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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Narrative gameplay is not inherent to GWs games. If it were then units would perform on the tabletop as they do in the fluff and GW would have provided guidelines to forming your own narrative campaigns beyond "here are some missions, if you want to make a campaign then play them in order"

I think AoS is as close as anyone has ever come to that in a table top miniature game. I mean, just flip through the 264 page book. And the description of Realmgate Wars.

Gladius, Skyhammer, Decurion, Warhost, First Company, Warlock Conclave, Angel's Fury -- all of these are ways to encourage players to play their models per the fluff, instead of nonfluffy lists. GW's goal, post 2015 (which I love) is to encourage people with huge bonuses for playing models on the tabletop as they are described in fluff.

Talys is right. GW loves their campaigns. They go out of their way to make the fluff bunny crowd happy and piss everyone else off.

But it doesn't change that this is a dumb way to play a wargame. Just my opinion, but if you want to play a campaign go buy Dragon Age or something.

I'll be honest, I hate GW because they care way too much about models and narratives. Just give me a GD game where we all make our armies and then do our best to kill each other. I don't need a story or a reason. Is that so much to ask?

The "forge the narrative" crap is a recent introduction, only one edition ago.

Prior to that, in 4th and 5th edition, GW ran its own sanctioned tournaments, and somewhere out there is a quote from Alessio about how he aimed to eliminate rules bloat and create a tighter, leaner ruleset.

Looking at his other works, wibbly wobbly fuzzy narrative gak isn't something inherent to Rick Priestley's philosophy, we know it isn't Alessio's, Andy Chambers may not be blameless, but when it boils down to it has done good work.

No, the person who was still at GW after everyone else left and who has publicly declared that wish washy bs "be a good sport to let us off the hook" is his approach to gaming is now the one in charge.

Trying to imply that "this is the way it's always been" is ill-informed at best. There's a notable improvement in terms of rules clarity and efficiency edition by edition until 6th, where the wheels start falling off again.

Unless you happen to be a massive Johnson fan

Marlov wrote:
Talys is right. GW loves their campaigns. They go out of their way to make the fluff bunny crowd happy and piss everyone else off.

That must be a new thing, because it used to be that they went out of their way to piss off the fluff bunny crowd, too. Anybody else remember the end to the Storm of Chaos campaign?

Marlov wrote:
Talys is right. GW loves their campaigns. They go out of their way to make the fluff bunny crowd happy and piss everyone else off.

But it doesn't change that this is a dumb way to play a wargame. Just my opinion, but if you want to play a campaign go buy Dragon Age or something.

I'll be honest, I hate GW because they care way too much about models and narratives. Just give me a GD game where we all make our armies and then do our best to kill each other. I don't need a story or a reason. Is that so much to ask?

The other side of that coin is, "if you want a great competitive game, just go buy StarCraft".

I don't think such arguments are really valid, but anyways, I understand that everyone has their thing. Gotta go, BBQ awaits, too much time on this thread. Then, actual playing 40k instead of typing about it on Dakka. We put together an 8x12 table for tonight, some massive terrain pieces, too. 10 hour game incoming.

Peace & out -- good gaming to all. You too, Az, have fun playing whichever game you are enjoying these days.

frozenwastes wrote:


I think GW's idea of narrative gaming is one where you don't care about the quality of the narrative and just enjoy the Michael Bay type experience. Where the narrative iis basically a big joke and the game isn't taken seriously and somehow it's supposed to work because.. Jewel like objects of magic and wonder reasons. Shut off your brain, open your wallet and make yourself believe it was good. The real hobby is purchasing GW's wonderful miniatures and then relying on the sunk cost fallacy to cause people to enjoy it because actually seeing the weak gameplay and total narrative disconnect with the fluff might mean having to face the idea of having wasted both money and years of your life on derivative corporate pablum.

So just keep your eyes on the jewel like objects of magic and wonder and buy every new release because now with unbound you can use it all in the same army.

I happen to really enjoy 40k, although I mostly play 30k now, and I don't play competitively. I also happen to love infinity and it's complexity and strategy. Quotes like this one though, for me are pretty clearly a violation of rule number 1. Frankly speaking, if most of the mods didn't share an anti Gw stance they'd probably you know, moderate them.

