The tabletop gaming experience I tend to think of taking modelers who would like to play with what they make.
Some rules for the game help with getting it to progress beyond saying "pew, pew, your dead!" when playing with said toys.
The gold standard for uninhibited fun is a sandbox (Minecraft these days?).
My wish is to play games that looks like a diorama AND have some tactics.
It just sucks when you bring the little green plastic army men to a GI Joe "action figure" fight.

AoS has too much "do what you want!" that requires further discussion with your opponent who may have their heart set on using what they have.

I like the idea of AOS and had fun playing a game - but I think a big big problem is that it might not work for anyone who has even a bit of competitive spirit.

Not the way it comes straight out of the rules anyway without creating a comp system yourself.

Which you can see by the army list section is a bit of a problem when every other list is posted with a different comp system.

And every week it seems someone else creates a new comp system lol.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I like the idea of AOS and had fun playing a game - but I think a big big problem is that it might not work for anyone who has even a bit of competitive spirit.

That's probably a fair assessment, but there are several boardgames, like BattleLore 1E and Memoir '44, which have wildly imbalanced scenarios. Their solution is that you play a scenario, then switch sides and play again. Despite the fact that you may play scenarios in which you will almost certainly lose, you can compare how much you lose compared to how much your opponent loses. So any game could be made competitive regardless of comp system or balance issues.

Age of Sigmar could work the same way except for two problems: 1) the games are generally longer and 2) Nobody better fething touch my painted minis. The first can be solved by using the School League rules, which are tailored to games less than an hour in length. There's really no answer for the second problem though

puree wrote:

Tournaments do not need points, it is not necessary that units are balanced with each other.

True. Tournaments don’t need points- not using them is fine, but is also missing out on a very useful tool. Often, it can make things harder for the designer.

Regarding the point that units need to be balanced with each other – that’s not true. And with respect, you are making a common mistake of equating ‘balance’ with ‘homogenous’. That said, whilst individual units can be better or worse than each other, and don’t need to be balanced against each other in those simplistic terms, they should be balanced against a universal and overarching governing structure. If you want to have an eco system that promotes and provides legitimate variety 'out of the box' and not via the indulgence of potential opponents. Units x and y can be completely different, with x being vastly more powerful than y. but the game system should reflect this. it should represent a far bigger investment in terms of your army’s composition. A higher points cost (or points by another name) is one way of representing that increased value.

puree wrote:

For years players have been playing with a system they regularly say is broken in that regard. That didn't make the tournies imbalanced as everyone works from the same set of parameters, each person decides whether he can make use of whatever unit. At the point you enter a tourney you are all in the same position.

You’re missing one key thing here. Now, its true that you can say ‘well, all you need to do is buy uber list 101 – simples’, because at the end of the day, we can all buy into that power build but that, in and of itself denies the concept of personal choice, and variety. What you refer to here at the end of the day isn’t ‘points’, but rather ‘points used poorly’. Which does make tournies imbalanced.

Its also a point worth noting that players have been playing with broken systems because for the longest time, that’s what was there. You play what your mates play. The alternative to 40k was fantasy, which was just as open to abuse. Its only in the last five years that a lot of other games have been allowed to flourish and thrive that you are seeing a big migration over to more balanced systems.

puree wrote:

Points have determined the size of the games not whether you will get a balanced game.

No.

In this regard, you are quite wrong. Or rather, not seeing the bigger picture and are very much seeing through a GW-prism. Points are a structural tool that offers two purposes. Size, as you point to here, and a measure of value, which you omit. Points in and of themselves are just abstract math. The use of points (along with other elements) is what makes a balanced game or not. Like any tool, they can be misused. There is a big difference in the use of points in Corvus Beli’s Infinity, Wyrd’s Malifaux and Privateer Press’ Warmachine when compared to GW and their games with regard to whether you get a balanced game. And often, points are just part of the overall picture. You can’t build a house with only a hammer after all.

In other words, balanced games use points effectively. So yes, points do determine whether you get a balanced game, or not. Using GW as a basepoint, or viewing this argument through the prism of GW tinted lenses just misinforms and skews ones perception.

puree wrote:

You can probably assume that anyone else entering with any serious intent to do well in the tourney will look for the OP units and combos that we all know GW will not worry about, yet has some how not stopped tourneys in the past. You will get reasonably balanced games if you are expecting to play against competitive players.

The game system also plays a role. You will find other games offer a far more ‘tournament friendly’ eco system.

puree wrote:

Equally what unit is balanced against others can depend heavily on what comp rules and game size you have. Only the TOs can decide those things, there's a staggering difference between 50 clanrats backed by the hero and 1 unit of 15 clan rats, but points for clan rats combined with game size may make one very hard to field in one tourney whilst being OP at another game size.

You’re assuming a completely open ended picture here. That’s often why governing structures, and things like unit caps and unit size limits exist. Like I said, balance doesn’t stop with the use of points. The resolution methods of the game in question may also mean that dealing with 50 clanrats or 15 is not as zero/sum as you claim. For example, in warmachine, most things are capable of killing most other things. Along with multi list formats, sideboards and multiple win conditions, there is always a way. In Infinity, with the crit mechanism, and the universal nature of the combatants (essentially, everything is human-ish scale), even a mook with a pistol has a decent chance of taking down the heavily armed and armoured multiwound elite soldier or mech.

puree wrote:

Points are useful for some styles of play, but they have little to do with tournament. Those wanting points for tournaments are not really after points for tourneys, they are after a specific style of game, that they then want to play in a tourney as well. There is nothing wrong with that desire, but it is somewhat disingenuous to say it is needed for tournaments as a generalization.

I think you are being disingenuous. Points have a lot to do with tournaments I’m afraid. And casual games. And pretty much everything in between. Points are a universal language and metric. They’re simply a very useful and universal structural tool that is applicable to TTGs in a big way as it allows for both definitions of size, and definitions of value. Which equates to a role across the board, if you pardon the pun. It’s also a bit dishonest and factually incorrect of you to claim those wanting points for tournaments aren’t after points for tournaments, but ‘something else’. Points at the end of the day are just a structural tool. I think its fairer to say that people want a well worked and robust points system that accurately reflects in-game value, is fair and reasonable, rather than open to abuse. Bear that in mind when talking about points and tournaments, along with the fact that GW have never done either well.

Are points needed for tournaments? Strictly speaking- no. But you will need other replacement mechanisms and tools that will need to step in and carry the weight. And all of these other replacement mechanisms are as open to fault and stress as points use and often simply breed in different sets of weaknesses, so in the end, I would argue that really, you don’t really gain anything by not using points as a structural tool. Dismissing their value is foolish. The alternative is not better.

In this regard, you are quite wrong. Or rather, not seeing the bigger picture and are very much seeing through a GW-prism.
...
Using GW as a basepoint, or viewing this argument through the prism of GW tinted lenses just misinforms and skews ones perception.

My view is to do with over 30 years (getting depressingly close to 40) of wargaming in primarily non GW games, with a good mix of both board and mini games. Apart from a period around 1st ed and then 6ed WFB the GW scene has been an occasional game at best for me. I suspect that is why I see all the arguments about points and tourney balance being made and wonder what people are on about because, contrary to what you claim, I am not looking through the GW prism.

I will, however, note that I am not opposed to points, I am neutral. As I posted elsewhere I would probably use them if they seemed OK, and may even pick up one of the user created systems at some point. Equally I have no issue with being without points.

I've been following this forum for some time now and just want to share with you what do i think about all this 'grabbing my toys and leaving" situation.
To start with, I believe that the possibly worst customer is someone who thinks of himself as a "true fan". Person who can cite whole pages from his favourite book, name all easter eggs in a fav. movie and so on. I'm afraid that WHFB tabletop had mostly true fans. people who had spent hundreds of $ on miniatures, lore books, sacrificed hours on painting and playing Warhammer. What all true fans have in common? They hate the word CHANGE. As soon as they feel cosy in their hobby kingdom they rage in a shitstorm whenever anyone wants to a) move forward with the plot b) change existing parts c) open for wider community.
You all know that WHFB was dieing. GW had little profit with it and something had to be done. Maybe they rushed a bit but COME ON! Most reactions where as if they all got diarrhea and somebody put a cork in them. Blind rage in all directions ended in leaving their favourite hobby, universe, game.
This is how I feel with all that situation. I've been a Warhammer and Warhammer 40 k fan for a few years now. Warhammer Invasion, Relic, Chaos in the Old World, Warhammer Conquest, console game Space Marine, few books. When I heard that they are moving forward with the plot and then saw what's going on I decided to buy AoS - my first tabletop game. I want GW to continue this universe.I've grown up enough not to abandon my fav. world just because somebody introduced Stormcast or killed Slaanesh. Come on guys. End yeah. I am aware of the changes in rules. Most of the guys however where like "round stands wtf? ain't touching this!"

They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The whole situation described in the End Times could have ended in two ways:
1. Empire ONCE AGAIN defends against the evilness of this world and we come back to scenario: chaos rising, gaining power, becoming threat, running home with tail between its legs. Roadrunner vs Coyote anyone?
or
2. blow everything up

 infinite_array wrote:


The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

I might be new to tabletop but defenitely not new to Warhammer. Or perhaps I will always be new to a true fan who is always right.

aryann wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The whole situation described in the End Times could have ended in two ways:
1. Empire ONCE AGAIN defends against the evilness of this world and we come back to scenario: chaos rising, gaining power, becoming threat, running home with tail between its legs. Roadrunner vs Coyote anyone?
or
2. blow everything up

In my defense, just rebasing my fantasy Skaven army will cost about 350 dollars. 700 small models, 20 large models, 10 cavalry models, 6 mostrous creature models, 1 gargantuan model.

