RiTides wrote: Unbound is something to consider, certainly. But I think Unbound + no point values = a complete sandbox that most wargamers aren't interested in entering.
I missed your point on that earlier puree, hopefully this addresses it!
Is that what it is called, obviously my few years away from the game has left me with a terminology gap. If I had said unbound rather than army lists maybe I would have been understood better.
It's the 40k term for it so understandable to the vast majority of wargamers now. And yeah, I just think it's that combination that's making things difficult... I could consider one or the other, but not both.
With the option to play Unbound, most 40k players choose not to currently... the problem here is just there's no option, everyone has to play without points or army structure.
(Note that unbound refers specifically to taking away army structure, but still assumes point values are used)
Points are not completely arbitrary. They can be worked out in relation to the various strengths and weaknesses of units. It's obvious for example, that if two units are identical except for one of them being able to move faster, the faster unit is generally more effective than the slower one, and therefore ought to cost more.
I've seen some extremely simple balancing systems, such as
Arena Rex's each health track is worth 1 point, your whole army is 8", some big things can buy multiple health tracks
Black Crusade's x type of guy is approximately even against y player CSM or 2y other PC's
which are pretty loose, and there'll be guys at both end of the spectrum, but it's a simple balancing structure to at least approximate an even force.
I would have had no problem with something along the lines of heroes and units of 10 grunts are 1 point; lords and 10 elite heroes are 2; monsters are 3 (or whatever). The big problem is that there's absolutely no meaningful balancing structure.
GW are in certain ways embracing the modern age with AoS with regards to free rules and mobile app support. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce "living" points costs for everything in the game.
Give everything a point costs in the app and if something is unbalanced adjust it - it would be that easy in my opinion.
Just use the Nottingham staff as the feedback pool and make an event out of each adjustment. Imagine if it happened on the 1st of every month like a patch release and you could get a buzz of excitement around it. You would have everyone talking about the game all year round just by constantly amending points.
RiTides wrote: Unbound is something to consider, certainly. But I think Unbound + no point values = a complete sandbox that most wargamers aren't interested in entering.
I missed your point on that earlier puree, hopefully this addresses it!
I'd just like to disagree with your use of the term sandbox. Sandbox implies open ended structure where all the tools are in place to do whatever you want. AoS (for example) lacks content, there are no rules to 'do whatever you want' besides charge at the enemy and fight them. For some reason, when something lacks a working structure (eg video games) then the void in gameplay that is present seems to get called sandbox. Presumably because there's nothing to do so if you're playing you need to try and make some fun out of it on your own. A real sandbox has all the tools to do whatever it is you might want to do. AoS only has 4 pages of rules, and they describe basic movement and combat only. Lacking balance and structure in army composition does *not* make it sandbox.
Any wargame is a sandbox in that it provides rules for fighting certain types of battles. How you organise those battles is up to you -- campaigns, and so on.
RiTides wrote: Unbound is something to consider, certainly. But I think Unbound + no point values = a complete sandboxlitter box that most wargamers aren't interested in entering.
I missed your point on that earlier puree, hopefully this addresses it!
Fixed that for you.
The Auld Grump, a litter box is much like a sandbox, but with added unpleasant surprises....
Bottle wrote: Just use the Nottingham staff as the feedback pool and make an event out of each adjustment. Imagine if it happened on the 1st of every month like a patch release and you could get a buzz of excitement around it. You would have everyone talking about the game all year round just by constantly amending points.
Using Nottingham staff is a terrible idea.
I think it was the last marine codex they spoke in white dwarf about how everyone in the studio used chaplains so they game librarians a buff. Problem was outside of the studio no one in their right mind would have picked a chaplain over a librarian even before the buff.
Bottle wrote: GW are in certain ways embracing the modern age with AoS with regards to free rules and mobile app support. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce "living" points costs for everything in the game.
Give everything a point costs in the app and if something is unbalanced adjust it - it would be that easy in my opinion.
Just use the Nottingham staff as the feedback pool and make an event out of each adjustment. Imagine if it happened on the 1st of every month like a patch release and you could get a buzz of excitement around it. You would have everyone talking about the game all year round just by constantly amending points.
What a potential disaster! Every group can come up with a different value and everyone wants his own army to be the strongest and biases against others.
Bottle wrote: GW are in certain ways embracing the modern age with AoS with regards to free rules and mobile app support. I think this would be the perfect time to introduce "living" points costs for everything in the game.
Give everything a point costs in the app and if something is unbalanced adjust it - it would be that easy in my opinion.
Just use the Nottingham staff as the feedback pool and make an event out of each adjustment. Imagine if it happened on the 1st of every month like a patch release and you could get a buzz of excitement around it. You would have everyone talking about the game all year round just by constantly amending points.
What a potential disaster! Every group can come up with a different value and everyone wants his own army to be the strongest and biases against others.
"A colection of army lists, designed to allow players a wide degree of choice, while still forcing them to use armies which in some way resemble their 'factual' counterparts."
That is some good game design right there.
Personally I HATE the idea of all riptide unbound armies, sigmarines fighting alongside chaos and all those weird things you find with unbound/AoS.
They are unfluffy. It sucks. Yes, there could conceivably be a reason 6 riptides would spearhead an assault (if for some reason the support units that the tau base their tactics on are unavalible) or sigmarines might have to fight next to chaos when the larger orc and goblins army arrives (ok that one is total BS, but maybe they are chaos sigmarines or something), but these are the outliers. These are the cases that you're bending the fluff out of shape anyway, why not bend the rules or remove a few restrictions while you are at it?
Personally I think the vanilla space marine codex with the allies system is a good way to do things, you can make quite a few different lists (bike, drop pod, infantry, mechanized, I'd suggest terminators and assault marines should have the option to take a captain like that to make them troops like bikes but DA and BA codexes exist). Add in allies and you can have guard support, or you can fight side by side with eldar, watching them over your shoulder as you press towards a common goal. What you couldn't do is field an army of 10 land raiders fighting alongside chaos marines else (pre 7th) because they are supposed to be rare and chaos marines are their mortal enemies.
If someone wanted to sit down and justify to me that army of land raiders and chaos marines then that's fine, but the game is vastly improved, imo, by the default being a good amount of variety but still enforcing a structure.
The all dino lizardman list is a funny one imo. I like the idea, I think it is fluffy, but I think it would work best with only a couple of minor tweaks on 8th ed. If the cold one cavalry or the birds were taken as core, alongside a couple of little units of skink skirmishers (not dinos I know, but I think a couple of small scouts fit the theme well) you make that your 25% core. You then have 25% rare, %50 special, 25% heroes and 25% lords to fill the rest of the list with dinosaurs.
With my Vampire Counts the 25% core was always considered a tax. If playing 2000 points I would be forced to bring 500 points of core and I would be annoyed if I ended up with 503 on core, seeing that 3 points as wasted. Having said that I loved the way it worked, because a vampire army should have crappy zombies and skeletons as it's line troops before it can spend a whole bunch of points on it's vampires. I know others wanted ways to run an all cavalry force, which to me is not that fluffy as I always imagine the army as the slow, shambling hordes but I agree with, a way to go all cav would be welcome. We didn't need AoS to do that though, we needed a way to turn black knights into core (actually that could have been way OP, those things were great) or perhaps a reason to bring wolves in large enough numbers to make 500 points with them.
Ooh lovely, semantics with a thick tasty topping of implications that anyone who likes the mechanic you personally don't care about are manchildren incapable of coming to simple agreements; classy response.
So like me you believe adults can work out balance and good games without list etc, as they will talk about it?
If the argument is that pick up games need the army lists, and that seems to be what is being argued that I can see (this whole lizard players and dino armies effectively comes about from that, not points or lack thereof) then working out whether armies that do not follow some list building rule will get rejected at some place where pick up games are played is a perfectly fair question.
If you will play such a list because the points are OK then you don't need army lists, if you need army lists then you do have a game that will get in the way of a set of potential players.
You're getting wildly off-topic here, but I will say this:
I used to play weekly with a medium-sized group of friends. We played in a local store, and to echo Grump - three of us even played a game of 40k in the evening of New Year's Eve on a secluded outdoor staircase at my University while I waited for my wife (then GF) to finish work for the evening. Still, even when playing campaign games of things like WarZone 1e, we always used points and army lists in conjunction with scenarios, because busy lives and not being 100% familiar with one another's forces we wanted to be able to have a "fair" game and not meticulously plan them out in advance. "Want a game next Friday?" "Sure, 1500pts?" "Sounds good. I'll bring either my Marines or Guard" "Ok, I'll probably play Chaos or I might do my Eldar or Dark Eldar." "Cool, see you then!"
This is my issue with AoS. 40 Elves are demonstratively better than 40 Goblins. How many goblins are roughly equal to the elves? What about Ogres? If only there was a simple and easy to use manner to measure these things...
And this applies just as much when running scenarios in fantasy and sci-fi games so you can work out ratios. Having and using points or lists doesn' t mean you can't create divergences from them with a friend and agreements, but it still gives you a basic balancing mechanic.
No, that's a fairly GW-centric way of thinking, in fact I'd be totally unsurprised to see something like that in a Jervis Johnson editorial. It's been fairly obvious for a while that GW manipulates the rules to promote model sales, many other games place a far higher priority on the gaming experience and work far harder on making their force selection (I won't call it list building ) as balanced as possible. If players want to modify those painstakingly developed systems, then nothing is stopping them. It's much harder to try and and turn an anything goes system into something that allows a fair contest. Because the nature of what's "fair" is entirely subjective, if there's no limits imposed on the situation and it makes games between star angers harder. It doesn't make games between players who know each other well any more difficult to alter if they want to break out of the status quo.
Very well put.
