost completely. Disorganised play is 'the only way to play' there.

I take the term 'organised play' From privateer press. I use it to define a comprehensive, defined and structured way of playing with the attendant mark of officialdom, universality and company support. Leagues, tournaments, competitions, communications etc. all feed into, and from this. Privateer press do an amazing job with their organised play. I like organised play. I think it's great.

But I don't think it's fair to say that not-organised play is 'disorganised' play. Plenty groups home brew their own stuff frequently, and it works there. And while its not 'organised' in the sense that pp define their 'organised play', I wouldn't call it 'disorganised' - more 'free-form (and often local) gaming'. Not a bad thing btw, if you're into it.

And yes, it is a problem with Aos in that is requires that approach. What I think is a bigger problem is a lot of people are unused to this approach, or might not be familiar with it, and gw haven't really offered any real directions or tools to make it work. Maybe they'll come later, because I think they expected their fans to just 'get it' (and yes, the double meaning there is deliberate) and they didn't.

 Vermis wrote:

I don't disagree with all you say. In fact I used to post up rants quite a lot like that, myself. But after reading the responses I used to get, I started to think it was perhaps too narrow a view, too unappreciative of other gamers' circumstances. So while structured - even points-based - games might inherently encourage wham bam thank you ma'am and even page 5 style gaming, like so many others have said I think they're a more stable, inclusive base to work from. You can try to persuade other points-preferring gamers to use them in scenario-based, narrative games; but if that doesn't work then you can at least still get a game, and maybe keep plugging. With AoS, whether persuading points-preferrers or trying to impose some sort of points system, things could be a little more difficult.

I agree with you vermis. Structured/points based games within an organised framework are often far more user friendly, open, and inclusive. my issue in my original post was the dismissal of home brew games because essentially 'we're all strangers in murica' and 'no one knows anyone', so therefore this approach won't work. Bloody hell, it's not hard to trade names and numbers and get a bit organised. You won't get far with a loose collection of individuals with a very narrow approach in anything, so in my mind, it makes sense to build this up into something more and broaden horizons and experiences. I also get 'personal circumstances' - people have friends, family, jobs and careers and can't commit full time to gaming. I run marathons, and I'll often drop out of gaming for months at a time (doing 50miles+ a week along with regular routine means something has to be put on the back burner), but I still make the effort to maintain my contacts and know who's who. Essentially. Communication is the key. And a bit of willingness.

I really hope it fails hard, it might well be the wake up slap Geedubs so desperately needs

This isn't spiteful hate, as a grumpy old codger on the wrong side of 40 I have more or less grown up with Workshop, and it is hard not to love a company that was churning out model soldiers and excellent games during the rise of the computer/console games and the internet age, but of late bouncing from one ill considered idea to the next ate up the majority of goodwill I had , I don't want them to die but I do want them to stop being so pig headed and daft

AoS hopefully might be the last 'bad' game GW releases (well till 40k 8th...) as the Heresy game as I understand it had outside design assistance and is by ancedote a fairly good game

I think the problem is the main rules not the warscrolls. Each unit has good rules and makeup and would work well in a system they all seem to be based off of.

The problem is look through the war scrolls alone, they look fine. Then when trying to add them to the starter box main rules and all goes to hell. There is no way to balance what to take and not to. The main rules are lacking and seem based of the starter box not a whole gaming system.

Ported over from the AoS news thread, in response to Jah:

jah-joshua wrote:
an axe, nor a mohawk, can never be too big, in my opinion...

This is why we can't have nice things.

i love that the minis are like a 3-D comic book image...

You realise that excessive stuff like this helped along the comics crash of the mid-90's? The main reasons were the retailer bubble and the collector fad, but...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheGreatComicsCrashOf1996

...to make matters worse, a lot of the material that was trying to become collectible using these gimmicks was the kind of poorly written Liefeldian rubbish that few believed was worth collecting in the first place.

All of this also impacted the consumer base of the medium, which moved increasingly from the mainstream public to a smaller niche market of fans and collectors. The dominant stereotypes of the readers of this age, fair or otherwise, are of (1) the "comic book teenager", an insecure fan who hated any hint of 'silliness' in his comics and demanded that they be "adult" and taken deathly seriously, even though the shocking content of said comics only implied immaturity; and (2) the "collector" who obsessively and joylessly maintained his collection in pristine condition, with little or no interest in the actual content. Ultimately, the recurring theme of this may seem to be short-term gains that lead to long-term harm for the series, publisher or even industry.