I think I have a pretty good idea why I'm upset about round bases. not to mention I have around 600 redundant models.

so hey! I guess I only need to rebase around 150 models of different sizes!

I guess I could just leave them on square bases too. Oh! except GW really used to push "regiment bases" for rank and file troops, so the bulk of my troops are on bases 20mm by 100mm.

Lastly, Archaons' 40K counterpart has had, like 15 major crusades to end the world and those got stopped everytime. No chaos god has smacked him down for failing.

 infinite_array wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

It is important to empathize with the lifelong gamers who garner it, not all of them by default. I have found many die-hard gamers to be socially unpleasant to be around, and AoS has ran a lot of these people away from my local store. Good riddance.

A little about me. I bought my first box of skaven clanrats 18 years ago. I am 32 so that was over half my life ago. There have been years where I've played a lot, and years my armies collected dust. The problem with the game to thousands of casual players like me is, real life/other hobbies/work/etc oftentimes takes precedent, and if you don't fully dedicate yourself to the hobby you will find yourself scratching your head and thumbing through a bible of rules more than you will ever find yourself enjoying the game. Even die-hard, competitive power-gamers succumb to mind slips and brain farts. Now try playing as a guy who hasn't picked up the army in a long time, and there's a NEW rulebook, and perhaps someone has a new army book, and the two of you have to look up rules all day. If you fluently speak the language, this doesn't sound as much of a hassle as it is, but trust me, it is.

Going back to what I said earlier, the gamers who took Fantasy really seriously helped ruin an already niche market by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere for new players. My store was one of the few in the city that had several Fantasy players, and the last thing you want to experience as a casual player is a mouth-breathing powergamer standing on the table edge questioning why you performed certain actions, or why you chose certain magical items, or how you SHOULD have done this-instead-of-that.

Fantasy is extremely complicated and the rules are often contradictory, and you throw your hat into the ring only to get picked on by powergamers who seemingly have an exorbitant amount of their self-esteem resting on it. So in this regard, I too am guilty of the "I've got mine" attitude. AoS has culled the herd and now the remaining players are good-natured ones who play for casual fun, and for enthusiastic newcomers.

 SolidOakie wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

It is important to empathize with the lifelong gamers who garner it, not all of them by default. I have found many die-hard gamers to be socially unpleasant to be around, and AoS has ran a lot of these people away from my local store. Good riddance.

A little about me. I bought my first box of skaven clanrats 18 years ago. I am 32 so that was over half my life ago. There have been years where I've played a lot, and years my armies collected dust. The problem with the game to thousands of casual players like me is, real life/other hobbies/work/etc oftentimes takes precedent, and if you don't fully dedicate yourself to the hobby you will find yourself scratching your head and thumbing through a bible of rules more than you will ever find yourself enjoying the game. Even die-hard, competitive power-gamers succumb to mind slips and brain farts. Now try playing as a guy who hasn't picked up the army in a long time, and there's a NEW rulebook, and perhaps someone has a new army book, and the two of you have to look up rules all day. If you fluently speak the language, this doesn't sound as much of a hassle as it is, but trust me, it is.

Going back to what I said earlier, the gamers who took Fantasy really seriously helped ruin an already niche market by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere for new players. My store was one of the few in the city that had several Fantasy players, and the last thing you want to experience as a casual player is a mouth-breathing powergamer standing on the table edge questioning why you performed certain actions, or why you chose certain magical items, or how you SHOULD have done this-instead-of-that.

Fantasy is extremely complicated and the rules are often contradictory, and you throw your hat into the ring only to get picked on by powergamers who seemingly have an exorbitant amount of their self-esteem resting on it. So in this regard, I too am guilty of the "I've got mine" attitude. AoS has culled the herd and now the remaining players are good-natured ones who play for casual fun, and for enthusiastic newcomers.

Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

It's also really hard to be characterized as a powergaming TFG mouth-breather with no social skills just because I liked and played WHFB and don't find AoS as a good replacement.
The only thing I ever pushed onto new and old players alike was to get their models painted. I also kept my shop clean, well lit, enforced a policy of no bullying, and ran both tournaments, escalation leagues, and campaigns of all point costs ranges so all types of army sizes and play styles were welcome.

Do you think it was the general culture of WHFB battles that was so toxic? or just specific game stores? Is that something that's just caused by tournaments?

 pox wrote:


Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

It's also really hard to be characterized as a powergaming TFG mouth-breather with no social skills just because I liked and played WHFB and don't find AoS as a good replacement.
The only thing I ever pushed onto new and old players alike was to get their models painted. I also kept my shop clean, well lit, enforced a policy of no bullying, and ran both tournaments, escalation leagues, and campaigns of all point costs ranges so all types of army sizes and play styles were welcome.

Do you think it was the general culture of WHFB battles that was so toxic? or just specific game stores? Is that something that's just caused by tournaments?

Oh yeah man I can definitely see why they would be upset. I do think it is selfish on their part, though. A business needs to appease the masses, not tailor their product to appease the (albeit faithful) niche that actively shoo's away new players.. I have previously described it in beer terms, since most of us enjoy beer. I can understand a stout drinker being upset that their favorite beer company stopped making stouts and started making pilsners to reach a broader market. Just realize you are a percentage, not the whole, of a niche market that would surely die if changes favoring the masses weren't put into place. It's AoS or BUST. If Fantasy was accessible, if it sold well, if (some) of the players didn't take it so seriously, then the last thing GW would do is change the formula.

And I don't characterize you as TFG, I don't know you. All I know is the people I have played with, and in front of. And as far as culture goes, all I wanted was to be welcomed in the store,and to play a fun game that both players enjoyed. Sometimes I got that and sometimes I didn't. The only concrete conclusion I can draw after AoS is the people I didn't "enjoy" very much were the ones most devastated by its release, and the guys I had the most fun with welcomed the change. I never hit the tourney scene because I am not that type of player.

 pox wrote:

Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

IMO, the culled part of the herd is only upset because they've spent a large amount of money on figures for which they won't get their regular rules updates (you know, to make it official). There is IMO no certain connection to the amount of time spent playing, though there are opinions that tournament players, that used to play the most, are also crying out the loudest. Players with smaller collections and those with small investments will most likely adapt quickly enough. GW is not entitled to release further products to appease those that have bought a certain amount of items.

For example (if you cannot tell from my signature), FFG recently canceled CoC. It was a very rich game, run for more than 12 years and was certainly my favorite among the LCG/CCGs I have played. Card games are played on a scale that mini-games just can't compare with (your store may be an exception to the rule, I cannot tell for certain). They are faster, more addictive, more oriented at collectors and can induce the same feeling of attachment in a person as a mini-game. Yet when it was cancelled there was no loud growl of defiance, no burning of entire collections - just a sad sigh and comments that " her time has come". It was known for some time that the game was going dead as it was known for WH. The difference is that while WH clients may have spent thousands upon thousands of pounds for minis, CoC fans spent much less (I have approximately 2/3 of everything printed and have spent no more than 1000$). Clients spending large amounts of money tend to be a bit snobby and demand that, after you provide the service they paid for, you should also wipe their ass.

TLDR IMO some WHFB players that feel outrageously alienated may feel that way because of a subconscious feeling that GW will owe(lol auto-correct changed this to owl ) them life long support because they were at some time bigger than the average guy buyers.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 pox wrote:

Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

IMO, the culled part of the herd is only upset because they've spent a large amount of money on figures for which they won't get their regular rules updates (you know, to make it official).

It's also a tad bit difficult to watch the setting you liked put out to pasture.

On a farm.

Upstate.

Honest, there's lots of room for it to run around...

Yes, I know it's still there to read, and no, I don't feel that GW owes me anything. Then again, I don't owe them, either. They've stopped making a product I enjoy, I'll stop buying it, fair play - but people are going to be disappointed when something they like is canceled. That's a fact, and the earlier shots GW took at their old setting (Averland is dead. Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn, etc., etc.) didn't exactly help smooth things over.

WHFB was around for more than thirty years. That's not just a monetary investment, that's a time investment, with a lot of fond memories.

 Spinner wrote:

It's also a tad bit difficult to watch the setting you liked put out to pasture.

You mean it is difficult for you not to get your next re-printing of the armybooks fluff, crulebook fluff or is it the loss of FB novellas and the finishing line that the old world was destroyed. The last is a finishing line to a setting that was stagnant anyway and of the latter only the novellas are worth mourning for (depends though - I didn't like those that I tried to read)

 Spinner wrote:

WHFB was around for more than thirty years. That's not just a monetary investment, that's a time investment, with a lot of fond memories.

Time investment IMO is second to monetary investment. I have spend more time as of now with CoC than with FB and have fond memories as well, but the monetary investment is lower thus my time was well spent. However should it have been reversed I wouldn't be so happy. Imagine what would happen if Wizards go on a sales decline and decide to reboot magic (we have seen these in fact and it was ugly) - the storm would blow the internet away. Magic is the most expensive and most competitive of all CCGs.