KoW is my fantasy battle game of choice these days, and no-one I've played yet has given me grief about using my old-school Wardancer models in an Elf army using the Twilight Kin Bladedancer (Dark Elf Witch Elves) unit entry. I use the "Elven Gladestalkers" entry for the Rangers of Osgilliath in my Kindoms of Men (Gondor) army, and "Elven Stormwind Cavalry" stats as Swan Knights of Dol Amroth. They're from a different army, but the stat block and points cost makes it easy to use models of my choice to field a thematic force that fits the theme of the army and can play in a balanced game, rather than having the list force the models or have anyone complain that my "human army has elves in it."
Why are you falling back on points to balance this match? The guy "only" has 5 Titans and he really wants to play them all together! Go on... play him
My argument was about buying and painting etc models that you want and not buying stuff that you don't want and hence not meeting some list requirement. I thought it was obvious but clearly failed in saying that both players would still have the same points in this 'pick up game' as the start point, but may tweak from there to agree something.
So, lets assume that 2000pts of hypothetical AoS points is a 'standard' sort of size game that most places use. I turn up with 2000pts of lizards that is heavy on dinos. You have a lizard army list book that says 1 monster per 1 unit of core or whatever. My list doesn't meet that, but you have 2000 pts of something else.
A) Will you just say that we are both 2000 pts so lets play.
B) Will you look over my stuff and say that looks nice, love the paint job and I see nothing too horrible for me, it might not be perfectly balanced to mine one way or the other but lets play and see.
C) Will you say happy to play but can you remove one of your 5 dinos or whatever (you take another unit if you have them), as my list based army can't handle 5 dinos, but only 4 or an extra monster slayer unit for me should be interesting .
D) Wave the list book and say I can't play here.
E) Your 5 dinos look awesome, but I have only played Lizardmen once before and am completely unfamilar with the rules for your Dinos - so I have no idea if your 5 Dinos will ROFLstomp my goblins or if it might be an even or at least competitive game because the game we're playing does not use points.
I'm fine with losing in a wargame game, but I want to have fun while doing so and have some sort of objective to shoot for. If we're playing Thermopylae and I'm the Greeks, I'm going to lose but my target might be to last for 5 or 15 turns for the moral victory. There's no fun in playing the closing moments of Blackadder goes Forth as a wargame. Especially as the British, but it'd be just as much like a broken pencil as the Germans...
Kilkrazy wrote: Any wargame is a sandbox in that it provides rules for fighting certain types of battles. How you organise those battles is up to you -- campaigns, and so on.
I'm afraid i have to disagree with you there. Starcraft is a wargame, would you consider it to be a sandbox game? What is it about wargames that you consider to be sandbox?
Kilkrazy wrote: Any wargame is a sandbox in that it provides rules for fighting certain types of battles. How you organise those battles is up to you -- campaigns, and so on.
I'm afraid i have to disagree with you there. Starcraft is a wargame, would you consider it to be a sandbox game? What is it about wargames that you consider to be sandbox?
The context we are talking about is table top wargames, not video game wargames. A table top wargame is sandbox because all the rules, scenarios, campaigns, etc are subject to change by the players. The players buy their models and the rules and then do whatever the hell they want with them.
In some areas i guess. When playing pugs we always went straight off the rulebook, which brings me back to my original question: what exactly is sandbox about AoS? There's minimal rules = freedom to do what you want with the game?
edit: and by that logic, a line of miniatures with no rules would be even more sandbox if you played a game with them?
But that was the point, ALL wargames are sandbox. It doesn't matter if it has well written rules or poorly written rules or rules with gaping holes, they're all sandbox because it's entirely up to the players how they want to play it (unlike a video game where you play it how the developers programmed it).
AoS isn't "more" sandbox than any other game.
Obviously being a 2 player game, you have to share the sandbox with another person, which is where having solid rules as a starting point is IMO the best way to do it. As has been said many times, it's easier to start from a solid base and adapt the game to your liking than start from something shaky and try and turn it in to something that works, especially if you don't have decades of prior wargaming experience to base your attempts on.
Kilkrazy wrote: Any wargame is a sandbox in that it provides rules for fighting certain types of battles. How you organise those battles is up to you -- campaigns, and so on.
I'm afraid i have to disagree with you there. Starcraft is a wargame, would you consider it to be a sandbox game? What is it about wargames that you consider to be sandbox?
I'm talking about tabletop wargames.
As said above, video games can only do what the programmer wrote into them. A paper game gives you a set of rules that you can employ however you like, modifying it, or using it to play scenarios that you invent for yourself.
For example, in 40K you could decide to fight a battle on a planet with 0.5g, and allow all units to move 50% faster than normal.
Bottle wrote: Just use the Nottingham staff as the feedback pool and make an event out of each adjustment. Imagine if it happened on the 1st of every month like a patch release and you could get a buzz of excitement around it. You would have everyone talking about the game all year round just by constantly amending points.
Using Nottingham staff is a terrible idea.
I think it was the last marine codex they spoke in white dwarf about how everyone in the studio used chaplains so they game librarians a buff. Problem was outside of the studio no one in their right mind would have picked a chaplain over a librarian even before the buff.
Fine, they should use a bigger feedback group.
I still think everything else is an easy to implement idea, that would benefit the game.
jreilly89 wrote: Had they just released AoS as a new/side game instead of killing off WHFB, they would be in a better position.
I'm still totally floored that they didn't do that. Especially considering the compatibility with square bases - there is absolutely no reason that AoS couldn't have coexisted with WHFB.
As for sales... we don't have any conrete data, but I can offer an anecdote:
I was talking to my FLGS about it, and they sold about twice as many copies of Betrayal at Calth on the Saturday release than they have sold AoS products since it's release.
Here's a question: How many Fantasy kits in general did your FLGS sell before AoS dropped? If they sold half as many or less before, then AoS could be considered a resounding success for improving Fantasy Sales to half as much as Betrayal at Calth.
jreilly89 wrote: Had they just released AoS as a new/side game instead of killing off WHFB, they would be in a better position.
I'm still totally floored that they didn't do that. Especially considering the compatibility with square bases - there is absolutely no reason that AoS couldn't have coexisted with WHFB.
As for sales... we don't have any conrete data, but I can offer an anecdote:
I was talking to my FLGS about it, and they sold about twice as many copies of Betrayal at Calth on the Saturday release than they have sold AoS products since it's release.
Here's a question: How many Fantasy kits in general did your FLGS sell before AoS dropped? If they sold half as many or less before, then AoS could be considered a resounding success for improving Fantasy Sales to half as much as Betrayal at Calth.
Not necessarily. How much money did GW spend to produce AOS? All those posters, new kits, books, etc cost money to make. Did they make that back? If so, by how much? With stories of shelves filled with unsold AOS boxes, it doesn't sound bright.
jreilly89 wrote: Had they just released AoS as a new/side game instead of killing off WHFB, they would be in a better position.
I'm still totally floored that they didn't do that. Especially considering the compatibility with square bases - there is absolutely no reason that AoS couldn't have coexisted with WHFB.
As for sales... we don't have any conrete data, but I can offer an anecdote:
I was talking to my FLGS about it, and they sold about twice as many copies of Betrayal at Calth on the Saturday release than they have sold AoS products since it's release.
Here's a question: How many Fantasy kits in general did your FLGS sell before AoS dropped? If they sold half as many or less before, then AoS could be considered a resounding success for improving Fantasy Sales to half as much as Betrayal at Calth.
We already had a few store owner in here that answer that question. The one that owns at least 2 stores say GW fantasy sells are down 60% since AoS dropped. That includes both WHFB and AoS sells. Easy enough to see the answer.
jreilly89 wrote: Had they just released AoS as a new/side game instead of killing off WHFB, they would be in a better position.
I'm still totally floored that they didn't do that. Especially considering the compatibility with square bases - there is absolutely no reason that AoS couldn't have coexisted with WHFB.
As for sales... we don't have any conrete data, but I can offer an anecdote:
I was talking to my FLGS about it, and they sold about twice as many copies of Betrayal at Calth on the Saturday release than they have sold AoS products since it's release.
Here's a question: How many Fantasy kits in general did your FLGS sell before AoS dropped? If they sold half as many or less before, then AoS could be considered a resounding success for improving Fantasy Sales to half as much as Betrayal at Calth.
We already had a few store owner in here that answer that question. The one that owns at least 2 stores say GW fantasy sells are down 60% since AoS dropped. That includes both WHFB and AoS sells. Easy enough to see the answer.
Looking specifically for DanielBeaver's anecdotal response. A local store bought into AoS after having not selling GW product for years. Another local store cleared it's shelves of products that had sat, dusty, for the entire 2 years I'd been frequenting it. Yet another local store (that I don't go to often) has a few boxes of all the new products for that week, and then next time I go in... no more of those boxes!
So while you have a few store owners posting a failure, I have 3 store owners showing success.
It's not as easy to see the answer as you'd think.
Not necessarily. How much money did GW spend to produce AOS? All those posters, new kits, books, etc cost money to make. Did they make that back? If so, by how much? With stories of shelves filled with unsold AOS boxes, it doesn't sound bright.
Well, going by how a lot of this forum is going, the rules were probably free (scribbled down in 15 minutes on a napkin during somebody's lunch, I hear). They've only been repacking old kits, except for a scant few boxes of Space Marines and Blood Bros.
However, with stories of once-full shelves now empty of AOS boxes, it does sound bright!
(Note: I am reciting hyperbole, mostly to amuse myself, and maybe others)
But you do raise a point, they obviously invested money into it, so one store improving Fantasy sales is most likely not going to make up that investment. But one store failing to sell Fantasy kits is also probably not going to cause trouble with recouping that investment. Despite this being one of the largest forums for wargamers, it clearly doesn't demonstrate a good view of the wider community. For example, historical wargames are pretty popular, yet on this forum there isn't much discussion about them (besides Bolt Action, it seems). It seems that this website attracts a very vocal minority of the wargaming community and ends up showing a biased view of it.