Not a 1:1 comparison to GW and AoS, but there are themes that seem familiar. Especially when you look at two other, overlapping occurences.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheDarkAgeOfComicBooks

much of the content produced during this era is very controversial among comic book fans and is usually (depending on who you ask) considered either a welcome breath of fresh air after the medium languishing so long in its own version of the Animation Age Ghetto, a period of grotesque excess and immaturity...or a little of both.

The resulting material has been hotly contested by fans with regards to its quality... a number of critics argue that in many cases "mature" content was actually closer to "adolescent"; while creators were taking inspiration from The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, many had completely missed the point, focusing merely on the surface details in order to Follow the Leader without coupling them with the depth of narrative and the thematic and psychological complexity that had made these works unique and well received.

in too many cases the works produced during the age were no more sophisticated than or superior to earlier, 'immature' works – merely nastier

many of these events were poorly received by fans, who didn't appreciate their favourite characters being altered beyond recognition

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DorkAge

There's a very strange relationship between character/plot development and maintaining the status quo. Changing said status, if done poorly, may result in a Dork Age. A Dork Age is a period in a franchise, especially Long Runners, where there was a dramatic change of concept or execution, usually to stay current, and it simply did not work.

This fundamental change is often an attempt to attract new fans. Unfortunately, that usually does not work. Worse, the change does not go over well with the established fans. Generally, the more dramatically something diverts from its basics, the more likely it's the beginning of a Dork Age.

A new Age in a franchise, intended to bring in new fans but mostly ends up just annoying the old ones. Hm.

'Comic book image' isn't a catch-all term, and some comic book looks are maybe not all that desirable. This new slayer's look, with mohawk and axe turned up to eleven, reminds me of Spawn's Cloak, or Cable's guns, or the average build of superheroes at the time. (male and female) Excessive imagery intended to look kewl, but (badly) veiling a lack of depth in the wider medium, including the image itself.

(Jah, I know you're going to reply about how you love it anyway and you'll buy all the duardin ever and it's actually the best, most successful thing GW ever did, but... take a step back to take a fresh look at it. Can you see the possibility that all this puddle-deep, vastly-priced, kicking-old-fans-where-it-hurts stuff might just go down like a lead balloon, and you'd end up with no new duardin to buy at all?)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have always thought GW will back it for two years at least.

For one thing, it is highly unlikely GW have a second potential replacement lined up for WHFB, because naturally they reckon AoS will do the job.

Reverting to WHFB with a properly updated rule set and a reasonable entry cost is a fine replacement to AoS.

Assuming of course that AoS needs replacing.

Does GW show individual product line numbers in their financial statements?

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Does GW show individual product line numbers in their financial statements?

No.

I think there were some missteps in the launch window, namely not laying out a way for pickup play and leaving fans of elves/dwarves/orcs/normal humans, the typical fantasy stuff, in the lurch about what was going on with their armies.

That said, GW is putting enormous effort behind this game, and they did not have to do that. Boggles my mind to think this is a lazy money grab. They would not be pouring all these resources into new products and cutting into their 40k display time if that were the case.

I think reviving the dwarf brand next month will help bring more people back, as will getting on with the elves. They're clearly giving it a go here and I think momentum still has time to build. The models are almost too good to fail. As has been said since launch, though, we'll know for sure in a few years.

 Mymearan wrote:
But I don't think the poll specifically is an indicator either way.

We can conclude that AoS is doing poorly with people who post on Dakka about not liking it. But that's about it.

 Zywus wrote:
Would you still claim that, nah... we can't know if AoS is doing good.

Yes, and for the same reasons: (1) the purported evidence would be entirely anecdotal and self-selected and (2) the product line is not developed to the point that it can be called a success or failure. You actually give the perfect example:

 Zywus wrote:
Do you dispute that Betrayal at Calth seem to have been a success when it comes to sales?

Find some global or, heck, even regional sales numbers and I can tell you one way or another. What I can say, in my neck of the woods, at the LGS near me, Calth has done very well in the exact same way the AoS starter did very well.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However it's also possible the game will pootle along, selling a reasonable amount of stuff and not costing GW a lot to keep in print, without it becoming a rival to 40K.

And that could still mean it is more successful that WHFB had been since circa Sixth Edition. I mean, like any of this, that is just speculation. It's very reasonable to assume that GW sells AoS to make money. It's speculation, although I think still very reasonable, to assume that one goal of AoS is to make more money than WHFB had been making, which purely as a matter of anecdote seems like a fairly low threshold. But that just goes to show, we have not sufficiently unpacked the concept of success/failure ITT. I reckon that is because the thread is closer to a chance to generate more confirmation bias regarding anecdotes.