There was a local discussion with some people that had MASSIVE collections and maybe played one game per year - they literally flipped over when they learned that their yearly planned game wasn't going to be official. Their time spent/investment ratio was much lower than other people that played it much more, but had smaller collections, and yet those same people felt like GW was obliged keeping the game the way they knew it. And this is where it gets really difficult for me to grasp - why, given one's investment becomes more valuable (as you don't need to pay for the new game) should he be angry for the death of the game that he knew was dying. The only reason I can think of is that he feels that GW owns him continuous support for the game frozen in time at the moment when he bought it the most. I may be wrong - it's just a late evening bone box rattle after all

Ofc all the fresh AoS players of today will gracefuly accept their game's fate when it inevitably bites the dust 2 years from now. They're the new, better men.

Well, Jebus said that you need new people for a new law (new vessels for new wine or something like that) . But don't worry - I feel like I've already overstepped the line a little so I'll just go and burn my dead card and fb collections in honour of the searing pain that FB left behind

Countless starter box Stormcast Eternals will burn in basements around the world.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ofc all the fresh AoS players of today will gracefuly accept their game's fate when it inevitably bites the dust 2 years from now. They're the new, better men.

Haha! You are right. If this were to happen I don't know what I would do. I think (hope) I would continue to buy the rage-quitters models on Ebay but who knows. I know I would never sell my own, since I've had them since puberty, at least the skaven anyway. But that would never happen!!







Right guys?












Right?

 pox wrote:

aryann wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The whole situation described in the End Times could have ended in two ways:
1. Empire ONCE AGAIN defends against the evilness of this world and we come back to scenario: chaos rising, gaining power, becoming threat, running home with tail between its legs. Roadrunner vs Coyote anyone?
or
2. blow everything up

In my defense, just rebasing my fantasy Skaven army will cost about 350 dollars. 700 small models, 20 large models, 10 cavalry models, 6 mostrous creature models, 1 gargantuan model.

I think I have a pretty good idea why I'm upset about round bases. not to mention I have around 600 redundant models.

so hey! I guess I only need to rebase around 150 models of different sizes!

I guess I could just leave them on square bases too. Oh! except GW really used to push "regiment bases" for rank and file troops, so the bulk of my troops are on bases 20mm by 100mm.

Lastly, Archaons' 40K counterpart has had, like 15 major crusades to end the world and those got stopped everytime. No chaos god has smacked him down for failing.

If you bought sabot bases or new round bases from someone other than GW, it could be done a lot cheaper.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 pox wrote:

In my defense, just rebasing my fantasy Skaven army will cost about 350 dollars. 700 small models, 20 large models, 10 cavalry models, 6 mostrous creature models, 1 gargantuan model.

I think I have a pretty good idea why I'm upset about round bases. not to mention I have around 600 redundant models.

so hey! I guess I only need to rebase around 150 models of different sizes!

I guess I could just leave them on square bases too. Oh! except GW really used to push "regiment bases" for rank and file troops, so the bulk of my troops are on bases 20mm by 100mm.

Lastly, Archaons' 40K counterpart has had, like 15 major crusades to end the world and those got stopped everytime. No chaos god has smacked him down for failing.

If you bought sabot bases or new round bases from someone other than GW, it could be done a lot cheaper.

I recommend Litko Aero. They have a huge range of bases and can make any custom size you might want.

Spent the whole day at my local GW today, a couple of 10 year olds played a game of AoS and the manager was legitimately shocked that people where playing that and not 40k.

I think what legitimately confuses me is how some people here keep saying that this new ruleset is not for "true fans" but for a wider demographic. What about these new rules and setting are better written and sculpted to pull in new players? Free rules are nice, but most of the free rules armies arent being pushed right now. It's all sigmarines and bloodbloods, both having 50+$ codexes and very expensive models outside the starter box. So what actually is happening is that the game is about the same cost as it would have been, just with fewer models. What incentive does lil Timmy or older Carl have to get into this new hobby when they see the 50$+ dollar codexes and boxes of 5 shiney knights (plus costs for paint and knives and files and glue and brushes)? In my local area the only way to encourage new players beyond them liking an army is to show them the cheapest way to get those supplies. In a place with little to no fans of the game, which is sounding like a lot of the US but less so in the UK and Europe as a whole? Less new fans, and a lot of missing old fans.

Codexes provide fluff, formations, and battleplans. Unit warscrolls are still free.

edit: So I could buy a box of Ironbreakers(50$), and a Dragon Slayer (21$), build 5 Ironbreakers and 5 Irondrakes from my box and have a little army.
My friend could buy a box of Skaven Clanrats(35$) and a Grey Seer (22$) and get 2 units of 10 rats.

That's ~70$ investment and we both have playable and expandable armies, because all of the rules are available totally free.

That is far, far less than WHFB ever was. Most definitely not the same startup cost.

Rihgu wrote:
Codexes provide fluff, formations, and battleplans. Unit warscrolls are still free.

edit: So I could buy a box of Ironbreakers(50$), and a Dragon Slayer (21$), build 5 Ironbreakers and 5 Irondrakes from my box and have a little army.
My friend could buy a box of Skaven Clanrats(35$) and a Grey Seer (22$) and get 2 units of 10 rats.

That's ~70$ investment and we both have playable and expandable armies, because all of the rules are available totally free.

That is far, far less than WHFB ever was. Most definitely not the same startup cost.

Battle for Skull Pass was...what, $45? If you split it with someone and each got an army book...I can't remember if the 7th edition books were $20 or $25, but either way, that adds up to $40-$50 each. There's a small rulebook to share, 73 models for the goblin player, 33 models for the dwarf player, and some nifty scenery, along with the standard dice/templates/whippy sticks for when you catch your opponent nudging a unit.

The whippy sticks even had numbers on them, so you could use them to measure in a pinch!

Admittedly, those are small and unoptimized armies, but they both had enough for a 500 point army, if you worked it out. Playable AND expandable!

 Spinner wrote:

Battle for Skull Pass was...what, $45?

I have to admit that I didn't believe you, so I went and looked it up. It is truly amazing to me that GW ever released anything of that size at that price point - and only 8 years ago! Island of blood cost at least twice that and had half as many figures.

By that same logic, two guys can split the current starter and pay nearly the same amount of money (inflation included) for half the models and still have two very functional armies. The current models are a lot bigger so let's say you get the same quantity of plastic. I really can't say that, for its time, one starter is better than the other. The downside is that both players don't get to read their respective armybooks with the AoS starter. I'd say both ways of starting the hobby (then and now), by means of the starter, provide similar gains and are of similar cost.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

Battle for Skull Pass was...what, $45?

I have to admit that I didn't believe you, so I went and looked it up. It is truly amazing to me that GW ever released anything of that size at that price point - and only 8 years ago! Island of blood cost at least twice that and had half as many figures.

I know, right? I had to look it up myself - Battle for Skull Pass was what I started playing WHFB with (although I grew up with Heroquest!), and I KNEW I didn't pay anywhere near $70 for it, but it's still a heck of a shock. Try looking through old White Dwarf ads if you want an even bigger one. It's amazing how quickly GW prices rose.

By that same logic, two guys can split the current starter and pay nearly the same amount of money (inflation included) for half the models and still have two very functional armies.

Bolded part of that for you. I don't think that getting the same amount of plastic really equates to getting a larger number of models; furthermore, I'd argue that Battle for Skull Pass had lots more character. The grudge-pony with its little cart...that web-wrapped Slayer (he made a perfect objective before I converted him into being a makeshift troll club!)...heck, that tiny attack squig the night goblin boss was holding! Just loads more fun in general.

Just for clarification, the army books didn't come with the set, but you could purchase them and still stay below the price point Rihgu quoted. In addition, the rulebook itself had fluff in it. Not as much, but definitely some!

The problem there is that most pro-aosers point to formations and scenarios to how to balance the game. So the codexs aren't just fluff. They are a gaming tax

There was no need to bold it out - I knew what I wrote.

I don't think that getting the same amount of plastic really equates to getting a larger number of models

That depends on the person. If not for their sentimental value I'd trade right away many of my old, metal space marines for the newer, bigger, more detailed models at 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio.
I know that there's also the gamer's point of view - you get more models so you can play larger games etc. - but it is a discussion I don't want to participate in. Suffice to say, I consider the models that one gets from the AoS starter to be sufficient enough to play the game to a comparable enjoyment and diversity to the ones that BfSP gave in its own context of FB.

 CoreCommander wrote:
There was no need to bold it out - I knew what I wrote.

I don't think that getting the same amount of plastic really equates to getting a larger number of models

That depends on the person. If not for their sentimental value I'd trade right away many of my old, metal space marines for the newer, bigger, more detailed models at 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio.

I figured you did! Was more for pointing out to other people, really.

Actually, I've got an issue with the 'inflation' bit, too, now that I've checked it out. Not like I'm an economic expert or anything, but this calculator puts the price at Battle for Skull Pass - $45 - at a little over $50 if you adjust for inflation.

The Age of Sigmar starter set, which includes less than half the models and no scenery, will run you $125.

Now, if you split it between two people, you're paying only a little more than someone who bought the entire Battle for Skull Pass box for themselves, but you're only getting roughly twenty models, no terrain, you're sharing the rulebook, and you're still paying more.

Fair point on the space marines, I might feel the same - but that's mostly because smaller old ones would look kinda silly squaring off against newer models that they're supposed to be larger than Not sure of the exact scale difference, but I know it's visible.

 Spinner wrote:


The Age of Sigmar starter set, which includes less than half the models and no scenery, will run you $125.