I'm not saying that outside of Dakkadakka AoS is all sparkles & rainbows, but on Twitter, Facebook, etc it's being fairly well received.
(I'm sort of distracted watching some videos at the moment, so sorry if this post devolved into some sort of incoherent babble at some point)
I keep hearing how forums aren't indicative of broader opinion. I say, it's the closest thing we have and shouldn't be ignored. Not taken as gospel, but it should carry weight as well.
Historicals probably don't get much traffic here because this forum is focused on fantasy and sci-fi games. Historical games probably go to their more historical minded forums where they can talk about the minutie of changes to Napoleonic coursair uniforms throughout the wars.
@rihgu that is funny they said the same type of stuff the guy I was posting about post in the first month of release. He even ran events he was so hyped and wanted it to do good (as most owner want the product they sell to do). This is months later after the rush and shiny wore off.
I like to see the guys you posted about, post how it is doing now. Wouldn't you.
I wonder if AoS development costs were significantly more than updating an existing faction in the WHFB cycle.
It was said that the same amount of resources were put into WHFB as 40k but for a fraction of the return, which is why it was dropped.
I imagine the start up costs of AoS were quite high, but on the flip side I bet the Seraphon update was much cheaper than the Lizardmen 8th edition update was. If in the long run it balances out that AoS is cheaper to maintain than WHFB it only needs to make the same amount of revenue as WHFB did to be more profitable.
MWHistorian wrote: I keep hearing how forums aren't indicative of broader opinion. I say, it's the closest thing we have and shouldn't be ignored. Not taken as gospel, but it should carry weight as well.
Historicals probably don't get much traffic here because this forum is focused on fantasy and sci-fi games. Historical games probably go to their more historical minded forums where they can talk about the minutie of changes to Napoleonic coursair uniforms throughout the wars.
Just something to consider.
Oh, I definitely agree with you! What I guess I was trying to say is that Dakkadakka is very clearly against AoS. If you measured only Dakkadakka, AoS is an abject failure with no hope.
If you look out to Twitter, Facebook (and while I haven't been there to check it out, I hear that 4chan's /tg/ board is warmly receptive of AoS), while not necessarily extremely bright there's not nearly as much of an outcry against AoS as there is here.
Makes me think that AoS is doing ... okay, at the very least. Rather than failing.
I like to see the guys you posted about, post how it is doing now. Wouldn't you.
I'm not 100% what you're going for in your post, but the stores I was talking about... that's all my experience from the past 2 or 3 weeks. In fact, I have no idea how AoS did at release at those stores, only the now.
Age of Sigmar did provide some cool not- ogres (celestial ogres, maybe?) for Kings of War, though. And you can get the Sigmarite half of the box pretty cheap online. Course, then it costs nearly as much as all that for a box of 5 archers to add to it (usually 45 for the five-man, and then ten more to get a single as bitz so you have two units of three)....
AoS has got one new faction (Sigmarines), a bunch of fairly sketchy, as yet undeveloped fluff about the Realms and stuff, a four page rule book, some scenarios in another couple of books containing the fluff, and about 20 model kits including new terrain pieces, the Sigmarines, and the Chaos dudes.
The model kits obviously represent the most major investment since even if a sprue frame mould cost only £10,000 to make, you are looking at £200,000.
£200,000 isn't actually much to a company as large as GW, representing less than 0.2% of annual turnover, but let's say the whole project cost £2,000,000, even that is under 2% of annual turnover.
GW's cost of goods is about 20% of retail price, so deducting the VAT from the £75 price of AoS starter, the cost of manufacturing a unit is £12.50. If they made 100,000 units, it is only £1,250,000 invested in stock.
Overall the whole project so far is similar in size to their redevelopment of their web site. From that rough analysis it can fail and not sink GW, and the big problem would be what else they should do instead if they haven't got anything ready to go yet.
However I think GW are prepared to give AoS two or three years to see how it gets on.
Do a great many people even like the Khornate faction? The Stormcast seem to get the most good and bad press, while it seems lots of people just rolled their eyes at Yet Another Chaos Army (tm). Though I could be wrong, mostly as an outsider looking in that really only knows WHFB.
I think a lot of people don't see the khorne faction as a faction, I think a lot of them see it as some nice warriors of chaos models but sadly only khornite ones so they don't even interest every WoC player.
Kilkrazy wrote: Overall the whole project so far is similar in size to their redevelopment of their web site. From that rough analysis it can fail and not sink GW, and the big problem would be what else they should do instead if they haven't got anything ready to go yet.
We don't have any definite answers on how much WHFB was making before, if AoS flops and results in less sales than WHFB it *might* be enough to push GW from profit to loss.
I doubt it'd happen this financial year though, at the very least there still is panic buying of kits by old WHFB players and there's probably enough people buying stuff out of an initial interest in AoS to prop it up.
Kilkrazy wrote: Overall the whole project so far is similar in size to their redevelopment of their web site. From that rough analysis it can fail and not sink GW, and the big problem would be what else they should do instead if they haven't got anything ready to go yet.
We don't have any definite answers on how much WHFB was making before, if AoS flops and results in less sales than WHFB it *might* be enough to push GW from profit to loss.
I doubt it'd happen this financial year though, at the very least there still is panic buying of kits by old WHFB players and there's probably enough people buying stuff out of an initial interest in AoS to prop it up.
I would be shocked if profits didn't fall after what, 3 straight months of no new 40k? I dunno about pushing things into a loss, or about a mad FB buying spree , but of course either is possible. What will really tell us the success or failure of AoS is next year's release cadence. If there are 3 morestraighr months of straight AoS next year, I think we can safely say AoS was a smashing success. If there are no more sigmarite models, probably not so much.
It'll probably be a few years before we find out. I would be surprised if next year's release schedule isn't already determined and it'll probably take a few release cycles before GW decide whether AoS is worth pursuing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Overall the whole project so far is similar in size to their redevelopment of their web site. From that rough analysis it can fail and not sink GW, and the big problem would be what else they should do instead if they haven't got anything ready to go yet.
We don't have any definite answers on how much WHFB was making before, if AoS flops and results in less sales than WHFB it *might* be enough to push GW from profit to loss.
I doubt it'd happen this financial year though, at the very least there still is panic buying of kits by old WHFB players and there's probably enough people buying stuff out of an initial interest in AoS to prop it up.
I would be shocked if profits didn't fall after what, 3 straight months of no new 40k? I dunno about pushing things into a loss, or about a mad FB buying spree , but of course either is possible. What will really tell us the success or failure of AoS is next year's release cadence. If there are 3 morestraighr months of straight AoS next year, I think we can safely say AoS was a smashing success. If there are no more sigmarite models, probably not so much.
You can't possibly be saying that the measurement of AoS's success is the cadence of Sigmarine releases... This ISN'T 40k where 50% of the players (edit: Sorry - I mean hobbyists ) are SM. They NEED to release elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.
The longer GW takes to release these races, the bigger the grave they're digging for AoS.
heartserenade wrote: I really like AoS. It made a lot of WHFB players switch to Kings of War, after all.
Ha!
I know I was already planning on making the switch back in 8th ed, and bought into the KS long before AoS was announced, but AoS was the kick in the pants I needed to build my damn KoW army and sign up for the next local tourney.
You can't possibly be saying that the measurement of AoS's success is the cadence of Sigmarine releases... This ISN'T 40k where 50% of the players (edit: Sorry - I mean hobbyists ) are SM. They NEED to release elves, dwarves, orcs, etc.
The longer GW takes to release these races, the bigger the grave they're digging for AoS.
Dwarves are coming very soon (a month or two) according to Sad Panda. It'll be very interesting to see the interest in those since it'll be the first real update of one of the old factions.
Mymearan wrote: Dwarves are coming very soon (a month or two) according to Sad Panda. It'll be very interesting to see the interest in those since it'll be the first real update of one of the old factions.
If it is just a battletome I think it will piss a lot of people off and too many people who have been waiting around for their army to get redone will loose all interest, assuming that after Lizardmen and Dwarves their faction won't get anything worth waiting for.
If they get new slayers with the fire beards or something then that might just spark a lot of interest and reassure those people who are worried their faction won't get a real update. But, it would still take a few units, not 1 to really reassure people.
I think if there are a few new units people will be really excited, and looking especially at how different the new aesthetic is compared to the old to see how different their units will be when they get redone.
I was never a Fantasy player so Sigmar hasn't affected me in any way. In my area I've never seen in played or even seen one of the new models outside of a GW.
If Sigmar is failing (which I suspect it is) then I do hope it makes GW realise that they need to be more than a "model making company" and provide a good game as well for the sake of games I do like playing (40k).
Mymearan wrote: Dwarves are coming very soon (a month or two) according to Sad Panda. It'll be very interesting to see the interest in those since it'll be the first real update of one of the old factions.
If it is just a battletome I think it will piss a lot of people off and too many people who have been waiting around for their army to get redone will loose all interest, assuming that after Lizardmen and Dwarves their faction won't get anything worth waiting for.
If they get new slayers with the fire beards or something then that might just spark a lot of interest and reassure those people who are worried their faction won't get a real update. But, it would still take a few units, not 1 to really reassure people.
I think if there are a few new units people will be really excited, and looking especially at how different the new aesthetic is compared to the old to see how different their units will be when they get redone.
I'd say new units are almost a certainty considering that the only concrete info we have on the new dwarves is the short blurbs about Fire Slayers. my guess is that the models from the latest Dwarf release (2013?) will be repackaged and older ones will be replaced.