The hobby is for everyone to enjoy the way they want to enjoy it. Play a game you like to play. Paint your models or don't. Find people who think like you do. Get on with having fun with your hobby. To imply that anyone who enjoys 40k in its present state is brainwashed, or brain dead is absurd. That you feel one way about a game or system doesn't make you objectively correct. Even if you are correct this is a hobby. Enjoyment to be had.

Do what you enjoy and let everyone else do the same. Don't be that miserable kid on the playground who has nothing better do do than pee in the sandbox to ruin everyone else's afternoon.

Just because you're offended by something doesn't make it offensive.

"Jewel like objects" is a direct quote from Kirby himself, so if you're objecting to that then I suggest you revise your attitude to the whole company.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and the hobby being "buying GW miniatures?"

Alan Merret, head of GW IP

While under oath.

Azrael if you were responding to my post, I'm not personally offended. I just find someone saying that the only way 40k can be enjoyed is to turn off your brain and open your wallet and exist in some sort of fantastic state of denial is pretty silly and fairly rude. Clearly that's not the case. It's hip to bash on Gw here, I totally get it. I have several criticisms with how they've run their business. Even if I decided to abandon Gw though I would never imply that anyone who was happy to buy the models or play the games was mentally incapacitated.

He was incorporating several well known quotes from senior managers, like I say, if you find the content of that post in any way offensive, you need to reconsider where you direct your ire. I'm not sure it's bashing Gw when it is their own words that are a matter of public record being used.

The first two words I quoted were "I think". I'm not sure why you're caught up on the magical wonder. I just think that any discussion of why someone likes or hates a game should be confined to the game itself. Or the company.. Not so much the mental capacity of someone based on their choice of amusement. I don't really do the Internet argue thing. I Just felt like a civil reminder about that might help the discussion.

But you chronically misinterpreted the tone of the post because you were unaware of the references it contained.

References which make if very hard not to draw the conclusions about GW management's attitude towards their customers that frozenwastes did.

To paraphrase an oft cited quote "don't hate the player, hate the company that makes the game."

Just want positivity for everyone man.

Feels like for some people Gw was the first girlfriend. You loved her, she was your first time. You spent all this money on her and showed her off to all your friends. Then she left you for some rich guy. Now she's showing off all her fancy new stuff and you're on her facebook posting stuff like "it'll never last it's doomed to fail".

All the while there's a lot of other lovely ladies out there. Just find one you love and be happy man. It's all good.

Well, to counter one tired old cliche with another one, if you want positivity, post positively, don't post criticising other people.

Infinity put out a large campaign book full of great stuff. Campaign Pardiso.
Also, they have third parties make their scenery, faction specific scenery.
I say that Infinity is inherently a better narative game due to the more personal nature of the smaller forces and also the mission. The missions aren't just "Hold this random spot." They're "hack this terminal in this locked room." Now that's the kind of stuff you build a narrative around.

I think Talys is off in much of his theory about what is happening with the game. Sure there are a lot of pieces that fit his theory that GW is targeting the superfan, garage fan or whatever you want to call it, but I don't think that is really what is going on. I think that with almost anything GW does, so long as it doesn't stop developing stuff the superfan is going to be happy. Good rules, they're happy. No balance. They're happy because they self regulate well. Quick releases, they're happy with all the new shiny. Slower releases, they're happy with the chance to explore the nuances in what they have. Kits that aren't WYSIWIG, cool we can convert. Kits that are WYSIWYG, cool I can make one of every option and/or magnetize. Rules for 14 different marine chapters, cool I can make 14 different marine armies. Rules for one marine chapter, cool I can make 14 different armies.... Basically no matter what, there is something they can like. So GW is heading in their direction no matter which direction it is going. It looks like they are the target when the reality is, GW is blindly stumbling all over trying to find all the other fans that are getting increasingly frustrated and walking away.

I don't mean this as a critique of super fans. I sort of see myself as being like them with food. I am not super picky and prefer variety to a single dish executed with perfect tecnique. I'd prefer to go to a buffet and get to try a bunch of decent stuff than to go to a slightly better restaurant and have a more limited selection.