Now, if you split it between two people, you're paying only a little more than someone who bought the entire Battle for Skull Pass box for themselves, but you're only getting roughly twenty models, no terrain, you're sharing the rulebook, and you're still paying more.

My mistake here. Well, get your iPad, and load up with enthusiasm for painting a fewer number but more awesome miniatures because that's more emphasized now with the big expensive figures. You should squeeze out your enjoyment from every square mil-inch

To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

SeanDrake wrote:
To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

Well, that certainly is a reasoned, informed opinion. Thanks for sharing!

Battle For Skull Pass was massively subsidised for the US if it was $45 dollars. The set was £40 pounds at least, in the UK!

 Bottle wrote:
Battle For Skull Pass was massively subsidised for the US if it was $45 dollars. The set was £40 pounds at least, in the UK!

I think that this may be because there is no tax included in this price (really, prices without already included tax, as we have VAT, REALLY confuse me)

I think the $45 figure was working on the presumption that two people would pay $45 each to get a $90 starter set and split the minis, as the discussion was around startup costs at that point.

 Sqorgar wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

Well, that certainly is a reasoned, informed opinion. Thanks for sharing!

He played "couple of games" so how is it uninformed?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

Well, that certainly is a reasoned, informed opinion. Thanks for sharing!

He played "couple of games" so how is it uninformed?

Because he didn't like it

Informed is a rather vague term, but for any review of a game I'd expect a lot more than a couple of games before I'd class it as an 'informed' review.

There was certainly no reasoning. A lot of hyperbole and statements that push it into the sort of comments that one ignores if one wants some review.

Gak as a game never mind a wargame. Really care to explain why?

A step above going pew pew but not as good as what other designed at 10 years old with their brother. Really, how many have brothers in the same age category with the same hobby who wrote rules that were somehow 'more' than AOS. I wrote some at about that age, I had no brother though, They were hardly some awesome rule set that I'd put over AOS or any other game.

I had to laugh at that though, what does KOW (which has gained a lot of WFB players from what others are saying) provide that AOS doesn't on a gak scale? Formations and their rules take up a large amount of the extra rules in KOW, but that is subject matter (or are all skirmish style games gak?) and points, which don't make a game itself gak or not. Both have movement by inches, both have to hit and to wound that are simple rolls with no unit comparison, AOS has to save and 'rending'. KOW doesn't do casualties and does morale via cumulutive buildup. AOS does casualties and morale based on how well you did that turn. KOW is extreme IGOUGO where as AOS has alternate attacks during each turn. KOW has even simpler magic than AOS. KOW avoids synergies and combos like the plague so that it can do points better, AOS ignores points and makes synergies, with heroes especially, a key part of the game.

I've played both games, I consider both games pretty similar in complexity and would put both about the same place on some 'game scale' which has saying pew pew as bottom. If you want formations or point based armies then KOW is your game, if you want skirmish or unit combos or interesting heroes then AOS is better.

[edit] Thinking about it a bit more I'd put AOS as the better game on such a scale (I prefer games with more synergies and like the attack order interaction). Both are very simple games, but KOW feels somewhat 'bland' due to its lack of combos and very basic heroes.

Then we get how he might be able to sue GW for pinching his ideas. Really? Did the 10 year old version of him publish and have some copyright or IP that GW has illegally used? More garbage hyperbole.


If he had just said that after a couple of games he had realised it wasn't the sort of game for him then he'd come over a lot more reasoned. But adding in all that other stuff is very much in the unreasoned and uninformed category.

Hey that's just picking on words lol.

Though truth be told, any serious attempt at review trying to be objective and coming with a conclusion that AoS is a better game, that's much much worse than the post you reffer to. A complete garbage review and worthless blabber so to speak.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Truth Be Told 2, it wasn't a proffesional review but just a post stating an opinion and just enough hyperbole to describe an impression. Not to mention that, with enough experience, you can easily judge a ruleset after few games, especialy a simple one like AoS.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said it was a reasoned and informed opinion, and I even thanked him for sharing. Geez.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said it was a reasoned and informed opinion, and I even thanked him for sharing. Geez.

...and they say Americans don't get sarcasm.

RoperPG wrote:
I think the $45 figure was working on the presumption that two people would pay $45 each to get a $90 starter set and split the minis, as the discussion was around startup costs at that point.

It was not. Like I said, I couldn't remember exactly what I paid, so I did some digging. As unbelievable as it might sound, that was the figure that kept coming back. It was a starter box actually priced to get someone started in the hobby.

Worked like a charm on me!

...now, granted, it was more expensive elsewhere, roughly half the cost of the Age of Sigmar starter, I believe. For more than twice the models, some really neat terrain, general GW starter set bitz and pieces, and a rulebook.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said it was a reasoned and informed opinion, and I even thanked him for sharing. Geez.

Good one heh, thanks for the laugh.

puree wrote:

I had to laugh at that though, what does KOW (which has gained a lot of WFB players from what others are saying) provide that AOS doesn't on a gak scale?

Not much, just some tools so that the players can try to have a balanced game in another way than "taking your whole collection and play".

Both games are quite simple. KOW uses it so that it's easier to make new units and keep the point system nice to use.

Main difference is of course the scale; KOW focuses on mass battles while AoS is more at ease at a skirmish level.

The IGOUGO system is obvious in both games; after all, Alessio comes from GW as well. However, when making a mass battle game system and trying to make it quick...it's easier to keep track of your units if you play it whole in a row. Alternated activations is certainly more dynamic, but it becomes quickly tedious when there are many miniatures on the board.

AoS just uses the basis from their Warhammer core system. Sure, opponent may be attacking during the active player's turn, but this is a small disadvantage as well for multiplayers "free for all" games. Not a big deal, just a few "homemade rules" are enough.

Having everything made by the active player during his turn only also helps to make it quick. As always, advantages and disadvantages - but I believe it is a pure choice in game designing, rather than wanting to keep old rules for the sake of it.

Saying there is no synergy or combo in KOW is like saying there is no tactic in AoS; it's false, though it's maybe not as developped as in others, more complex games. It's mainly heroes that do the job in KOW, using spells, magic items or special rules to help the others units around hit harder, stand their ground, heal their wounds or just moving them/their enemies so that they can reach their target in time. Having generic support actions doesn't mean they don't have any.

True, there are less details in KOW. And that's purely intentionnal; it's always easier to balance things that are simple and don't have a lot of different, obscure special rules only designed for them. AoS goes the other way, and that's also a reason this GW game just throws standard balance out of the window - giving the ball in the hands of players alone.

Both games have their advantages and disadvantages.


Not really sure KOW is more popular than AOS, but in my country, Belgium, AOS doesn't seem to take roots. A lot of veteran players, who stayed with GW even when there was barely any new for WFB, felt betrayed and took their clubs with them. New players feel a bit alone when they try to pick up a game. A representative of GW at the last miniature convention in Anvers said we don't seem to "get AOS" - and that's basically our fault if the game doesn't start here.

Well, in a way, he's right. But in another...maybe GW just didn't bring the game they wanted?

Anyway, it's dead here. I still bought a huge Undead army. Took it at my local GW shop. I know, I'm stupid, I paid full price in their shops for it. Whatever, they had everything I wanted in stock and well...poor guys in the GW store are having it a bit rough for their AoS products. Wouldn't be a great thing not to have a GW store anymore in my town, after all.

But I took it for KOW mainly, and because they were the old boxes with square bases. At least, I will find some players...and if AOS starts later, I will be able to use my miniatures as well, since bases don't matter in it.

puree wrote:
Informed is a rather vague term, but for any review of a game I'd expect a lot more than a couple of games before I'd class it as an 'informed' review.

How many times should someone play a game they dislike before writing it off, in your opinion?

Herzlos wrote:

puree wrote:
Informed is a rather vague term, but for any review of a game I'd expect a lot more than a couple of games before I'd class it as an 'informed' review.

How many times should someone play a game they dislike before writing it off, in your opinion?

I think it is fair to expect a professional reviewer to play at least several games, but for any individual person to have formed their own opinion I'd say a single game is enough.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think it is fair to expect a professional reviewer to play at least several games, but for any individual person to have formed their own opinion I'd say a single game is enough.

Exactly. From a professional reviewer, we expect reasoned objectivity, informed perspective, worldly comprehension, and a lack of inflammatory hyperbole. There's no reason we should expect similar reasonableness from everybody posting their opinions in a forum. After all, they aren't being paid (or even invited) to share their views with others, so why should we hold them to the same standards? There's no such thing as a wrong opinion, only wrong opinion listeners.

I'd say that even for a professional reviewer, a single game is enough if the result is "this game has no redeeming features at all". Like "The Club" or "Goat Simulator".

It should be easy enough to report back on any game after 1 or 2 playthroughs. First impressions are important and all that.

If you're still looking for 20mm (or even 15mm) round plastic bases, check out http://proxiemodels.com. They're thinner than GW's but they're good They also have really big round ones in lots of different sizes that will be good for bigger models. All the way up to 120mm I think.

I like that AoS is more of a casual game. I'm also someone that rarely plays and rarely remembers the rules, so I like that it's more simple. I'm kind of hoping over time it will develop into something kinda like Warmahordes and they eventually put out some kind of points system. It's an all new game system & world and it will take time for it to build up an audience, but I'm still kinda sad they have to kill off the old one i the process.

I'm kinda hoping though that the new Specialist games team will put out a Warhammer Old World rulebook or whatever, to keep the old game alive.. and/or have special movement trays made to fit the newer models that will all have round bases.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd say that even for a professional reviewer, a single game is enough if the result is "this game has no redeeming features at all". Like "The Club" or "Goat Simulator".

