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.

Recently, I've seen quite a few posts talking about how AoS "failed" and so forth in the wake of it's launch, replacing WHFB. My question is whether there's any or much actual hard data for this, or if it's just online speculation? - Especially as the product is still so new and really seemed to capture people's imagination or at least wallets with some lovely new models at a decent price - at least in the starter set box.

I'm not interested in this becoming a partisan bitchfest, or the eternal duelling between knights of black and white, or whether GW killed or saved your dog, but actual information and reasoned discussion.

The fact that the starter set is already 44% off on Amazon seems like bad news for the game.

It seems like speculation to me, (although it could be true),

We've had a few posts from gamestore owners saying that while the starter (and maybe sigmarite) stuff sells well the rest of the range does not

it could mean the only people buying are those using stuff as 40K proxies, or it could mean most people buying already have large WHFB armies, after all the sigmarites are the only 'new' faction, so it makes sense that these would be the runaway biggest seller

We've also had a fair few posts that it's not being played in stores, and owners who've set up leagues either never got people in or have seen the dry up

but, it's a game that isn't very suitable for 'strange at a game store' play, and there seem to be a raft of different unofficial)schemes to attach points to things which is just making things worse, what it is good for is play amongst groups of friends who are not super competitive but just want to have fun at home now and then, just the sort of people who game store owners don't see

Here in our gaming group, there is almost no more interest in AoS.
I think its failing. Reasons are the lack of playable missions and the resistance of a group of Fantasy players, notably veterans, to adapt to AoS.

It's failing because of the MASSIVE amount of players that spent GOD KNOWS HOW MUCH $$$ on WHFB only to have their armies rendered useless by the introduction of warscrolls. What if you bought that super expensive character, only to notice it's profile's absence, and then you go to the bottom of the warscroll, only to realise that it uses the same profile as that of that other character you could have bought 2 of

There have been a question in a fair few threads in the AOS section about this very topic, most notably the "AoS going strong or dying out in your area" thread.

Now, the basic issue is there is no "objective overview" that we can point to, at least until GW's next half-year report. Even then the report won't break down sales via product line, so it won't tell us specifically how well or badly AOS itself is doing in objective terms (they'll probably puff it up in the preamble however badly it's doing).

So, without real numbers from anywhere, all we can do is rely on speculation and subjectively asking how it's going in people's local areas. That said, going by what people and stores have said, the game is doing fairly badly in most areas, with a lot of groups drying up, and even some of the most enthusiastic supporters admit that there isn't a huge player base in most areas.

So yeah, nothing solid on how it's doing overall, but a lot of chatter of how badly it's doing in many locales. For my part, I'll say it's early days for a game that has to start from scratch (it is in no way a replacement of WHFB, and that's why the player base was decimated), especially with little outside advertising to bring in the "new" players the game is obviously aimed at. But things definitely are not off to a flying start.

Does GW ever comment on sales of their own products?

That seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You've got the character and the army. They are playable in AoS. Why wouldn't you play with them?

To return to the topic, if AoS is failing then I think the reasons are:

Lack of interest by veterans.

Active dislike by a lot of WHFB veterans.

Failure by GW to energise new recruits. They are trying, with their school league rules, but the widespread support system that used to exist for clubs was thrown away for cost savings a few years ago. Also, by pissing off veterans generally, not just with AoS, GW have made it all the harder to recruit through word of mouth and hobby cadres.

One man shops are not good at recruiting because they are in out of the way locations and don't have enough space or staff. They also have to concentrate on selling the latest big release, like Battle of Calth, rather than developing AoS.

Brand confusion with the remaining large stocks of Warhammer figures, which need to be rebased on to circle bases that are available separately, and expensively. This looks looks bad to new recruits.

Although the starter set is good value, the add-on packs of figures are very expensive, and the books are mentally priced.

The fluff is a bit generic and wishy-washy. YMMV.

Slow pace of new releases if you actually are into the game.

To look at things from the other angle, what is so great about AoS that makes it a compelling hobby purchase? The fact it is by GW?

If you are a veteran gamer, there are lots of rival skirmish games available that are cheaper and arguably better, or at least certainly not any worse.

All that being said, I think we have to wait a couple of years to see if AoS really is a failure or just a bit of a slow-burner.

It just wasn't a good enough game to stay alive at my local club. People played or watched a game, then went to different things that do it better. Lot of WFB armies tucked away, so the models are there, but the game itself didn't offer anything of value for that precious weekly playing time.

the thirteenth praetorian wrote:
It's failing because of the MASSIVE amount of players that spent GOD KNOWS HOW MUCH $$$ on WHFB only to have their armies rendered useless by the introduction of warscrolls. What if you bought that super expensive character, only to notice it's profile's absence, and then you go to the bottom of the warscroll, only to realise that it uses the same profile as that of that other character you could have bought 2 of

That really has nothing to do with the main reasons for most of the dislike/disdain gathered by AoS.