The Sigmarines have got basically a flying man figure, and a standing man figure, and there are several variation arms for each of those two basic designs to make up the procurators, designators, procrastinators and so on. Then there are five or six (?) special characters.
So really there are not many different models that had to be designed to make an entire Sigmarine army. I think a Fyre Dwarfadin army could be made the same way fairly easily.
Mymearan wrote: I'd say new units are almost a certainty considering that the only concrete info we have on the new dwarves is the short blurbs about Fire Slayers. my guess is that the models from the latest Dwarf release (2013?) will be repackaged and older ones will be replaced.
Many a man has guessed that the old, outdated, models will be updated when an army is due for an update by virtue of them being old, ugly, and don't match the new aesthetic.
Many a man has been brutally disappointed.
Seriously, basic chaos marines are too old and don't match the awesome new look of the chosen, rapots, and yes even the dino bots. The High Elves desperatly needed new spearmen and archers, but instead they got an eagle pulling a chariot.
GW seem to fear that if they release a replacement for a unit without making it a dual kit that makes a new unit they will not get any sales because people will already own the old unit. Which is really dumb since they think that so few people buy to game and everyone buys for the models themselves, someone buying for the models doesn't care if he already owns a box of spearmen if the new spearmen look better he'll buy them.
Mymearan wrote: I'd say new units are almost a certainty considering that the only concrete info we have on the new dwarves is the short blurbs about Fire Slayers. my guess is that the models from the latest Dwarf release (2013?) will be repackaged and older ones will be replaced.
Many a man has guessed that the old, outdated, models will be updated when an army is due for an update by virtue of them being old, ugly, and don't match the new aesthetic.
Many a man has been brutally disappointed.
Seriously, basic chaos marines are too old and don't match the awesome new look of the chosen, rapots, and yes even the dino bots. The High Elves desperatly needed new spearmen and archers, but instead they got an eagle pulling a chariot.
GW seem to fear that if they release a replacement for a unit without making it a dual kit that makes a new unit they will not get any sales because people will already own the old unit. Which is really dumb since they think that so few people buy to game and everyone buys for the models themselves, someone buying for the models doesn't care if he already owns a box of spearmen if the new spearmen look better he'll buy them.
This is especially true (for me) with the HE archers.
AegisGrimm wrote: Do a great many people even like the Khornate faction? The Stormcast seem to get the most good and bad press, while it seems lots of people just rolled their eyes at Yet Another Chaos Army (tm). Though I could be wrong, mostly as an outsider looking in that really only knows WHFB.
Actually, yes, the Khornate faction provides a way to get more variety in a WE or Daemonkin army.
AegisGrimm wrote: Do a great many people even like the Khornate faction? The Stormcast seem to get the most good and bad press, while it seems lots of people just rolled their eyes at Yet Another Chaos Army (tm). Though I could be wrong, mostly as an outsider looking in that really only knows WHFB.
For me, the problem with these new Chaos models is that they could have been released at any time during the last 10 years. There is nothing about them that says new faction for a new game.
You would think with Christmas coming up, GW would have a blockbuster release for AOS, if only to give it a shot in the arm, but so far, nothing...
AegisGrimm wrote: Do a great many people even like the Khornate faction? The Stormcast seem to get the most good and bad press, while it seems lots of people just rolled their eyes at Yet Another Chaos Army (tm). Though I could be wrong, mostly as an outsider looking in that really only knows WHFB.
Actually, yes, the Khornate faction provides a way to get more variety in a WE or Daemonkin army.
I have been led to believe that this seems to be how the Khornate models were intended to function - as they also serve an additional hook to get 40k players into AoS.
My wife and I liked the AoS boxed set, Then I realized just how 40K they look. Essentially I think it's intended to hook straight into 40K with minimal effort.
Then old factions released with..."gasp" round bases. Its a MIRACLE, so.....round.
Anyhow, ended up....not really liking AoS, and the whole debacle has reduced our collective interest in 40K and GW as a whole. Specialist games.....maybe, if Inquisitor and necromunda come back. Otherwise, I'm just finishing my armies and selling the old ones.
They'd still need a method of arbitrating what's a fair contest and what isn't, if you're not playing a scenario then you still want a fairly even balance of power between the two opposing sides.
Points, being strictly literal, aren't needed, but a method of determining parity is. Otherwise you're just abandoning all pretence of it being a war game and just playing a very shallow and basic RPG.
Sure, as I keep saying I have no great problem with a game design that uses points, even if I'm personally happy enough without them. Fantasy miniature games that use army lists is where I give the game (or more accurately buying into the minis) a miss.
Points plus army lists gives a distinct impression of a much more 'competitive' or 'overly serious' game. It's a fantasy game and the primary reason for it is to sell the models. Army lists get in the way of just getting and playing the models you want or worse making you get models you don't want, points don't. Points give you your game arbitrator for those who want to just play the default type game.
[edit] So going back to the earlier post are you saying that for the XXXpt armies that is not army list compliant you would refuse to play, even though you have points and the other guy may well be happy to talk setup etc given all he wants to do is play with his models. I couldn't work out which way you were going?
"So you want me to play my 450 pts of Space Marines against your 5 Titans? SURE THING! That's gonna be so swell! Especially for me as I watch my army being vaporized on T1!"
Sometimes a swift loss is perfect, you can get down the pub quicker.
They'd still need a method of arbitrating what's a fair contest and what isn't, if you're not playing a scenario then you still want a fairly even balance of power between the two opposing sides.
Points, being strictly literal, aren't needed, but a method of determining parity is. Otherwise you're just abandoning all pretence of it being a war game and just playing a very shallow and basic RPG.
Sure, as I keep saying I have no great problem with a game design that uses points, even if I'm personally happy enough without them. Fantasy miniature games that use army lists is where I give the game (or more accurately buying into the minis) a miss.
Points plus army lists gives a distinct impression of a much more 'competitive' or 'overly serious' game. It's a fantasy game and the primary reason for it is to sell the models. Army lists get in the way of just getting and playing the models you want or worse making you get models you don't want, points don't. Points give you your game arbitrator for those who want to just play the default type game.
[edit] So going back to the earlier post are you saying that for the XXXpt armies that is not army list compliant you would refuse to play, even though you have points and the other guy may well be happy to talk setup etc given all he wants to do is play with his models. I couldn't work out which way you were going?
"So you want me to play my 450 pts of Space Marines against your 5 Titans? SURE THING! That's gonna be so swell! Especially for me as I watch my army being vaporized on T1!"
Sometimes a swift loss is perfect, you can get down the pub quicker.
Then why bother with buying and painting/converting the models to begin with? Skip right on to the pub part
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
This is especially true (for me) with the HE archers.
Spearmen here. Since AoS dropped I'd wondered how difficult it might be to scrape the bows, quivers, sea dragons, seaweed etc. off the Lothern sea guard. I decided it'd be easier to sculpt new hands and legs on the old ones. (Biggest problem is how to alleviate the impression that elves have a torso shaped like an upper-case T.)
Doctadeth wrote:Otherwise, I'm just finishing my armies and selling the old ones.
Keep 'em. Play KoW. Play Dragon Rampant. Play Mayhem. Play Legions of Battle etc. I only started collecting those high elves because of Dragon Rampant, and only started converting those spearmen because I just need one or two units of twelve.
Spearmen here. Since AoS dropped I'd wondered how difficult it might be to scrape the bows, quivers, sea dragons, seaweed etc. off the Lothern sea guard. I decided it'd be easier to sculpt new hands and legs on the old ones. (Biggest problem is how to alleviate the impression that elves have a torso shaped like an upper-case T.)
Why not just use the DE Spearmen regiment instead?
Rihgu wrote: and while I haven't been there to check it out, I hear that 4chan's /tg/ board is warmly receptive of AoS
I just looked and at best the reception on 4chan could be described as 'tepid'.
There is always a danger of an echo chamber effect but the problems with AoS are so fundamental that I am perfectly willing to take the negativity here as generally representative, not least because it seems to be common on other sites.
AegisGrimm wrote: Do a great many people even like the Khornate faction? The Stormcast seem to get the most good and bad press, while it seems lots of people just rolled their eyes at Yet Another Chaos Army (tm). Though I could be wrong, mostly as an outsider looking in that really only knows WHFB.
Actually, yes, the Khornate faction provides a way to get more variety in a WE or Daemonkin army.
I have been led to believe that this seems to be how the Khornate models were intended to function - as they also serve an additional hook to get 40k players into AoS.
It could be the opposite. At least, it's the opposite for me. I use the Khornate models for my WE army. They are also suitable for 30k.
Why not just use the DE Spearmen regiment instead?
1) Too spiky. Or, at least, after nicking a few jagged bits off, I'd still have the problem of scraping the shield icons back and trying blend a patch of putty with the smoothly curved, 3-upped/digitally sculpted surface. To be honest I think I'd find that more of a faff than bodging a few organic, more forgiving details like fingers.
2) That's the other army I started to collect, just for Dragon Rampant. (Akshualee, anyone doing Black Friday deals on DE...? I'll check that thread in News.)
Mymearan wrote: I'd say new units are almost a certainty considering that the only concrete info we have on the new dwarves is the short blurbs about Fire Slayers. my guess is that the models from the latest Dwarf release (2013?) will be repackaged and older ones will be replaced.
Many a man has guessed that the old, outdated, models will be updated when an army is due for an update by virtue of them being old, ugly, and don't match the new aesthetic.
Many a man has been brutally disappointed.
Seriously, basic chaos marines are too old and don't match the awesome new look of the chosen, rapots, and yes even the dino bots. The High Elves desperatly needed new spearmen and archers, but instead they got an eagle pulling a chariot.