It should be easy enough to report back on any game after 1 or 2 playthroughs. First impressions are important and all that.

All evidence to the contrary, it IS possible to share one's opinions on the internet with dignity and be respected for it. However, hastily drawn conclusions from assumptions and incomplete information, presented in an arrogant and ungrammatical form is not it.

I didn't find it arrogant, it was fairly blunt, but to be fair an awful lot of people who've tried AoS have a lot worse to say about it than it being tripe.

Herzlos wrote:
I didn't find it arrogant, it was fairly blunt, but to be fair an awful lot of people who've tried AoS have a lot worse to say about it than it being tripe.

I just looked up "a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old" on Google and it came back, not "arrogance personified" as I expected, but as "festively forthright"... Well, don't that just beat all? I stand corrected.

It also said, "Are you sure you didn't mean 'a step below the game you design with your brother when you're 9 or 10 years old'?" I didn't, but thanks for looking out for me, Google.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd say that even for a professional reviewer, a single game is enough if the result is "this game has no redeeming features at all". Like "The Club" or "Goat Simulator".

It should be easy enough to report back on any game after 1 or 2 playthroughs. First impressions are important and all that.

Goat Simulator actually has a lot of redeeming features, so I'm wondering if your statement is correct at all...

I've never played it, but I got the impression it was technically awful, but good fun for a while.

Goat Simulator is a great time for the first few hours when you're seeing everything for the first time, but once you've seen everything, there's no reason to keep playing.

That sounds a bit like life.

Stopped by the local GW today. There was 40k and Horus Heresy being played and painted, didn't see any AoS on the gaming tables or the painting tables other than the demo game table... which funnily enough still hadn't been fully painted yet That surprised me because the manager is a pretty enthusiastic dude, I wouldn't expect him to leave the demo table in an unpainted state. I also noticed he still had all his WHFB display forces in the cabinet and still on square bases in regiments.

I must say, by my observation it has taken shops a very long time to paint up their AoS figures, especially considering all they need to do is to spray them gold and add one or two accent colours.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I must say, by my observation it has taken shops a very long time to paint up their AoS figures, especially considering all they need to do is to spray them gold and add one or two accent colours.

Yeah it's quite strange. I remember previous sets were base coated prior to release and fully painted within a couple of weeks. Even new armies the store manager occasionally paints up and typically has them done within a few weeks of the release. It's been several months now and the Sigmarines are base coated gold but without any details picked out and the Chaos dudes are mostly still wearing black primer with a couple of them fully painted.

I think a lot of it is just down to them being one man stores now, they have no time to paint them.

That's true, though my local GW manager has managed to get some customers to paint models for the store He's painted most of them himself, but there's a squad here and there that came from people who frequent the store.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think a lot of it is just down to them being one man stores now, they have no time to paint them.

Our local store manager /must/ paint them in X days, often before release, or gets in trouble.

Our manager gets others to do it as he is not much of a hobbyist.

However the Calth stuff is just primed red and blue.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think a lot of it is just down to them being one man stores now, they have no time to paint them.

Our local store manager /must/ paint them in X days, often before release, or gets in trouble.

I wonder if that is a German thing or if my store manager is screwed next time there is an inspection

There aren't any regional HQs any more. All orders come from head office.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think a lot of it is just down to them being one man stores now, they have no time to paint them.

Or they keep breaking off the tiny bits.
They are amazing models---just bought my buddy's set today---but super fragile IMO.

40k player here but our store not only has had nearly no traction for AOS, on Black Friday fantasy models other than demons were 40 to 60 percent off, while most the store was at 20. I did pick up some orcs to buff out my ork army but when i ask why, the manager told me that since AOS fantasy has been dead weight and he wants the shelf space for 40k and other games.

Yeaaahh its still not selling, like at all. Worse than when it was warhammer even and I hate to say "I told you so" but yeah I could have easily guessed AoS wasn't going to take off.

My FLGS had a stack of AoS boxes in their Black Friday Sale.

$50 each...

Didn't see how many sold, but there were a ton of them left from that initial ~80 box order GW pushed on them.

I've never seen the game being played at the store, although I certainly don't live there so it's possible I've missed some.

I can't say that I'm seeing either as a particularly positive sign for the game.

Damn for $50 I'd pick one up just for the little bit of chaos stuff I'd want to paint.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Damn for $50 I'd pick one up just for the little bit of chaos stuff I'd want to paint.

Send me a Retributor if that ever happens, heh? I'll pay the shipping (It'll be at least 5$, trust me.)

At a gaming party lately I asked few guys from across the country over booze about their shops and AoS. Unsuprisingly, it's a flop, few starters moved, an uptick in whfb sales probably because people worried about models being discontinued and then nothing. Ofc it's only 4 random shops but it seems to add up heh.

I was undecided whether I want it to die or continue and maybe provide some great new undead/ chaos/ daemons models for my armies tbh. Seeing the crap christmas tree esque Archaon and comedic Varanguard (no not the price, price is just idiotic), I am more for its fast and spectacular death heh.

I am living in one of the USA's larger metro areas, and AoS exists pretty much only at the 1 GW site. PP, Wyrd, and X-wing have virtually rendered GW extinct. AoS is just mostly despised, but 40k is going down as well.

thekingofkings wrote:
I am living in one of the USA's larger metro areas, and AoS exists pretty much only at the 1 GW site. PP, Wyrd, and X-wing have virtually rendered GW extinct. AoS is just mostly despised, but 40k is going down as well.

Sounds terrible, glad that's not the case over here.

Fourth largest city in the US here.

Have not seen AoS played since release weekend.

 Mymearan wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:
I am living in one of the USA's larger metro areas, and AoS exists pretty much only at the 1 GW site. PP, Wyrd, and X-wing have virtually rendered GW extinct. AoS is just mostly despised, but 40k is going down as well.

Sounds terrible, glad that's not the case over here.

tell me about it, have to play the same 3 opponents in my own basement, even the GW only ever has one or two folks playing.

Was visiting a town that has a shop with a very large and active community (they run one of, if not the, largest tournaments in the country) this week. He said that now that the "furor has died down" the Age of Sigmar community was really coming into its own. The most interesting thing he said was that although some old WHFB players had returned after rage quitting, the majority of the community consisted of completely new players. He was very positive about the future of AoS. While I was there, most of the customers I saw were either modelling or talking about AoS.

Social media has seen an increase of AoS traffic as well. The Facebook pages for AoS are getting a lot of new members daily and the posting is getting more and more frequent. I believe searches for AoS are up as well. It seems like November was the bottom - hype of the introduction had died down and people weren't enthused about the Seraphon release. A lot of the old podcasts have really gotten on board, Facehammer notably, which was quite skeptical at first and now are very positive after playing in some tournaments.

Google can tell you how often words are searched for:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=AoS%2C%20Age%20of%20Sigmar%2C%20Sigmar&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6

AoS is generally searched for in relation to aos pais with top search country being Mozambique.

Age of Sigmar - search volume peaked in Nov 2015 and has been declining since.

 agnosto wrote:
Google can tell you how often words are searched for:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=AoS%2C%20Age%20of%20Sigmar%2C%20Sigmar&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6

AoS is generally searched for in relation to aos pais with top search country being Mozambique.

Age of Sigmar - search volume peaked in Nov 2015 and has been declining since.

Those metrics don't make sense to me, but I could be misunderstanding.

If you look on Google Trends, which seems to make a lot more sense by countries searching (UK first) and when searches were at the highest (at the AoS launch), you get this chart:

https://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=age%20of%20sigmar

 agnosto wrote:
Google can tell you how often words are searched for:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=AoS%2C%20Age%20of%20Sigmar%2C%20Sigmar&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6

AoS is generally searched for in relation to aos pais with top search country being Mozambique.

Age of Sigmar - search volume peaked in Nov 2015 and has been declining since.

I think you're reading the wrong chart. I clicked your link and removed "AoS" and "Sigmar" to focus only on "Age of Sigmar". Search volume peaked massively in July 2015 as would be expected, declined until November when it was at its lowest like coldgaming said, and has been rising since.

edit: Yeah you're looking at the trend for the term "aos" not "age of sigmar". "age of sigmar" is the lower, red line in your chart.

 Mymearan wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Google can tell you how often words are searched for:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=AoS%2C%20Age%20of%20Sigmar%2C%20Sigmar&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6

AoS is generally searched for in relation to aos pais with top search country being Mozambique.

Age of Sigmar - search volume peaked in Nov 2015 and has been declining since.

I think you're reading the wrong chart. I clicked your link and removed "AoS" and "Sigmar" to focus only on "Age of Sigmar". Search volume peaked massively in July 2015 as would be expected, declined until November when it was at its lowest like coldgaming said, and has been rising since.

edit: Yeah you're looking at the trend for the term "aos" not "age of sigmar". "age of sigmar" is the lower, red line in your chart.

Yep, all correct.

So the 2016 edition for my area:

Pre summer 2015 registered fantasy players: 55
Summer 2015 End Times Campaign registered players: 28

Fall Age of Sigmar Campaign starting players: 11
End of Fall Age of Sigmar Campaign starting players: 5

2016 - Azyr Empires Summer Campaign current players: 8 (+3)

So last year 28 out of 55 registered overall players participated in campaign for WHFB8.