IMO all it really needs is a comp/balancing mechanic for pickup games and/or tournaments. I remember back the week before it was launched (since no one knew it existed before that) folks were real excited and couldn't wait.. then interest dropped like a bag of hammers and people were suddenly like "so, um, how do I build an army?"

It's clear GW wants AoS to be the main game now, hence the big statue at the HQ. I'm hoping they do a rules update to address a lot of the concerns, and then have Specialist Games release a Warhammer Olde Wolrde rulebook with all the old rules that WFB folks still love and maybe some special movement trays to fit the new models with round bases so they can still rank up good. I think they had something like that for lord of the rings at one point?

What's stopping WHFB players from picking up the previous codex and playing by those rules? If enough of you do it, that sends a statement you want to have the old style updated, not replaced by the inferior game.

That would still leave AoS a failure, though, unless people bought the AoS versions of WHFB kits to change back to WHFB bases.

I've found the forum-goer kind of crowd has been very negative toward it, but a lot of people outside of that are very positive and into it. I don't know anything about sales. I know some of the big tournament organizers are giving it a chance, especially in the UK.

I had an off again, on again member of my club contact me to ask if I could line up a game for him to try it out. Not one person who plays/played WHFB was interested, and they seldom hit forums.

The main thing that has hurt AoS bar none is the negative backlash of WHFB veteran players. Rules, prices, everything aside, the veterans refusing to play or purchase new models or show any positive interest really caused it to stumble.

 jreilly89 wrote:
The main thing that has hurt AoS bar none is the negative backlash of WHFB veteran players. Rules, prices, everything aside, the veterans refusing to play or purchase new models or show any positive interest really caused it to stumble.

Further issues are lack of playable missions and poor army building.

 jreilly89 wrote:
The main thing that has hurt AoS bar none is the negative backlash of WHFB veteran players. Rules, prices, everything aside, the veterans refusing to play or purchase new models or show any positive interest really caused it to stumble.

As jonolikespie has mentioned somewhere else, this alone meant that GW didn't have to start from scratch alone, but from a negative standpoint.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
The main thing that has hurt AoS bar none is the negative backlash of WHFB veteran players. Rules, prices, everything aside, the veterans refusing to play or purchase new models or show any positive interest really caused it to stumble.

As jonolikespie has mentioned somewhere else, this alone meant that GW didn't have to start from scratch alone, but from a negative standpoint.

Yep. Had they just released AoS as a new/side game instead of killing off WHFB, they would be in a better position.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
The main thing that has hurt AoS bar none is the negative backlash of WHFB veteran players. Rules, prices, everything aside, the veterans refusing to play or purchase new models or show any positive interest really caused it to stumble.

As jonolikespie has mentioned somewhere else, this alone meant that GW didn't have to start from scratch alone, but from a negative standpoint.

Yep. Had they just released AoS as a new/side game instead of killing off WHFB, they would be in a better position.

Hell, AoS could've been branded as the first new SG from the new studio. I bet it would've been much better received.

I think it is pretty well dead in Australia and I'd say it is mostly down to the lack of points. People see that* as GW doubling down on their whole 'we don't care about competitive games or balance' stance and, frankly, that is something that is making local players consider it a kiddy game.

People here were already abandoning 40k for Warmachine, X wing or Infinity because of how unbalanced 40k was getting.

Regardless of everything else I think far too many players won't consider it because they want fair, somewhat competitive games and AoS appears to be very clearly saying that is not what it is about.



*I don't want to start an argument about if AoS is balanced or not, but I think it is perfectly fair to say that people see it as I described.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Yep. Had they just released AoS as a new/side game instead of killing off WHFB, they would be in a better position.

Hell, AoS could've been branded as the first new SG from the new studio. I bet it would've been much better received.

I could have been toted about as the moredheim replacement for small scale stuff before you 'graduate' to the not quite apoc but still 'bigger' battles of WHFB.

This is totally anecdotal, but this is my experience.

At the largest gaming store in north-metro Atlanta, AoS is largely done and gone. It has been a couple of months since I saw a game of AoS being played there. Largely, it has been replaced by KoW. I see games of KoW being played about as often as I used to see WHFB being played, and that store had a pretty strong WHFB play group.

As for reasons, well, I think it has to do with play style. There does actually exist a segment of player that likes the blocked unit style of game. When movement is restricted that way, it requires a different style of thinking about how to play the game than does a skirmish style game. Turning block movement WHFB into skirmish movement AoS took that style of game play away from those players. KoW still offers that style of game play, so the players moved to that.

I think this is especially true for players that have been involved with this style of game play for many years. They wouldn't have stuck around for that many years if they didn't like it, so it is understandable if they were less than happy by the change away from that style and chose to move to a different system that maintained that style.

 jreilly89 wrote:
The main thing that has hurt AoS bar none is the negative backlash of WHFB veteran players. Rules, prices, everything aside, the veterans refusing to play or purchase new models or show any positive interest really caused it to stumble.

Highlights the weakness of the whole "Word of mouth" marketing that GW relies on. They [GW] rely so much on existing customers to help sell the game that they failed to realise the impact that a game such as AoS would have on them. WHFB was killed and the replacement game, to them, had no value. They then move onto KoW or stuck with WHFB and, when new person turns up, no-ones playing it. The saturation fails to happen.