What I think GW is doing is using rules to try to push sales knowing that people will buy stuff that is effective on the tabletop. So we see whole army concepts that work great in one edition be mostly invalidated by the next only to be resurrected in a third (after the models have been sold off or otherwise discarded). Superfan garage guy probably didn't just have assault when it ruled and just shooting when shooting ruled and when editions change only needs to add a unit or two to his huge army to adjust to the new paradigm. Meanwhile WAAC tournament guy has to replace his entire army. Then formations come out and make all those underpowered units nobody likes awesome. Guess what? Superfan already has them and doesn't need to buy any more units. You know who does? WAAC tournament guy who didn't have all that stuff because it wasn't very good. Basically these changes that are being pitched as targeting superfan are in my more cynical mind aimed at forcing tournament players to keep buying whole new armies.

Here's what makes no sense to me. Superfan garage guy and his cool group of friends who aren't WAAC and who self regulate, need GW to tell them it is ok to take LOW, superheavies, flyers, allies, unbound and what have you in a standard game? The rulebook says it is just a guideline, do what you want and have fun. Or they need GW to make a fluffy formation so they can take fluffy lists? Wait, I thought that taking fluffy lists is what these guys did by default, so how is anything being added?

Wouldn't an solid, balanced core ruleset benefit superfan, tournament guy and everyone in between? GW was close with 5th. Couldn't GW have used 6th, and 7th to further refine and used expansion books to target superfan with all the cool shinies they will tirelessly scoop up, while keeping tournament guy engaged as well. Imagine instead of flyers becoming part of the core game, coming out with the flyers supplement book giving all the rules to add flyers and countermeasures to your game. Superfan gobbles that up along with all the units. Some others do as well. The core game isn't dramatically altered in a way that ticks off some fans. Then psychic supplement book. Now you can add a fourth phase in your 40k games, new rules, powers and units for every faction. Same as with flyers supplement. Then the titans supplement. Then the mobile war supplement (all vehicles, no infantry, special new vehicle rules, units and formations for every army). Then the formations supplement. On and on and on. Balance isn't as important in all these supplements because they are targeted at superfan who doesn't really want or need balance. The core game being solid balanced keeps the rest fairly happy. Tournaments can be as broad or as narrow incorporating these supplements as they want. How is superfan not engaged and happy with this scenario which has the benefit of keeping a much larger client base happy as well?

By the way, if you have a large base of customers who are happy with the game giving it good advertising by word of mouth, doesn't that increase the chances of new superfans being drawn in by people who aren't quite at their level? Sure the thousands of guys that only spend 50$ a month may not give GW as much profit as a single superfan, but if just one of those thousands introduces a superfan to the game, doesn't GW benefit? Basically GW has advertisers that pay for the privilege of advertising. Why throw that away? Are superfans only recruited by other superfans? Does GW have special recruiters on staff that know where to find new superfans?

--

Regarding new kits coming out replacing old ones at higher prices. I get how that can be frustrating when you are on a budget and went through that personally when the new warwalker and wraithlord kits came out. Much, much better than the old kits and I really wanted them, but had too tight a budget to get as much as I would like. Had to mix and match old and new in my army. The athstetic wasn't as nice as I would like, but I had to make due. It was still better to have a new model and an old one compared to two old ones. The new kit brought new excitement and opportunities and was much, much better. I can't see how upgrading kits, thereby making others sort of obsolete (sort of because you can still use them, they just aren't quite as fun and shiny as they were before getting outclassed by the new kits) could be a major problem for a significant part of GWs audience. If you are too broke for the new stuff you can still enjoy the little you can get. At least that was my experience. That is not a problem with what GW is doing. They have plenty of kits they need to update like many of the aspect warrior kits.

--

I could see a superfan making huge purchases in a given month here and there, but am having a hard time figuring out how some of the numbers being tossed around make much sense every month. I mean how could you assemble, paint and play with all that stuff? Even if you are commissioning it all, I don't see the time. Once you have 10 of everything, is GW putting out enough new product, resculpts, ect to keep dropping $5,000 a month or whatever?

--

Wow, that seems very ranty. I really don't want to attack superfans. I think it is awesome that they have the time, money, attitude and cameraderie to enjoy the game as much as they apparently do. I think that no other game company offers a combination of asthetic, quality, creativity (yes it is derivative, but the sum of it all is unique and facinating to me), and scale quite like GW so I get how they can be so immersed in the product.