11 of 55 registered for AoS, but only 5 ended the campaign (the lowest since 2010 when 8th came out and we lost most of our players to warmachine)

Currently sitting at 8 active AoS players. Prediction: we'll get to 12 by summer with the new releases. A year after AoS release we will have gone from 28 players to 12-14.

Prediction: by end of 2016 our AoS player base will be up to 16-18. The trends so far are following the same statistics in my area at 2010's 8th edition release.

My area has a pretty large population of wargamers and AoS has pretty much died out. I've played it a couple times since November when I just want a relax and roll dice but that's only because I have 40k deamons and don't have to get new models. Even 40k is on the decline. Saturdays used to be 40k only but now its mostly been replaced by xwing, warmachine, and bolt action. A lot of people are fed up with GW's BS.

Yes I remember readining a post on BoLS where people were asked whether they think that Age of Sigmar hurt 40k through generating distrust and hate or that it had no impact on 40k apart from summer of Sigmar dry spell. To my suprise, there were tons of comments saying that it did a lot of hurt and afair exactly one claiming it didn't, I thought it's only me and other 3 foaming at the mouth haters heh.

It really seems to have been a catalyst for the outburst of hate, last straw to break the camels back etc. Insert usual anectotes and internet disclaimer.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I remember readining a post on BoLS where people were asked whether they think that Age of Sigmar hurt 40k through generating distrust and hate or that it had no impact on 40k apart from summer of Sigmar dry spell. To my suprise, there were tons of comments saying that it did a lot of hurt and afair exactly one claiming it didn't, I thought it's only me and other 3 foaming at the mouth haters heh.

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I remember readining a post on BoLS where people were asked whether they think that Age of Sigmar hurt 40k through generating distrust and hate or that it had no impact on 40k apart from summer of Sigmar dry spell. To my suprise, there were tons of comments saying that it did a lot of hurt and afair exactly one claiming it didn't, I thought it's only me and other 3 foaming at the mouth haters heh.

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

More than a few people in the 40k sub expressed a fear that 40k would get an Age of Emperor when AoS hit, and when you question the longevity of your game like that your buying habits inevitably suffer.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

I've seen little evidence that 40k was actually hurt in any noteworthy way by the death of WHFB. I think there was a lot of empty posturing online mixed with some worried speculation about the AoS-ification of 40k, but I don't think it made too much of a difference with those who actually played the game regularly.

(Side note: It's a Colombian Necktie. The Italian mafia were bad, but they weren't South American drug lord bad)

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

I've seen little evidence that 40k was actually hurt in any noteworthy way by the death of WHFB. I think there was a lot of empty posturing online mixed with some worried speculation about the AoS-ification of 40k, but I don't think it made too much of a difference with those who actually played the game regularly.

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about increasing the chances of brand disloyalty happening or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers had in GW, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about generating brand disloyalty or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

The ''shadow of AoSification'' has come over 40k players also here. Some bought the AoS starter kit to see how the game works. Today, only some of the proper Fantasy players play AoS games from time to time. Otherwise, its dead here.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about increasing the chances of brand disloyalty happening or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers had in GW, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

Yeah, but is the brand disloyalty higher, or does it just take a different form? Most of the grumblings I hear from 40k players is about how so-and-so army hasn't had a codex update in years, that GW doesn't balance their games, that GW price gouges them, that GW doesn't listen to them, that GW closed their favorite FLGS with their business practices, and so on. Is AoSification really that much more threatening than any of their numerous other complaints, or is it just one more piece of straw for the haystack?

I mean, I don't think I've ever seen less trust or affection for a corporate entity, except maybe in the cases where fracking caused tap water to catch on fire. More people like Monsanto than GW. Gamers would rather trust Bill Cosby with their sister than Games Workshop with their wallet. I don't think it's possible for gamers to hate GW more than they already do.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

I've seen little evidence that 40k was actually hurt in any noteworthy way by the death of WHFB. I think there was a lot of empty posturing online mixed with some worried speculation about the AoS-ification of 40k, but I don't think it made too much of a difference with those who actually played the game regularly.

(Side note: It's a Colombian Necktie. The Italian mafia were bad, but they weren't South American drug lord bad)

The comments were exactly about people disgusted/ dissapointed with GW leaving 40k for other games so yeah it's your anecdote vs theirs except that the general positive to negative ratio is like 1:100 lol. But the internet loves to whine and there surely is a hidden underground network of Age of Sigmar players where the first rule of the club is that you don't talk about the club. I need to check ww2 bunkers around, they must be there.

For what it's worth, I stopped buying 40k because of Age of Simar and it wasn't a boycott or sth, I just lost heart to it. And I had some to buy list and had been spending $100 - 200 equivalent monthly for at least half a year before AoS hit.

I doubt AoS hurt 40K directly. It has already been hurt enough since 6th edition by GW themselves, who have been making the same kind of changes to the game and models that they did with WHFB. We all know how that worked out.

Personally I would welcome an AoS version of 40K because it would be cheap and easier to play.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I would welcome an AoS version of 40K because it would be cheap and easier to play.

You say that now....

No, I really would. I stopped playing 40K in 6th edition due to rules and prices.

A free AoS version would let me get some use out of my old Tyranids and Tau without having to spend £110 on rulebooks.

If they kept vehicles having vulnerable sides/ rear and cover mechanics, imo AoS esque simplification of 40k wouldn't be that bad as far as depth goes. 40k is already quite shallow and simple at its core, not a complete bottom like AoS ofc but it would be easier to preserve its depth with few simple rules.

Problem would be if they removed point costs, also people love their codieces and fiddling with equipment/ weapons/ artifacts on model level. Anyway I don't think GW is going to do it, too much risk.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I doubt AoS hurt 40K directly. It has already been hurt enough since 6th edition by GW themselves, who have been making the same kind of changes to the game and models that they did with WHFB. We all know how that worked out.

I wouldn't think that as well but people were posting stories of entire groups going feth that gak and switching to other games. Idk might be all bs but it's easy to believe for me given how AoS killed my lifelong nostalgia and love for GW products over just few days. The way they cleared out any doubt about their stance on gaming could be enough to put many people off of their products.

A free codex thing like AoS for 40k would get me on board, as it stands I only use alternative killteam rules. Dex prices are something I have no interest investing on.

So AoS does really changed the formula for fantasy and its a nice refreshing way to handle the rules which allows both vets and new people to spend the coins only on the models if they wish so.

Facebook for AOS is really busy!

Yes I agree, I would looooove free rules. As it stands my Skitarii are more likely to see a game in Necromunda than they ever are in actual 40k because of the barrier cost with rulebooks.

Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

The alternative to codieces would be warscrolls. GW is not going to give you a book for free lol. The problem is, with 40k warscrolls customisation would go out of the window and that could make a lot of people angry.

I like the idea of codieces as in great looking book with art and rules but those are much too expensive atm and the latest art is mostly cheap videogamey cg crap straight from deviant art or sth. Bad art and bad rules kind of defeat the purpose of it heh

So yeah bring on 40k AoS! Not really though because GW would manage to feth it up really bad anyway like they did with AoS, the less they touch atm the better.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

3 days ago? Doesn't seem that serious lol.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

List building in AoS is an issue in the same way that passing the ball is an issue in WMH.
List building isn't a 'thing' in AoS. It's not "should", it's "what people are used to in other games and expect to encounter".
The list forum has been pretty dead for months. Vanilla AoS doesn't use lists, and until there's a clear 'winner' out of the comp systems not a lot of point of seeing what people think of your list.

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

List building in AoS is an issue in the same way that passing the ball is an issue in WMH.
List building isn't a 'thing' in AoS. It's not "should", it's "what people are used to in other games and expect to encounter".
The list forum has been pretty dead for months. Vanilla AoS doesn't use lists, and until there's a clear 'winner' out of the comp systems not a lot of point of seeing what people think of your list.

You are, of course, correct. List building would only be a thing if AoS had an intented competitive side. As AoS (played as "intended" of course) clearly doesn't, list building and its discussions are, essentially, moot points.

I've spent a lot less on GW products since AOS was released. To be honest, I was planning on boycotting them, but now, the frustration has mostly passed. The main reason I bought less from them is that I had no interest in their recent relaeses, but that will change dramatically when/if they relaese the genestealet cult boxset.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I've spent a lot less on GW products since AOS was released. To be honest, I was planning on boycotting them, but now, the frustration has mostly passed. The main reason I bought less from them is that I had no interest in their recent relaeses, but that will change dramatically when/if they relaese the genestealet cult boxset.

I don't think boycotting GW is a good idea, and I'd never go in for that myself. Personally I think this is the better option. Don't not buy GW on principal, but look critically at what they release, keep in mind the quality of the game the models are for, and because of that I've found myself buying basically nothing.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I've spent a lot less on GW products since AOS was released. To be honest, I was planning on boycotting them, but now, the frustration has mostly passed. The main reason I bought less from them is that I had no interest in their recent relaeses, but that will change dramatically when/if they relaese the genestealet cult boxset.

Conversely I've spent more, because of the Lizard Men £50 starter set deal. I'm not going to play AoS with these figures, though.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

List building in AoS is an issue in the same way that passing the ball is an issue in WMH.
List building isn't a 'thing' in AoS. It's not "should", it's "what people are used to in other games and expect to encounter".
The list forum has been pretty dead for months. Vanilla AoS doesn't use lists, and until there's a clear 'winner' out of the comp systems not a lot of point of seeing what people think of your list.