Kings of War exists and GW made it obvious to Fantasy players that they didn't want their custom. It's just that simple.

It's not even edition split levels of broken base, one side is completely dead.

It is still played in my area but not a lot. I have steered clear of it myself.

For many people the lack of a balancing mechanic is a big issue as it essentially promotes the "P2W" aspect of the hobby and means that he with the bigger wallet and more shiny wins almost all the time where as the player with the smaller budget gets shafted. A lack of points means that you can bring whatever you want. Sure people can use wounds to balance the game but look at a Clanrat and a Chaos Knight. Both have 1 wound but the Chaos Knight has the better save, attacks and rend and will shaft the clanrat easily.

They system itself is also really simple and rewards little in the way of tactics or grand strategy. Ultimately it is a flop.

I think a big part of why the veteran community has had such a backlash against AoS is the destruction of the background. If the End Times had wrapped up with a cataclysmic event that left the world wrecked but intact, players might not have been so upset. Heck, a post-apocalyptic high fantasy world would be interesting and, more importantly, allow fans to maintain their connection to the game. Instead, they blew up everything, changed the cosmology, and advanced the timeline by 1,000+ years. Couple that with a shift to a completely different, dumbed-down ruleset, and it feels like a slap in the face.

 Guildsman wrote:
I think a big part of why the veteran community has had such a backlash against AoS is the destruction of the background. If the End Times had wrapped up with a cataclysmic event that left the world wrecked but intact, players might not have been so upset. Heck, a post-apocalyptic high fantasy world would be interesting and, more importantly, allow fans to maintain their connection to the game. Instead, they blew up everything, changed the cosmology, and advanced the timeline by 1,000+ years. Couple that with a shift to a completely different, dumbed-down ruleset, and it feels like a slap in the face.

Between the endless, poorly fleshed our realms and the three factions that have been released being two immortals and a literally endless swarm of bodies there really isn't much for players to get attached to either. A lot of the Old World was originally ripped from history, tolkein or D&D but it was still something we could latch onto and become invested in dammit!

 Azazelx wrote:
Recently, I've seen quite a few posts talking about how AoS "failed" and so forth in the wake of it's launch, replacing WHFB. My question is whether there's any or much actual hard data for this, or if it's just online speculation? - Especially as the product is still so new and really seemed to capture people's imagination or at least wallets with some lovely new models at a decent price - at least in the starter set box.

I'm not interested in this becoming a partisan bitchfest, or the eternal duelling between knights of black and white, or whether GW killed or saved your dog, but actual information and reasoned discussion.

It seems to have revitalized Fantasy, which was basically dead, in my area. A lot of Fantasy players brought out their dusty armies to play AoS. The one FLGS that stocks AoS sells several copies of each new release. I personally have spent more money on GW product this year than I have in the previous five years combined, because I've bought every Stormcast Eternal release, and I just bought a bunch of AoS nurgle units to make a nurgle warband. Sigh.
So, basically, AoS has sold a bunch locally whereas Fantasy hadn't done well since before 8th edition.

 Guildsman wrote:
Heck, a post-apocalyptic high fantasy world would be interesting and, more importantly, allow fans to maintain their connection to the game. Instead, they blew up everything, changed the cosmology, and advanced the timeline by 1,000+ years.

I agree to the matter with the Story Part. But after all, the story moves forward.

I think one of the greatest weaknesses of most settings is the statics.
If you look at Shadowrun , for example, changes with each edition a bit on the background.

I would play it, when the background story would be a mixture of Mortheim and Planscape Torment

coldgaming wrote:
I've found the forum-goer kind of crowd has been very negative toward it, but a lot of people outside of that are very positive and into it. I don't know anything about sales. I know some of the big tournament organizers are giving it a chance, especially in the UK.

I have experienced this firsthand. Most of the 40k and AoS players at the FLGS barely look or even know what Dakka and Warseer are - they get most of their news from like Spikey Bits or BoLS updates on their Facebook feeds. The AoS vibe is very very positive amongst them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Guildsman wrote:
I think a big part of why the veteran community has had such a backlash against AoS is the destruction of the background. If the End Times had wrapped up with a cataclysmic event that left the world wrecked but intact, players might not have been so upset. Heck, a post-apocalyptic high fantasy world would be interesting and, more importantly, allow fans to maintain their connection to the game. Instead, they blew up everything, changed the cosmology, and advanced the timeline by 1,000+ years. Couple that with a shift to a completely different, dumbed-down ruleset, and it feels like a slap in the face.

Best thing to happen to Fantasy. I love me some Oldhammer, and began playing Warhammer in 1994... but the world timeline wasn't progressing - when it did, people bitched, when it was retconned, other people bitched. I still have all my army books and all my Warhammer Roleplay (GW and Hogshead) for that awesome oldschool Empire vibe.
The End Times and the AoS fluff are so over the top, I love it. Best thing GW could have done with the property since it was stagnating since 2006.