GW seem to fear that if they release a replacement for a unit without making it a dual kit that makes a new unit they will not get any sales because people will already own the old unit. Which is really dumb since they think that so few people buy to game and everyone buys for the models themselves, someone buying for the models doesn't care if he already owns a box of spearmen if the new spearmen look better he'll buy them.
Oh, I didn't mean they'll actually replace the older kit with newer versions. I think the old kits will be dropped altogether, some might re-emerge in a new form,but most will be replaced with entirely new unit types. That'd be my guess.
Hrm, looks like my local store is now trying to firesale off the AoS starter at 50% off. Part of that's holiday deals, but I don't think they've sold any in the last month either...
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, looks like my local store is now trying to firesale off the AoS starter at 50% off. Part of that's holiday deals, but I don't think they've sold any in the last month either...
Why does everyone else get firesales? My local stores never sell anything for a big discount, it'll be sitting on the shelf 5 years out of date and still only be the same 15% off that it was when it was new
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, looks like my local store is now trying to firesale off the AoS starter at 50% off. Part of that's holiday deals, but I don't think they've sold any in the last month either...
This is a big deal. I'd like to get a hand on the Khornate models.
AegisGrimm wrote: Yeah, both stores in my area that carry models talked down about AoS right from the start. Good or bad, it was the goodwill killer for WHFB.
Fair enough if they choose not to carry it, its their prerogative but if thats not the case then its just bad business.
AegisGrimm wrote: Yeah, both stores in my area that carry models talked down about AoS right from the start. Good or bad, it was the goodwill killer for WHFB.
Fair enough if they choose not to carry it, its their prerogative but if thats not the case then its just bad business.
It is also really bad business on GWs part if their stockists are choosing not to stock their product because of a perceived fault in it. It could be the best damn game out there but if everyone is bitter that it killed WHFB and not willing to put it on their shelves or have a demo game of it then GW has quite simply failed to capture people's attention and alienated potential customers.
AegisGrimm wrote: Yeah, both stores in my area that carry models talked down about AoS right from the start. Good or bad, it was the goodwill killer for WHFB.
Fair enough if they choose not to carry it, its their prerogative but if thats not the case then its just bad business.
It is also really bad business on GWs part if their stockists are choosing not to stock their product because of a perceived fault in it. It could be the best damn game out there but if everyone is bitter that it killed WHFB and not willing to put it on their shelves or have a demo game of it then GW has quite simply failed to capture people's attention and alienated potential customers.
To be fair, it's not something that can always be laid strictly on GW's doorstep. Stockists need to understand that the players at their stores CAN impact their sales with their behavior/discussions.
The independents I've been to locally? They let their "veterans" who buy virtually nothing but snacks or the occasional small ticket item run roughshod over them and staff members do very little to engage their potential first time customers, often letting the veterans do it instead or sending the customer to talk to the veterans in the store.
To give an anecdotal example? Last time I was at one shop to pick up an Infinity blister(September), I overheard some of the (ex-)Fantasy(now Warmahordes) players basically mocking two people who had looked at the AoS starter and seemed genuinely interested in it, having been told by the staff to talk to soandso.
The usual crap of "It's so dumbed down it might as well be for kids" and "There's no point doing anything but spamming <insert power option here> because of the no points values" etc from people who were having the staff members hold them up as knowledgeable/reliable was enough to get customers who were willing to drop $120+ that day, in addition to whatever else they were planning on getting that day, to reconsider that purchase.
I was also highly entertained hearing one of the guys say that "There's no community playing AoS" when he very well knows there is a large number of people playing it not far away at the local GW. He was signed up for the Escalation League that we had running at the shop, showed up for one game and his previously ridiculous list of Dark Elf Witches and Cauldron of Blood got stomped in week one. We didn't see him again except for 40k, but even that has seen him not playing as much after the most recent books put the hurt down on his jetbike Eldar lists.
I think GW's policy's have a much larger impact on the player base than one or two upset veterans.
It was GW's decisions that upset many people and put others off. The fact that GW relies on these (now pissed off) veterans for word of mouth is a failing on GW's part.
MWHistorian wrote: I think GW's policy's have a much larger impact on the player base than one or two upset veterans.
It was GW's decisions that upset many people and put others off. The fact that GW relies on these (now pissed off) veterans for word of mouth is a failing on GW's part.
Did you read what I posted, or just what you think I posted?
I'm saying that independents can't lay the blame for their inability to sell things at GW's feet. It's not unheard of for independents to have one or two guys that they considering "de facto employees" who might run events or whatever at the shop and steer potential customers towards them. That's a terrible idea when those people aren't actually interested in getting you sales but just badmouthing a system that they dislike.
MWHistorian wrote: I think GW's policy's have a much larger impact on the player base than one or two upset veterans.
It was GW's decisions that upset many people and put others off. The fact that GW relies on these (now pissed off) veterans for word of mouth is a failing on GW's part.
Did you read what I posted, or just what you think I posted?
I'm saying that independents can't lay the blame for their inability to sell things at GW's feet. It's not unheard of for independents to have one or two guys that they considering "de facto employees" who might run events or whatever at the shop and steer potential customers towards them. That's a terrible idea when those people aren't actually interested in getting you sales but just badmouthing a system that they dislike.
No, no. I understood that. I'm saying the reason for those two de-facto employees badmouthing the game is laid at GW's feet.
Kanluwen wrote: The independents I've been to locally? They let their "veterans" who buy virtually nothing but snacks or the occasional small ticket item run roughshod over them and staff members do very little to engage their potential first time customers
I'm surprised they're still in business! We do have one store like that locally, but they are basically a Magic-sales store and allow miniature gamers to play there, but don't move much in the way of miniatures.
The other store is the exact opposite, though - completely engaging, several dedicated staff knowledgeable about miniature games, ready to talk about any small gaming system, organizing leagues, etc etc.
But the fact is AoS is a very hard sell right now... it's not cheap to get into, and outside of GW stores there usually isn't a play-group to point them to to get them plugged in (since the groups that were playing fantasy have either dissolved here or switched to KoW, or just aren't playing fantasy and focusing on other games while waiting to see how things shake out).
Kanluwen wrote: The independents I've been to locally? They let their "veterans" who buy virtually nothing but snacks or the occasional small ticket item run roughshod over them and staff members do very little to engage their potential first time customers
I'm surprised they're still in business! We do have one store like that locally, but they are basically a Magic-sales store and allow miniature gamers to play there, but don't move much in the way of miniatures.
The other store is the exact opposite, though - completely engaging, several dedicated staff knowledgeable about miniature games, ready to talk about any small gaming system, organizing leagues, etc etc.
Kanluwen wrote: The independents I've been to locally? They let their "veterans" who buy virtually nothing but snacks or the occasional small ticket item run roughshod over them and staff members do very little to engage their potential first time customers
I'm surprised they're still in business! We do have one store like that locally, but they are basically a Magic-sales store and allow miniature gamers to play there, but don't move much in the way of miniatures.
The other store is the exact opposite, though - completely engaging, several dedicated staff knowledgeable about miniature games, ready to talk about any small gaming system, organizing leagues, etc etc.
The funny part is that this is one of the biggest stores, locally. The shop's space used to be a specialty supermarket so it's not a small place.
They make a lot of money via MTG and comics/RPG sales, and the person who does miniatures ordering apparently isn't that great. Nor do they really have too many people on staff that play--one guy who is trying really hard to push KoW, but that's failing miserably even with AoS replacing WHFB.
But the fact is AoS is a very hard sell right now... it's not cheap to get into, and outside of GW stores there usually isn't a play-group to point them to to get them plugged in (since the groups that were playing fantasy have either dissolved here or switched to KoW, or just aren't playing fantasy and focusing on other games while waiting to see how things shake out).
And that's why I found it so funny that the one guy kept harping on "there's nobody playing it". He signed up for an AoS Escalation League. He even attended the first week! It was only after he got tabled in week one by a Sudden Death that he started badmouthing the game. He was super pumped to play in the league, trashtalking everyone about how he might just play week one and week four...then he never even showed up past week one.
But the fact is AoS is a very hard sell right now... it's not cheap to get into, and outside of GW stores there usually isn't a play-group to point them to to get them plugged in (since the groups that were playing fantasy have either dissolved here or switched to KoW, or just aren't playing fantasy and focusing on other games while waiting to see how things shake out).
I'm not so sure that this has ever been different for any miniature game that takes hundreds of dollars (and, potentially, hours) commitment. A question to ask is: other than Warhammer 40k, what miniature games inspires people to go spend hundreds or thousands of dollars ** and keep coming back to spend hundreds or thousands more ** in the same order of magnitude of Magic cards?
This type of recurring sales and "upgrade treadmill" is pretty important to the continuing success of gaming stores, because otherwise, how do they get years and decades of sales out of the same people? One or two boardgames a year from someone isn't going to do it. The number of new wargamers who actually spend large dollars isn't huge. People buying snacks won't keep you in business in an environment where rent is getting pricey and the lowest paid employees cost $10-$15 an hour.
In my neck of the woods, I think that it basically boils down to 40k, WMH, and X-Wing -- plus the paint racks -- that keep miniatures part of the stores open. There are some really loyal Infinity customers, but they buy such a tiny amount of miniatures (and the miniatures themselves take up such a tiny amount of shelf space...) that I don't think it's a big impact.
And that's why I found it so funny that the one guy kept harping on "there's nobody playing it". He signed up for an AoS Escalation League. He even attended the first week! It was only after he got tabled in week one by a Sudden Death that he started badmouthing the game. He was super pumped to play in the league, trashtalking everyone about how he might just play week one and week four...then he never even showed up past week one.
Perhaps the "defacto employees" didn't want to tell new players to go to another store to game? I mean, that's an excellent way to lose repeat customers "don't come here and buy it, go to that other store" isn't really a nice thing for a regular to do to a store that treats them well.