You are, of course, correct. List building would only be a thing if AoS had an intented competitive side. As AoS (played as "intended" of course) clearly doesn't, list building and its discussions are, essentially, moot points.

Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Less interesting to players whose main interest is list building, but for a lot of people they don't care or even prefer it without.

Personally I think it would have been better to give AoS a basic power level system of some kind, like the various fan productions are trying to implement, but not because I find list building a particularly interesting pastime.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Be careful about assuming that your person preferences represent the will of all gamers. Not having list building may actually make a game more appealing to a wider range of potential gamers, but you'd never know it if you only interacted with a small group of gamers with shared interests. You'd ultimately end up making it look like you claim ownership over wargaming and that anybody who disagrees with you is not welcome - the end result being that those potential gamers never become actual gamers. Which I guess would then mean that you actually do speak for all the gamers. Woah. Self fulfilling prophecies blow my mind.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about increasing the chances of brand disloyalty happening or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers had in GW, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

Yeah, but is the brand disloyalty higher, or does it just take a different form? Most of the grumblings I hear from 40k players is about how so-and-so army hasn't had a codex update in years, that GW doesn't balance their games, that GW price gouges them, that GW doesn't listen to them, that GW closed their favorite FLGS with their business practices, and so on. Is AoSification really that much more threatening than any of their numerous other complaints, or is it just one more piece of straw for the haystack?

I mean, I don't think I've ever seen less trust or affection for a corporate entity, except maybe in the cases where fracking caused tap water to catch on fire. More people like Monsanto than GW. Gamers would rather trust Bill Cosby with their sister than Games Workshop with their wallet. I don't think it's possible for gamers to hate GW more than they already do.

Hyperbole aside, I think there is a lot more water in that well. at some point, people will become angry enough to stop buying.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Definitely ? That is one hell of a sweeping statement, with no obvious evidence to back it up.

I am a gamer. Lack of points is in no way making it less interesting, it makes it more interesting.

It may make it less interesting to competitive gamers who need some way of saying we had equal armies so my win was down to my skill at list building/playing. But don't lump all gamers in the competitive subset.

Going back to what how many times do you have to play sigmar before you can make a review, i played it 3 times a week since it came out and since then i've tried all the points systems, i've tried all the player made FAQ's and errata's and ive definitely tried all the scenario's in every book and the conclusion is that its still gak!

My local GW hasnt sold any thing for age of sigmar since november and on a whole except the xmas virgins most stores were down 60% down in sales from last year, oh dear what has gone wrong? commence operation knee-jerk in earnest!

Hettar wrote:
Going back to what how many times do you have to play sigmar before you can make a review, i played it 3 times a week since it came out and since then i've tried all the points systems, i've tried all the player made FAQ's and errata's and ive definitely tried all the scenario's in every book and the conclusion is that its still gak!

My local GW hasnt sold any thing for age of sigmar since november and on a whole except the xmas virgins most stores were down 60% down in sales from last year, oh dear what has gone wrong? commence operation knee-jerk in earnest!

Just curious, why did you play it 3 times a week since release if you hate it?

Just love fantasy in general so i persevered as i could, trying every different angle i could find.

Hettar wrote:
Just love fantasy in general so i persevered as i could, trying every different angle i could find.

This is very admirable. Some games can grow on people, but many times they (the games) aren't given a second chance. Kudos for sticking with it long enough to find out if there was something for you there.

It is definately an acquired taste. It reminds me alot of the game "carnage" in that its not serious as a game. I play it alot as I have limited time to play real games, but when I do have time for a real game, AoS doesnt make the cut.

Hettar wrote:
Going back to what how many times do you have to play sigmar before you can make a review, i played it 3 times a week since it came out and since then i've tried all the points systems, i've tried all the player made FAQ's and errata's and ive definitely tried all the scenario's in every book and the conclusion is that its still gak!

My local GW hasnt sold any thing for age of sigmar since november and on a whole except the xmas virgins most stores were down 60% down in sales from last year, oh dear what has gone wrong? commence operation knee-jerk in earnest!

Even GW has acknowledged that AOS is pretty much a disaster salewise. They'll either do some massive changes to the game or they'll drop it soon.

I recently found out it's actually quite popular with some of the older players around here Who play it with their children using models from their youth and the free rules. Too bad for GW.

 streetsamurai wrote:



Even GW has acknowledged that AOS is pretty much a disaster salewise. .

When did they say this?

Hettar wrote:
Just love fantasy in general so i persevered as i could, trying every different angle i could find.

I had this view as well as I didn't want my fantasy models to go unused but gave up after just over a month simply because the game is boring to play, the same things always happen each game, your models get closer and closer until they just form a massive blob of plastic in the middle of the board resulting in the longest, most boring combat phase ever made, the fact that you take it in turns doesn't streamline the game at all as most of the time is spent trying to remember who has attacked and who hasn't. roling to see who goes first each turn is also boring as if you go first in one turn and then on the next you go second it means your opponent has a huge advantage as the can move up and attack almost immediately while you are just waiting about watching for ages while your army gets decimated. playing against armies like ogres is boring as they steamroll you before your units that may have a slim chance of hurting them can attack (ogres going first is BS, there was a reason the initiative steps existed). in the end I gave up though just simply because the remaining players (we are now down to 3 at time of writing, bearing in mind we had about 20 fantasy players before) just completely exploited the rules to the point where you couldn't beat them, (and I'm not talking about kairos and the screaming bell combo).
all in all the game is utter tripe, I can't imagine that it was ever play tested properly if at all, like I said in another thread, the game isn't even half baked, gw simply dropped it on the floor on the way to the oven and gave us the resultant mess.
also interestingly on GW's old youtube channel there is a video of jervis saying how great the (8th) is (specifically how you go about building an army and how amazing the setting is) in an interview about it's design. fething hypocrite.

 agnosto wrote:
Google can tell you how often words are searched for:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=AoS%2C%20Age%20of%20Sigmar%2C%20Sigmar&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B6

AoS is generally searched for in relation to aos pais with top search country being Mozambique.

Age of Sigmar - search volume peaked in Nov 2015 and has been declining since.

Ok, how do we take this seriously. I mean results from 2005?

AOS played with the default scenario and sudden death rules is pretty poor and often does result in the massive battle royal in the middle of the table.

I have found that the scenarios are quite different and the game is a lot of fun when I use those instead of the default "battle line".

auticus wrote:
AOS played with the default scenario and sudden death rules is pretty poor and often does result in the massive battle royal in the middle of the table.

I have found that the scenarios are quite different and the game is a lot of fun when I use those instead of the default "battle line".

Seconded, exalted, couldn't agree more.

puree wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Definitely ? That is one hell of a sweeping statement, with no obvious evidence to back it up.

I am a gamer. Lack of points is in no way making it less interesting, it makes it more interesting.

It may make it less interesting to competitive gamers who need some way of saying we had equal armies so my win was down to my skill at list building/playing. But don't lump all gamers in the competitive subset.

The lack of interesting missions and no balancing system makes me scratch my head.
If you play a default game, it will end up in a grand melee in the centre of the table. If you play a few games like this, it will get absolutely boring.

 wuestenfux wrote:

The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

Variety =/= Interesting.

It crashed and burned at my FLGS, lots of initial interest with the new release but as soon as people realized there was no balancing system (aka points or something like it) it fell apart real quick, to much room for abuse. Honestly for me the lack of strategy in the game is what bugs me, every game has turned into a mosh pit in the middle regardless of what anyone did. The new models however we all agree look great but they are all going to be used for 40k Conversions or 9th Age, AoS had alot of potential and I wish GW had executed it better.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

Variety =/= Interesting.

Sorry, *second* best laugh of the day.

 gmaleron wrote:
It crashed and burned at my FLGS, lots of initial interest with the new release but as soon as people realized there was no balancing system (aka points or something like it) it fell apart real quick, to much room for abuse. Honestly for me the lack of strategy in the game is what bugs me, every game has turned into a mosh pit in the middle regardless of what anyone did. The new models however we all agree look great but they are all going to be used for 40k Conversions or 9th Age, AoS had alot of potential and I wish GW had executed it better.

Mosh pit is usually a sign of people thinking AoS is 8th and putting way too little terrain on the table, which is about as much fun as playing Necromunda on an open plain.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

Variety =/= Interesting.

Sorry, *second* best laugh of the day.

Are you going to make a point or are you just posting for the hell of it?

I was under the impression the humour was self evident.
Stating there aren't any interesting missions, and then stating variety isn't interesting?
AoS already has more missions than any other GW system ever has - and they aren't rehashes of 'deploy like this' and/or 'be stood next to this thing by turn X'.
So the first statement was demonstrably false, the second is a qualitative argument but shows either an ignorance of available materials or sets a bar so high I fail to see how any current 'major' game system can compete.
Even the doorstop of scenarios that comprises PP's annual steamroller event pack fails that test.

RoperPG wrote:
I was under the impression the humour was self evident.
Stating there aren't any interesting missions, and then stating variety isn't interesting?
AoS already has more missions than any other GW system ever has - and they aren't rehashes of 'deploy like this' and/or 'be stood next to this thing by turn X'.
So the first statement was demonstrably false, the second is a qualitative argument but shows either an ignorance of available materials or sets a bar so high I fail to see how any current 'major' game system can compete.
Even the doorstop of scenarios that comprises PP's annual steamroller event pack fails that test.

I was pointing at the fact that those are two Very different notions.