 Talys wrote:
I think AoS is as close as anyone has ever come to that in a table top miniature game. I mean, just flip through the 264 page book. And the description of Realmgate Wars.

Only if you ignore the entire genre of historics, and anything in existing settings like Star Wars.

Sure AoS is going to be the first one to spoon feed scenarios to gamers, but campaign gaming has existed since before GW,

With a little bit of imagination it's pretty easy to make up campaigns as well, but they aren't so good for selling minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

I'll keep it to two simple questions.

What company makes campaign specific terrain pieces other than GW?

What miniatures war games company writes as much campaign specific material and builds as many campaign specific models as GW?

Firstly, why would companies want to make campaign specific material, rather than, say, generic material that can be used a campaign?

Secondly, he's asking you about narrative gaming, not campaigns.

Since GW is all about "forging the narrative"; what makes it better at forging said narrative than, say, Bolt Action or Infinity? Why does that conflict with clarity and tournament play?

I was trying to capture some of the veiled contempt that GW expresses for their customers from time to time as well as what they've said about their own product and who they see buying them.

Here's another test to see if you're who GW is looking for in a customer. Finish this sentence:

At its core, the miniatures hobby is about

A) painting or building miniatures, terrain, etc.,.
B) playing games with your miniatures
C) building a large collection

GW wants customers who pick C. As Alan Merrit pointed out, the hobby is buying their miniatures.

I think there are some cool elements left over in 40k and the old world from when the studio had a by gamers, for gamers approach. But as the one time managing director and owner of GW pointed out, the studio has become the promotional department of a toy company. Fortunately they've been somewhat slow in excising the original good ideas and replacing them with ideas born entirely out of commercial priorities. Well, I guess they did ditch the Old World so they could revamp WHFB so it could be about selling space marines for fantasy.

--

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm one of those friendly, campaign loving, fluff playing types. I need stories behind the games I play. Never been to a tournament, don't want to.
However, it was the horrible rules and worse balance that pushed me out of 40k. When my Bad A Zerkers suck in CC, it kind of breaks the narrative for me. I loved my SOB army, but it was mono build. My Penitent Host type army was boarderline useless on the table. And that broke the Narrative for me. I didn't want to get punished just for liking certain armies or styles.
A good rule set isn't just nice to have for a narrative game. It's necessary.

This is exactly where I'm coming from which is why it gives me an aneurysm when people act like friendly/fluffy/narrative gaming is somehow disconnected. I enjoy playing campaigns which actually build on themselves, I enjoy fielding an army that fits a certain fluffy style, I have absolutely no interest in tournaments and never have.

The problem is I set up a fluffy army for a fluffy game and the rules fall flat on their face when the fluffy units fall flat on their face. The very basic narrative of "Two similarly matched armies face off in a drawn out gruelling arm wrestle". That should form the basis of a good game, narrative or competitive it doesn't matter. After that you can start thinking about narratives like "this deadly close combat unit is actually occasionally deadly in close combat" and "this general doesn't get hit on the head and invent a new specialisation each battle"

Personally I'd say with Maelstrorm of War missions, random warlord traits, unbound and generally poor balance 40k is one of the worst narrative games out there.

You can't theme a battle around any kind of objective.
Your commander of your ambush based Raven Guard style army might roll up being a siege expert.
Were before it wasn't hard to just bend the rules a bit and bring some space marines with your imperial guard, now there is no reason nid and Ultramarines can't team up.
And a super elite Dark Angels 1st company, made entirely of terminators, some of the most powerful units in the setting, is going to lose every game.


I really feel like GW is very uncreative, or they expect their fans to be uncreative. A narrative game should play out like an RPG, that means giving players the choices to make to build an army and a leader the way they want, allowing people to pick a leader with certain talents and an army that fits a role, then act in that role.
GW's design philosophy seems to be to make everything random so people don't need creativity, it is replaced with a d6. Instead of being imaginative and creating a scenario where the highly elite army is outnumbered massively but strike suddenly at the heart of the enemy to try and kill the opposing warlord, using the terrain to their advantage and attacking with surprise you roll a dice. The dice says it is a pitched battle. Next the dice tell you your elite team need to capture an X at location Y. They the dice tell you to go to location Z. Then kill target A, even though you might not have weapons capable of doing that, or your enemy didn't bring one, or even use a psyker power despite the fact your race doesn't have psykers.