But just out of interest, how did that story end? Did the new person buy nothing, or were they shown some other games to try? Perhaps a game with a community in the store? I assume the vet didn't just point at AOS and say "This is ", and walk away.
AegisGrimm wrote: Yeah, both stores in my area that carry models talked down about AoS right from the start. Good or bad, it was the goodwill killer for WHFB.
Fair enough if they choose not to carry it, its their prerogative but if thats not the case then its just bad business.
It is also really bad business on GWs part if their stockists are choosing not to stock their product because of a perceived fault in it. It could be the best damn game out there but if everyone is bitter that it killed WHFB and not willing to put it on their shelves or have a demo game of it then GW has quite simply failed to capture people's attention and alienated potential customers.
To be fair, it's not something that can always be laid strictly on GW's doorstep. Stockists need to understand that the players at their stores CAN impact their sales with their behavior/discussions.
The independents I've been to locally? They let their "veterans" who buy virtually nothing but snacks or the occasional small ticket item run roughshod over them and staff members do very little to engage their potential first time customers, often letting the veterans do it instead or sending the customer to talk to the veterans in the store.
To give an anecdotal example? Last time I was at one shop to pick up an Infinity blister(September), I overheard some of the (ex-)Fantasy(now Warmahordes) players basically mocking two people who had looked at the AoS starter and seemed genuinely interested in it, having been told by the staff to talk to soandso.
The usual crap of "It's so dumbed down it might as well be for kids" and "There's no point doing anything but spamming <insert power option here> because of the no points values" etc from people who were having the staff members hold them up as knowledgeable/reliable was enough to get customers who were willing to drop $120+ that day, in addition to whatever else they were planning on getting that day, to reconsider that purchase.
I was also highly entertained hearing one of the guys say that "There's no community playing AoS" when he very well knows there is a large number of people playing it not far away at the local GW. He was signed up for the Escalation League that we had running at the shop, showed up for one game and his previously ridiculous list of Dark Elf Witches and Cauldron of Blood got stomped in week one. We didn't see him again except for 40k, but even that has seen him not playing as much after the most recent books put the hurt down on his jetbike Eldar lists.
I do believe you entirely missed my point. I was talking about the stores that aren't stocking AoS at all, the ones that never tried or else got the starter boxes and then quickly dumped the line.
If stores don't have the faith in a product to try it, or are overly eager to dismiss it after only receiving the first box set then there is a serious problem with the marketing and reputation of the company trying to get them to stock this produce. If disgruntled veterans made the stores not want to stock it you don't blame the veterans, you blame the people that disgruntled them and failed to raise any hype for the product.
All of this then happens before anyone can walk into a shop to buy AoS and be driven away, but even then it is GWs choice to focus on word of mouth advertising so it is on them if it bites them in the ass.
And that's why I found it so funny that the one guy kept harping on "there's nobody playing it". He signed up for an AoS Escalation League. He even attended the first week! It was only after he got tabled in week one by a Sudden Death that he started badmouthing the game. He was super pumped to play in the league, trashtalking everyone about how he might just play week one and week four...then he never even showed up past week one.
Perhaps the "defacto employees" didn't want to tell new players to go to another store to game? I mean, that's an excellent way to lose repeat customers "don't come here and buy it, go to that other store" isn't really a nice thing for a regular to do to a store that treats them well.
But just out of interest, how did that story end? Did the new person buy nothing, or were they shown some other games to try? Perhaps a game with a community in the store? I assume the vet didn't just point at AOS and say "This is ", and walk away.
They tried to push Warmahordes, which didn't interest the people, so no sale.
Maddermax wrote: But just out of interest, how did that story end? Did the new person buy nothing, or were they shown some other games to try? Perhaps a game with a community in the store? I assume the vet didn't just point at AOS and say "This is ", and walk away.
I am a bit curious about that too, I know when I tell someone a game sucks I follow it up with a suggestion that x game is better because of y and z.
I do believe you entirely missed my point. I was talking about the stores that aren't stocking AoS at all, the ones that never tried or else got the starter boxes and then quickly dumped the line.
If stores don't have the faith in a product to try it, or are overly eager to dismiss it after only receiving the first box set then there is a serious problem with the marketing and reputation of the company trying to get them to stock this produce. If disgruntled veterans made the stores not want to stock it you don't blame the veterans, you blame the people that disgruntled them and failed to raise any hype for the product.
Tell that to the veterans who got stores to stock any number of games that sit and rot on shelves.
If a store follows JUST the demands/whims of veterans who don't buy crap? No, you absolutely don't blame the company of the product--you blame whoever you have in charge of ordering/stocking miniatures games for listening to people that they are (likely) "friends" with, who didn't stop to think "can we actually sell this?".
All of this then happens before anyone can walk into a shop to buy AoS and be driven away, but even then it is GWs choice to focus on word of mouth advertising so it is on them if it bites them in the ass.
If a store doesn't have an employee bothering to learn how to play a game system or setting out even an unpainted demo set? Yeah, it's on the store not the company whose game it is.
If you can't be bothered to be knowledgeable about your own product, that's on you.
Kanluwen, it's clear the store you're talking about is a more Magic-sales-dependent store, and so it might not matter to them as much to push AoS. Floor space doesn't determine that - the similar store I mentioned also is Magic-focused (at least as far as sales go!).
I think those kinds of stores would be happy enough to just sell some 40k, let alone other ranges... we had a huge warmachine group at our similar store and couldn't get them to stock much warmachine, regardless.
So, you're just talking about a store that isn't very good at selling miniatures... but the point is even stores that are VERY good at it (mikhaila's, Reecius for web sales, and Sergeant Horse, and several others who have posted here) are having trouble selling it.
RiTides wrote: Kanluwen, it's clear the store you're talking about is a more Magic-sales-dependent store, and so it might not matter to them as much to push AoS. Floor space doesn't determine that - the similar store I mentioned also is Magic-focused (at least as far as sales go!).
I think those kinds of stores would be happy enough to just sell some 40k, let alone other ranges... we had a huge warmachine group at our similar store and couldn't get them to stock much warmachine, regardless.
So, you're just talking about a store that isn't very good at selling miniatures... but the point is even stores that are VERY good at it (mikhaila's, Reecius for web sales, and Sergeant Horse, and several others who have posted here) are having trouble selling it.
Amusingly enough, they're great at hosting things for miniatures and selling 40k/Warmachine/Flames of War...they just can't be bothered trying to actually do any research on new games. They go based on what their veterans tell them and nothing else.
But for reference, here's what those 3 store owners I mentioned posted here - I'm noting them because they're some of the more prolific Dakka store owner posters, but several others posted in this thread with similar thoughts, as well.
My sources in GW have people looking for ways to polish a turd and sell models. AOS gave them a small bump in fantasy sales, but they lost hugely with no 40k sales in those months. My sales are down 65% for the last 4 months on GW.
Not enough people actually care about AOS. They play some because they have models, but few people are building armies.
Lizarmen codex with no new models? Pretty much tells the story. My sales rep was ok with me not even ordering it.
I could write a 2 page list of reasons why it's failing, but i don't feel like arguing with the "it's only anectdotal evidence" crowd, and don't feel like beating a dead horse. GW found a way to cost me thousands of dollars in sales each month, and has my older WFB customers selling their armies on ebay. Good job GW.
Sergeant Horse:
Spoiler:
Sergeant Horse wrote: We tried at our store, ran some events, tried to promote it, but it's pretty dead. I have 2 people playing (new players that have never done minis before). Everybody else plays KoW, or if they want skirmish fantasy, they do Frostgrave or Mordheim.
I used to be a HUUUGE Fantasy playing store, with tournaments hitting over 30 and regular play nights with every table full, AoS killed it and every single player moved to Kings of War or quit altogether. In the last few months I've slashed my Fantasy wall by 2/3 and don't even reorder unless it's a special order. That broke my heart personally, I own 8 Fantasy armies.
Personally, I tried AoS, it's ok for what it is, but I played Fantasy for the rule set and world, both are gone. You can say I can just play 8th, but that's not realistic since most gamers move to supported game systems, and KoW has taken over.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That being said, if GW brought out a 9th edition......MONEY.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to reasons it's failing imo.
It's not as good a mass fantasy game as Kings of War
It's not as good a skirmish game as Mordheim, Frostgrave or any other skirmish game
The Stormcasts are boring. Great models, but boring fluff and with being effectively immortal, there's no fear or connection when they die.
Khorne is also the most BORING of Chaos gods.. Blood blood skulls skulls blah blah blah. Nurgle or Tzeentch would have been way more interesting.
A lack of info on other races is a killer too. I've read the books, listened to the audio books and I'm not impressed with the world at all, it lacks flavor.
Cost doesn't really come into it I find, people who want to will buy the products, people who can't afford to or don't find the value in it, won't.
Reecius:
Spoiler:
Reecius wrote: Yeah, AoS just isn't selling that well for us, we're liquidating our inventory for the time being.
And for the record, here's a poll from the AoS section that I posted earlier, along with some commentary:
That's the rub, Vermis! In the AoS section, there was a poll which had these results:
AoS going strong or dying out in your area?
A. Picking up steam. - 24% (135)
B. Definitely less interest as time goes on. 76% (423)
That's over 550 responses. It's people who check an online forum, of course - those are the only people who you can poll without it being a local (or "anecdotal") result!
---
It could be doing well in parts of the UK, or in certain stores in the US... but on the whole, you've got a 3 to 1 ratio of people saying there is a lagging interest in AoS. This close to the launch of such a "flagship" product, that would be why people are saying it's failing. The way GW has positioned it is not to be a small Specialist game type of theirs, but a major line - and indications are people are not adopting it, and even people who considered it are often no longer doing so. GW experienced this recently with The Hobbit, too (seriously - did anyone actually play that?) so they are not unused to the idea - but they blamed that on not owning the IP, hence relegating it to "specialist game" status to focus on their own (new, in this case) IP.