Something can be varied without being interesting to someone. wuestenfux was never denying the variety of AoS's scenarios in that little snippet you decided to laugh about - just their inability to catch his interest.

And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

 jonolikespie wrote:
And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

That's competitive stuff Jono, you gotta remember GW doesn't do "that thing" anymore. It's heresy of the highest order!

The lack of missions for WHFB has never been held up as a reason for the game's demise.

People seem either to have been satisfied with the missions provided, or capable of creating their own missions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The lack of missions for WHFB has never been held up as a reason for the game's demise.

People seem either to have been satisfied with the missions provided, or capable of creating their own missions.

Indeed. Most people I knew did in fact ignore the other missions and went straight for battleline, and no one ever complained about it. Instead of complaining they either A) asked if I wanted to play a different mission from the book, or B) came up with their own mission and included it their tourney pack for people to play.

 Mymearan wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
It crashed and burned at my FLGS, lots of initial interest with the new release but as soon as people realized there was no balancing system (aka points or something like it) it fell apart real quick, to much room for abuse. Honestly for me the lack of strategy in the game is what bugs me, every game has turned into a mosh pit in the middle regardless of what anyone did. The new models however we all agree look great but they are all going to be used for 40k Conversions or 9th Age, AoS had alot of potential and I wish GW had executed it better.

Mosh pit is usually a sign of people thinking AoS is 8th and putting way too little terrain on the table, which is about as much fun as playing Necromunda on an open plain.

From my playing experience I agree wholeheartedly! You want very high levels of terrain for a good game (especially if it's just a pitched battle). One of the best parts of AoS is the ability to include lots of terrain so don't limit yourself! Buy a Gardens of Moor and set up everything spaced out~ set up a board that looks more akin to a Mordheim table.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

That's competitive stuff Jono, you gotta remember GW doesn't do "that thing" anymore. It's heresy of the highest order!

If anything that only serves to reinforce my point. The steamroller pack contains masses of scenarios, but the majority of them revolve around 'kill or score points', with a few extra rules thrown in.
Yet they're popular, as demonstrated. The AoS scenarios contain a number of different ideas with similar themes, but if you're writing them off as uninteresting/not varied then objectively the PP steamroller fails to meet the same bar.

Most people i know who played fantasy although they had 6 scenario's to choose from over and over again choose to do battle line as it was most fun for them and i would let them because a straight up battle was fun and entertaining. Straight up battle worked because the mechanics of the game were complex and simulated battle in a way that made sense and because the mechanics were complex you could as a player interact with them in many ways that didn't break the game that introduced great tactics as a result, march blocking, double fleeing, Frenzy baiting etc as the list goes on and on but with Age of sigmar all those those tactics go out the window. As for AoS scenario's you might say that there is a lot variety but nearly 90% of the scenario's fall apart when one of the players decides to win it the deployment phase. My local GW manager try's to tell me that with sigmar if you do not bring Archeon or Nagash or fill the table up pay to win style the you are the new "that guy" making every one else feel bad but this was never what gaming was supposed to be in my mind!

now that i think about it age of kiddimar should be a show on CBBies!

Then your local GW manager's an idiot.

Hettar wrote:
Most people i know who played fantasy although they had 6 scenario's to choose from over and over again choose to do battle line as it was most fun for them and i would let them because a straight up battle was fun and entertaining. Straight up battle worked because the mechanics of the game were complex and simulated battle in a way that made sense and because the mechanics were complex you could as a player interact with them in many ways that didn't break the game that introduced great tactics as a result, march blocking, double fleeing, Frenzy baiting etc as the list goes on and on but with Age of sigmar all those those tactics go out the window. As for AoS scenario's you might say that there is a lot variety but nearly 90% of the scenario's fall apart when one of the players decides to win it the deployment phase. My local GW manager try's to tell me that with sigmar if you do not bring Archeon or Nagash or fill the table up pay to win style the you are the new "that guy" making every one else feel bad but this was never what gaming was supposed to be in my mind!

now that i think about it age of kiddimar should be a show on CBBies!

Wait is your local meta telling you that you're That Guy because you want to play AoS in the funny, casual, way it was intended instead of breaking the game like everyone else?

In trying to make a game that was fun for all they ended up making a game called "WAAC that guy"

Darn. It's almost like a game with no structure to keep people in line has a problem with people crossing the line.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
And yet PP does have world championships and does in fact draw numbers to lots of events on a worldwide scale with those event packs.

That's competitive stuff Jono, you gotta remember GW doesn't do "that thing" anymore. It's heresy of the highest order!

If anything that only serves to reinforce my point. The steamroller pack contains masses of scenarios, but the majority of them revolve around 'kill or score points', with a few extra rules thrown in.
Yet they're popular, as demonstrated. The AoS scenarios contain a number of different ideas with similar themes, but if you're writing them off as uninteresting/not varied then objectively the PP steamroller fails to meet the same bar.

Allow me to say this again. Just because something offers hundreds or thousands of variations, it doesn't mean it's automatically interesting to every single person on the face of the Earth. It doesn't matter how many there are. They could be the most amazing, outstanding things every created to Y person, while to X person they could be as interesting as watching flies feth.

You're basing your whole point on the validation of quality through quantity, by stating that in some way just because GW has produced dozens more of scenarios than Fantasy ever did that it automatically becomes a more interesting game for everyone. I won't argue on the fact that GW has cranked out dozens more scenarios for AoS than for FB. That's a fact. It's as simple as that. What you can't tell me (or anyone really) is that everyone should find it interesting just because there's a huge variety of scenarios, when that is all up to personal preference, and degrading them by calling their personal preferences "the laugh of the day".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Darn. It's almost like a game with no structure to keep people in line has a problem with people crossing the line.

I'd say it's more like the company has a problem

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

You're basing your whole point on the validation of quality through quantity, by stating that in some way just because GW has produced dozens more of scenarios than Fantasy ever did that it automatically becomes a more interesting game for everyone.

Uh, no. No I was not.
There were two arguments. One, that there were *no* interesting scenarios, and the other that numbers did not equal interesting.

My point is that looked at objectively, AoS has more scenarios than WFB ever did.
That is fact.
In terms of "interesting", my point was that there is greater variation in the available scenarios than just " stand here " or "kill that". Which broadly describes the basic premise of the Steamroller event pack scenarios.
So frankly, if you don't find variation interesting but *do* find fractionally different iterations of the same idea interesting, I'd suggest you're being disingenuous.
"Interesting" and "good" not being the same thing, by the way.
Just to clarify, I like the Steamroller pack. But it's designed for a game that is intended to be aggressively competitive, rather than just something to enjoy playing. So if you don't like AoS you won't see the fun in the scenarios in the first place, I guess.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

You're basing your whole point on the validation of quality through quantity, by stating that in some way just because GW has produced dozens more of scenarios than Fantasy ever did that it automatically becomes a more interesting game for everyone.

Uh, no. No I was not.
There were two arguments. One, that there were *no* interesting scenarios, and the other that numbers did not equal interesting.

My point is that looked at objectively, AoS has more scenarios than WFB ever did.
That is fact.
In terms of "interesting", my point was that there is greater variation in the available scenarios than just " stand here " or "kill that". Which broadly describes the basic premise of the Steamroller event pack scenarios.
So frankly, if you don't find variation interesting but *do* find fractionally different iterations of the same idea interesting, I'd suggest you're being disingenuous.
"Interesting" and "good" not being the same thing, by the way.
Just to clarify, I like the Steamroller pack. But it's designed for a game that is intended to be aggressively competitive, rather than just something to enjoy playing. So if you don't like AoS you won't see the fun in the scenarios in the first place, I guess.

I agree with you on your first point, as I mentioned before, so you didn't even need to mention it.

The second point is totally, utterly subjective. Either a person finds something interesting, or it doesn't - it's that simple.

I would like it if you could keep your suggestions of disingenuity and disonesty to yourself, thank you very much, especially when you are coming as horribly rude with that whole "laughing" matter. I also know the difference between the notions of "interesting" and "good", much like I know the difference between the notions of "variety" and "interest", aswell as "subjective" and "objective".

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The lack of interesting missions

Best laugh of the day. AoS already has 4 times the number of 'official' scenarios WFB ever had, and even with the random elements of 40k scenarios AoS still wins on variety.

Citation, please? There's so, SO many WHFB 'official' scenarios out there. The campaign books, the General's Compendium, an army book or two, the big red rulebooks, Warhammer Skirmish, Warhammer Warbands, White Dwarf...

It really bothers me when people act like you could only play pitched battles or that Age of Sigmar invented the narrative scenario. There were a ton of interesting ways to play Warhammer, you didn't need to just line up and fight if that had gotten old.

I think the real question should be do you WANT it to die or be successful.

In New York City it has a 2 guys, one of which is a store employee on one night of the week next to the mass X Wing players group.

Personally I find it interesting to watch paint dry.

No-one can say that isn't as interesting as the complete works of Shakespeare, because it's completely subjective.

It's also worth 20 times more money than all the the Oscar winning films.

If ever I get tired of paint, I will watch a dripping tap instead... the ultimate thrill!

 Kilkrazy wrote:


No-one can say that isn't as interesting as the complete works of Shakespeare, because it's completely subjective.
!

No, but they might question your sanity

Indeed.

FyreSlayers = paint drying or Shakespeare?

Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box = Shakespeare or paint drying?

Ironically, you can get the complete works of Shakespeare free nowadays.

Picking up in current area as well as back home in the US Midwest.