It feels to me like putting the cart before the horse. You are rolling dice, seeing the results and then building a story off the results. Creativity to me has alway been the opposite in narrative gaming, you write a chapter of the story, then roll for the results, then write the next chapter with the result effecting it.

I absolutely agree Infinity is better at this than 40k (maybe not age of sigmar since at least the players are choosing the sudden death conditions) since their missions have a single, coherent story to them and the campaign book they have done has one battle affect the next rather than just playing 6 battles in a row.
Hell, the theme lists in Warmachine are nice and fluffy and they do have (often ignored entirely) rules for forming bonds with warjacks if they survive a number of battles in campaign play.


The fact that both Corvus Belli and PP both produce and advertise RPGS (well, CB is still working on theirs) is enough imo to put GW behind them in terms of narrative gaming. GW licenced out their RPG line ages ago but I have seen more advertising for the Infinity RP than I have ever seen for the 40k line from GW themselves.

 jonolikespie wrote:
The fact that both Corvus Belli and PP both produce and advertise RPGS (well, CB is still working on theirs) is enough imo to put GW behind them in terms of narrative gaming. GW licenced out their RPG line ages ago but I have seen more advertising for the Infinity RP than I have ever seen for the 40k line from GW themselves.

Devils Advocate - Corvus Belli aren't making the RPG. They're actively giving input and producing miniatures for it, but it's being developed by Modiphius.

 -Loki- wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
The fact that both Corvus Belli and PP both produce and advertise RPGS (well, CB is still working on theirs) is enough imo to put GW behind them in terms of narrative gaming. GW licenced out their RPG line ages ago but I have seen more advertising for the Infinity RP than I have ever seen for the 40k line from GW themselves.

Devils Advocate - Corvus Belli aren't making the RPG. They're actively giving input and producing miniatures for it, but it's being developed by Modiphius.

Sorry that's correct. Forgot about that. Making models for it is still quite a bit of support were GW seem content to ignore the things they license out.

frozenwastes wrote:

Here's another test to see if you're who GW is looking for in a customer. Finish this sentence:

At its core, the miniatures hobby is about

A) painting or building miniatures, terrain, etc.,.
B) playing games with your miniatures
C) building a large collection

GW wants customers who pick C. As Alan Merrit pointed out, the hobby is buying their miniatures.

You're almost there.

GW wants customers who believe that, at its core, the miniatures hobby is about building and painting large collections of miniatures. They believe that the miniature gaming is about giving a social context for gatherings of people who own such collections.

Of course, they'll take customers who just buy stuff and stick it in the closet -- but then again, let's be real, who wouldn't? the sports memorabilia guy wouldn't care if I bought $100,000 of hockey jerseys and just hung them in a closet. But their ideal customer is one who buys stuff, spend thousands of hours working on them, and hangs out with friends who also spend thousands of hours on their large collections of miniatures. And hopefully encourage others to build and paint large collections of miniatures.

In this context, you can see why I don't have contempt for GW, as you put it. I believe that at its core, the miniatures hobby is about building, painting, and socializing about large collections of miniatures. To me, 40k is just that -- a modelling hobby with quasi-competitive, nerd social interaction that is a sharp contrast with the rest of my life.

I like (love) competitive games, but not on the tabletop -- I far prefer them on the PC; as I've said a bazillion times before, because I rather play competitively with matchmaking, to ensure similarly skilled players, and also because I don't feel bad about destroying a stranger in the same way I would a real person 5 ft from me.

I don't believe they care if the models are built or painted.

They probably care about selling you the idea of building and painting them, so you buy glue and paint, but I don't see any real benefit to them to encourage you to do it, so long as you keep buying.

"The GW hobby is buying miniatures from GW."

I think the idea of network marketing is probably dead now, there's too many dead and broken links in that chain to be effective these days.

@Az - I disagree. On the surface, Warhammer World, Warhammer Visions, 'Eavy Metal stuff, Golden Demons, all that. They have tournaments for painted models, but not for games.

Or, just paint a nice miniature, email it to GW, and you might be surprised at how much back-and-forth and modelling/painting chatter they engage in. In my conversations with people at GW (and I don't mean retail staff), it's pretty clear to me that folks at HQ really love miniatures, well modelled miniatures, and interesting painting techniques.