It's interesting to see Reecius mention a lot of interest (and sales) at the beginning, but not continuing on... although mikhaila says it has failed, this seems to match what he experienced a bit at the beginning, too. I know I was certainly interested at the beginning - and am no longer, with everyone I know embracing KoW or moving on to other games.
The trend is really clear that AoS is not being adopted and is losing steam since release, but in some ways that just makes sense - there have been no releases for other factions and people just don't know what to make of it. We'll see if the "fire dwarfs" in January help... I'm certainly interested in seeing those sculpts and if I can use any for my chaos dwarfs (that I'm building for KoW now, but will pull awesome models from anywhere ).
Kilkrazy wrote: If AoS was a balls-to-the-wall awesome game, backed by the mighty marketing power of GW, it couldn't fail, whatever some vets might say about it.
Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case.
And when the game is not so great, and you have ticked off the veterans that you rely on for word of mouth advertising... you have problems.
I do not know about other places, but around here, it is the regruntled* vets that are crowing about the return of the Specialist Games - mostly Necromunda.
The Auld Grump
* If people can become disgruntled, then obviously they can become regruntled when they get their gruntle back.
At our store probably ~95% of the fantasy stuff all went on the Black Friday clearance tables. GW sales are nearly stagnant from last year. PP sales are up ~33%, though still below GW's stagnant number. Non-GW/PP miniatures sales are nearly double, not quite matching GW and PP combined.
I'm not so sure that this has ever been different for any miniature game that takes hundreds of dollars (and, potentially, hours) commitment. A question to ask is: other than Warhammer 40k, what miniature games inspires people to go spend hundreds or thousands of dollars ** and keep coming back to spend hundreds or thousands more ** in the same order of magnitude of Magic cards?
X-Wing seems to manage sell quite a bit and is constantly out of sock and can't keep up with the demand, and one of their own games (40k) is doing at least okay. GW is to to blame for the lackluster launch/performance, simple as that (who else cold it be). They made the product and must have had some plan besides "we make it and they will buy it". If they see that WHFB isn't selling anymore and they replace it with AoS (fewer but more expensive models) and do nothing (relatively speaking) to promote it then how can they expect the huge sales numbers that give them the revenue they need to keep the franchise alive. They killed one game off and replaced it with something they are themselves not really supporting or advertising (just releasing products and hoping it will sell is not viable these days). Didn't they even expect a little bit of a backlash from veterans who are invested in their old game? On top of that the new game can use armies from the old one yet they release new stuff somehow hoping that people will replace everything.
They created a game where the value proposition is low because it has to rebuild everything: a fanbase, investment into the lore, armies, local groups who play it, literary everything. On top of that they seem to not be promoting it in any significant way. The last time they released a new game they had movies and a third party magazine that was sold in regular bookstores (and had free stuff) and funneled people and money into their direction. But they still didn't get the message that marketing and advertisement can be useful.
They should have done much more. Right now it feels like they tried to do something that will force people to buy new stuff (you don't need to buy all the new stuff but it's really great for this brand new game), hoping that the free rules will entice people into buying stuff while forgetting that free rules are worthless if they are of no value. Their idea of backwards compatibility didn't really lead to people accepting the demise of the old WHFB.
They could have consolidated and reduced their WHFB output (it looked like they wanted to do that after the End Times campaign) and saved on development cost and shelf space or cut the whole game (and fired some more people) if it's not profitable anymore. Instead they invested money, time, and effort into this half hearted relaunch. AoS is a hard sell and GW is to blame for that because they orchestrated the release. Why should the player-base or the stores who have no control over the game, rules, miniatures, or the release schedule be blamed for the lackluster start? GW surprised everyone with the launch of the new game and if somebody read the internet rumours about it they were just confusing.
If they need continuous sales then they could have changed the release schedule with the new game and go with a parallel release for all armies instead of keeping the old cycle where one army gets a big chunk and everybody else get to spend no money at all because their army is either not there or it's not their turn. That also would have given people multiple aesthetic options to chose from instead of just Sigmar boys and Chaos boys. This project was theirs to fumble and it looks like they did exactly that. The company is 40 years old, they should have enough data to do better without hand-wringing or having so many unknown factors.
AegisGrimm wrote: Yeah, both stores in my area that carry models talked down about AoS right from the start. Good or bad, it was the goodwill killer for WHFB.
Fair enough if they choose not to carry it, its their prerogative but if thats not the case then its just bad business.
It can depend on many factors - how well or badly individual retailers have been treated by GW, minimum buy-ins and gauging the local levels of interest in an upcoming product - as well as how much dead WHFB stock is sitting there and whether or not they have offered to take it back (and for how much).
Mario wrote: GW is to to blame for the lackluster launch/performance, simple as that (who else cold it be). They made the product and must have had some plan besides "we make it and they will buy it". If they see that WHFB isn't selling anymore and they replace it with AoS (fewer but more expensive models) and do nothing (relatively speaking) to promote it then how can they expect the huge sales numbers that give them the revenue they need to keep the franchise alive. They killed one game off and replaced it with something they are themselves not really supporting or advertising (just releasing products and hoping it will sell is not viable these days). Didn't they even expect a little bit of a backlash from veterans who are invested in their old game? On top of that the new game can use armies from the old one yet they release new stuff somehow hoping that people will replace everything.
I pretty much agree, but to every sentence there, my response is: you would think, wouldn't you? GW is to blame for the lackluster launch/performance, simple as that (who else cold it be). You would think, wouldn't you? They made the product and must have had some plan besides "we make it and they will buy it". You would think, wouldn't you? But i'm not so certain. I remember reading somewhere (i forget where) that AoS was being marketed to some retailers as a chance to get rid of the bitter vets that were ruining the hobby and get new customers in. You would hope they had a plan beyond "we make it and they will buy it" but i'm not seeing any signs of it. GW doesn't really do advertising (possibly excepting the uk with their highstreet presence), how do they expect new customers to even know it exists, let alone be tempting into playing/collecting? Wasn't that a kevin costner movie - if you build it, they will come?
Torga_DW wrote: I pretty much agree, but to every sentence there, my response is: you would think, wouldn't you? GW is to blame for the lackluster launch/performance, simple as that (who else cold it be). You would think, wouldn't you? They made the product and must have had some plan besides "we make it and they will buy it". You would think, wouldn't you? But i'm not so certain. I remember reading somewhere (i forget where) that AoS was being marketed to some retailers as a chance to get rid of the bitter vets that were ruining the hobby and get new customers in. You would hope they had a plan beyond "we make it and they will buy it" but i'm not seeing any signs of it. GW doesn't really do advertising (possibly excepting the uk with their highstreet presence), how do they expect new customers to even know it exists, let alone be tempting into playing/collecting? Wasn't that a kevin costner movie - if you build it, they will come?
One could argue: how do most people get into the miniature wargaming hobby? How do people get into building and painting models? In my experience, it's not because they've seen an advertisement in a magazine, online, on television, in a movie theatre, and so forth. There are people who are drawn to the hobby of miniatures and models and miniature wargames, and they end up going to hobby shops, where they look at stuff on shelves, and perhaps buy things.
Since it's a pretty small niche, the well-stocked independent stores basically sell all the most popular stuff (and the GW stores obviously sell GW things). So the equation, I think, is more like, "If you build it, and they like it, they will seek you out and buy it."
There are a lot of reasons to buy things too -- cool models, good price, good game, my friends play it, my friends don't play a certain alternative, et cetera.
Anyways. My point is only that I don't think that a bunch of ads anywhere will make a huge difference to the hobby at large. Most people who are interested in miniatures hobbies know where the very small number of stores are and seek out any stores that are within travelling range, and quickly become familiar with what they can buy locally. Then, it's not a huge leap for them to figure out what's available online. In a way, it's not much different from model trains. I have friends who are into that kind too, and it's just something you have an interest in and then hunt down, and either grow a passion for or abandon.
Torga_DW wrote: I pretty much agree, but to every sentence there, my response is: you would think, wouldn't you? GW is to blame for the lackluster launch/performance, simple as that (who else cold it be). You would think, wouldn't you? They made the product and must have had some plan besides "we make it and they will buy it". You would think, wouldn't you? But i'm not so certain. I remember reading somewhere (i forget where) that AoS was being marketed to some retailers as a chance to get rid of the bitter vets that were ruining the hobby and get new customers in. You would hope they had a plan beyond "we make it and they will buy it" but i'm not seeing any signs of it. GW doesn't really do advertising (possibly excepting the uk with their highstreet presence), how do they expect new customers to even know it exists, let alone be tempting into playing/collecting? Wasn't that a kevin costner movie - if you build it, they will come?
One could argue: how do most people get into the miniature wargaming hobby? How do people get into building and painting models? In my experience, it's not because they've seen an advertisement in a magazine, online, on television, in a movie theatre, and so forth. There are people who are drawn to the hobby of miniatures and models and miniature wargames, and they end up going to hobby shops, where they look at stuff on shelves, and perhaps buy things.
Since it's a pretty small niche, the well-stocked independent stores basically sell all the most popular stuff (and the GW stores obviously sell GW things). So the equation, I think, is more like, "If you build it, and they like it, they will seek you out and buy it."
There are a lot of reasons to buy things too -- cool models, good price, good game, my friends play it, my friends don't play a certain alternative, et cetera.
Anyways. My point is only that I don't think that a bunch of ads anywhere will make a huge difference to the hobby at large. Most people who are interested in miniatures hobbies know where the very small number of stores are and seek out any stores that are within travelling range, and quickly become familiar with what they can buy locally. Then, it's not a huge leap for them to figure out what's available online. In a way, it's not much different from model trains. I have friends who are into that kind too, and it's just something you have an interest in and then hunt down, and either grow a passion for or abandon.