But, of course, you're entitled to think differently.

And if they put any effort into the game, they'd have the gamers in their pockets as well. Seems kind of blind or ignorant of them.

 MWHistorian wrote:
And if they put any effort into the game, they'd have the gamers in their pockets as well. Seems kind of blind or ignorant of them.

No disagreement there.

They have competitions for painting, magazines for painted models, tips for painting, and tips for assembly, right down to stuff like how to match parts once you've de-sprued them (and lost their marking numbers), types of heraldry to paint, what era armor comes from, and so on. Yet, there are never tips on how to get a better game going, how to improve your game, build an army or anything like that. There are no longer any meaningful battle reports (model A runs to model B on an open table and dies in 3 turns doesn't count...). They are clearly pro-modelling/painting/collecting, IMO.

GW cares more about how good mark II bits look against Mark V bits, or making a new shoulder pad that's ridged but fits under a jump pack, than they do whether either finished model is even worth taking in the game. They'll make a ton of alternatives for a model that is essentially unplayable if you want to win, and say, "Isn't that cool?". If they put a fraction of the effort into the gaming aspect of it, they would do much better with those who put a higher emphasis on playing the game.

 Talys wrote:
GW wants customers who believe that, at its core, the miniatures hobby is about building and painting large collections of miniatures. They believe that the miniature gaming is about giving a social context for gatherings of people who own such collections.

The games and the idea of painting the miniatures so they look awesome are an aspirational tool used to sell miniatures. Here are miniatures you can buy! Aren't they awesome? That's not reason enough for you to buy them? Check out what you might do with them. Pretty cool eh?

As for the definitions possible for the miniatures hobby, I can't arrive at a single conclusion because too many people want too many different things. GW though, wants it to be one thing. The collecting of their product inspired by the idea of what you might do with it.

In this context, you can see why I don't have contempt for GW, as you put it.

Oh no, I said the opposite. That GW has some level of contempt for you. That you'll plunk down your money regardless of price and will see whatever they do as wonderful even if it is the most derivative, lazy, callously commercial, over the top, or juviniele product they've ever made.

Murderfang with Murderclaws! Oh, he's also the mayor of Murdertown. Space Marines are popular, but fantasy sales have faded. I bet our remaining customers would lap it up if we revamp it so it too can be about selling space marines. Oh, and we'll have this big End Times thing where we sell fans of the Old World expensive books and kits so they can pay to participate in the destruction of the game they love. We may as well get as much cash as we can from the last gasp of WHFB before we take it out back and put two in its head.

I happen to think they are right and there are enough super fans who just eat it all up that if GW can get the right store locations in place, they can have a stable and even growing business. As well, a truly reset product line might actually be made as a viable product line for trade sales and those sales too could potentially return to growth.

--

My fear is that AOS will lower the standards of wargaming, that people will come to expect this kind of game, a simplistic and shallow one with no subtly or depth to the lore.

 MWHistorian wrote:
My fear is that AOS will lower the standards of wargaming, that people will come to expect this kind of game, a simplistic and shallow one with no subtly or depth to the lore.

The standards of wargaming rules in general is improving at a huge rate though, so I think for most people GW will be left behind.

I do worry that such a poor set of rules as an introduction will put off a lot of new blood that'd otherwise really enjoy the hobby. It's hard enough trying to get people to break the GW mindset when they get into the larger pool of options (IGOUGO, mini's being tied to the rules, to hit/to wound/to save, the terrible balance, and those prices).

Herzlos wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
My fear is that AOS will lower the standards of wargaming, that people will come to expect this kind of game, a simplistic and shallow one with no subtly or depth to the lore.

The standards of wargaming rules in general is improving at a huge rate though, so I think for most people GW will be left behind.

I do worry that such a poor set of rules as an introduction will put off a lot of new blood that'd otherwise really enjoy the hobby. It's hard enough trying to get people to break the GW mindset when they get into the larger pool of options (IGOUGO, mini's being tied to the rules, to hit/to wound/to save, the terrible balance, and those prices).

Agreed. I failed to mention the 'intro to gaming' part of my worries. I don't want little Timmy to get AOS and think that's the be all end all of gaming and then look at other games as "complicated" and prefer the mindless dice rolling of AOS.