Probably very true, which is why its even more important for GW to not alienate its customers.
wuestenfux wrote: If Mikhaila is loosing thousands of Dollars, GW will loose millions.
Recovered partially by Betrayal at Calth.
But who needs more Marines or 5 more Termies?
Enough people to prop up the company after they binned one of their main lines and introduced a not very popular one, apparently.
AOS is just a bad product. GW is quite capable of making something that's just not very good, and this is it. That's why its not doing as well as people would expect it to.
AoS failed because the rules are rubbish and contrary to RGW's narrative of late, rules matter. RGW (Rubbish Games Workshop) finaly made their intentions clear and showed their real attitude and as it turns out, people don't really want to plan, build and paint armies for months to play "casual" dead rubber games with simplistic and shallow rules.
Another thing is how the universe of AoS was created out of a creative spark but sadly one of a sales management team. A blatant jump at repeating space marines sales in fantasy, trademarkable names, grimdark exchanged for he-many heroics etc. It's also the reason for the lack of armies updates and overall boldness of the whole affair, they really believed that sigmarines were going to be a smashing succes and would carry AoS for months, drooling wide eyed kids and old nerds alike blinded by shiny gold ride-the-lighting awesome superawesome.
Also the fact that whfb was rank and file and the massive jump to KoW shows that many people loved that about it. It's funny btw how rank and file fantasy gaming was synonymous with warhammer for so long and they just gave it away like that, some brand recognition to kill heh and takes quite a moron to do imo.
What they should do is 9th edition titled "Tales in the world that is about to blow, soon" or sth and write rules to play in the dead world, they could even add factions still etc. Or just offer 8th edition, all the army books and square bases and support whfb alongside AoS, release new models with rules for both systems like bloodthirster has for both 40k and fantasy. That way they would have incoming Total War players covered who will be legion and anyone who decided that it was a good moment for AoS is again, a moron sadly. No need to thank me GW, I'll just take a good balanced ruleset in return.
Torga_DW wrote: I pretty much agree, but to every sentence there, my response is: you would think, wouldn't you? GW is to blame for the lackluster launch/performance, simple as that (who else cold it be). You would think, wouldn't you? They made the product and must have had some plan besides "we make it and they will buy it". You would think, wouldn't you? But i'm not so certain. I remember reading somewhere (i forget where) that AoS was being marketed to some retailers as a chance to get rid of the bitter vets that were ruining the hobby and get new customers in. You would hope they had a plan beyond "we make it and they will buy it" but i'm not seeing any signs of it. GW doesn't really do advertising (possibly excepting the uk with their highstreet presence), how do they expect new customers to even know it exists, let alone be tempting into playing/collecting? Wasn't that a kevin costner movie - if you build it, they will come?
One could argue: how do most people get into the miniature wargaming hobby? How do people get into building and painting models? In my experience, it's not because they've seen an advertisement in a magazine, online, on television, in a movie theatre, and so forth. There are people who are drawn to the hobby of miniatures and models and miniature wargames, and they end up going to hobby shops, where they look at stuff on shelves, and perhaps buy things.
Since it's a pretty small niche, the well-stocked independent stores basically sell all the most popular stuff (and the GW stores obviously sell GW things). So the equation, I think, is more like, "If you build it, and they like it, they will seek you out and buy it."
Something to bear in mind, though - for every customer that comes in on their own there are four or five that are brought in by the vets that GW is merrily ticking off.
I got into the hobby when I was an Adolescent Grump - brought in by a Catholic priest who introduced me to wargaming, miniatures gaming, role playing games, and the wonders of the Roneograph machine. (I produced a D&D fanzine when I was twelve years old... that priest has much to answer for. (I wish that I still had a copy.) )
Without that priest... I have no idea what my hobbies would have been. Wargaming seems very unlikely. Roleplaying games... maybe a bit more likely, since I was reading Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine at that time, and there were advertisements for D&D by a bookstore names A Change of Hobbit (through whom I ordered my very first copy of the beige book D&D).
Without people making the hobby sound interesting and entertaining, it is likely that the pool of players would not be large enough to sustain.
When you take a company like GW, that relies entirely on word of mouth advertising then ticking off the grognards is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, just before the race starts.
As for other forms of advertising - my good lady became a fantasy gamer when her age was in the single digits - because she and her mum saw HeroQuest advertised on TV.
For her mum it was a boardgame, for Megan it was the start of a lifelong hobby.
Jon & Julie, two of my players, got into gaming because they saw a commercial for Basic Dungeons & Dragons on TV.
For them it was the start to a whole pile of hobbies (the one that costs them the most money involves dressing up in armor, and hitting people with padded rattan weapons - they are members of the SCA, but they both have armies that used to be for Warhammer, and are now being used for Kings of War).
Both forms of advertising interweave - Jon & Julie have brought other people into gaming (and the SCA) by word of mouth, but heard of it from the telly.
Megan works in a bookstore - and her being able to talk to gamers about D&D and Pathfinder helps drive sales, and can help push folks off of the fence, and into the wide open pastures of gaming. (How is that for a tortured metaphor?)
But she was brought in by commercials for HeroQuest.
Saying that advertising does not account for most players is true - but those gamers that it does bring in can bring in others.
It seems to be quite popular at my FLGS in SoCal. From what the store owner has told me, the people playing it largely aren't the WHFB vets. But there's a good-sized group playing, and they're playing consistently. And while I haven't looked too closely, they appear to be largely using the new figures. I saw one of the players looking at the Dark Elf listings on GW's site with interest the other day, so it's likely that they'll branch out before long.
I can't offer anything besides anecdote, but I've not seen any indication of the game failing in my local area. The local player base seems to have embraced it and even a number of the naysayers I did know have been won over. Tournaments have been run locally and my local gaming club is still dominated by the game.
I've even seen the game being played in my local GW and I've not seen a game of anything besides 40k being played in a GW in a good 5 years.
I can't comment as the game itself, I've not played it and I've no plans to. I'm far to bogged down with other games to even contemplate it, I'm just reporting my observations.
When you take a company like GW, that relies entirely on word of mouth advertising
Not so in the UK, over here that is probably quite minor part of GW advertising. There is a store in pretty much every town. Whilst I can't say how much is word of mouth and how much is stores in town centers pulling kids in compared to other ways in, it certainly isn't anywhere near entirely word or mouth.
When you take a company like GW, that relies entirely on word of mouth advertising
Not so in the UK, over here that is probably quite minor part of GW advertising. There is a store in pretty much every town. Whilst I can't say how much is word of mouth and how much is stores in town centers pulling kids in compared to other ways in, it certainly isn't anywhere near entirely word or mouth.
In Germany, there are small store in almost all large cities (at least 200,000 to 300,000 citizens), but the brand Warhammer is largely unknown.
When you take a company like GW, that relies entirely on word of mouth advertising
Not so in the UK, over here that is probably quite minor part of GW advertising. There is a store in pretty much every town. Whilst I can't say how much is word of mouth and how much is stores in town centers pulling kids in compared to other ways in, it certainly isn't anywhere near entirely word or mouth.
It is, however, also not paid advertising in public outlets.
And that highstreet presence is disappearing.
Not to mention, the whole stores issue may be a big chunk of why GW is not doing as well as it might.
Despite losing as much as 30% in some locations, by changing to cheaper, 1 man' operations... GW claims that the stores have become profitable.
An improvement while losing 30% of your base is not the sign of a successful commercial operation.
When you take a company like GW, that relies entirely on word of mouth advertising
Not so in the UK, over here that is probably quite minor part of GW advertising. There is a store in pretty much every town. Whilst I can't say how much is word of mouth and how much is stores in town centers pulling kids in compared to other ways in, it certainly isn't anywhere near entirely word or mouth.
That's not really true. Every GW I've ever seen has been tucked out of the way somewhere and I've had to seek it out. My most local is situated well outside the area where people will typically shop (the main shoppers car parks are closer to the town centre than the store,) the next closest was tucked away in a side street, then when that side street became part of a massive and expensive redevelopment, they moved to somewhere you'd yet again need to normally make a special trip to, or have some other spurious reason to pass.
Not to mention most are very small units with narrow frontages, something that isn't conducive to catching the eye and luring people in. If the intent behind the shops is to drive in footfall and convert the ignorant, they're really not doing a very good job of it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many GW locations actively drive casual custom away if there's some sort of event on, I've intended to go into mine on more than one occasion, seen a collection of wispy beards and black t shirts all crowded in cheek by jowl and kept walking, and I'm neither the sort of character that's intimidated by that sort of thing nor someone new to or interested in the hobby and consequently perhaps a bit tentative. If I can't be bothered to elbow my way around one of the broom cupboards that seems to represent the typical GW shop for a lot of paint, you can bet there's others who definitely wouldn't to spend time browsing and making a large purchase.
Yup, GW in the Uk are generally in the city and town centers. It should also be borne in mind that almost anyone who is a teen boy in the UK (and maybe a few girls) will have heard of GW and quite likely know where the nearest store is if they are even remotely interested. Unless you are classing vets as the 12-15 year olds then most word of mouth happens from non vets, and most will have decided whether they are in to it or not early on.
I'm not seeing AoS disgruntled vets particularly affecting the UK in mid-long term. Maybe in other countries with different demographics and entry methods. Obviously in the short term that may be a good number of lost customers (of what though if they weren't buying much fantasy?).
What may be more likely too affect the UK is the lack of games going on in the stores. But that appeared to me to be happening long before AoS dropped. I used to go the stores near me quite a bit during 6ed warhammer (early 2000s) and they were heaving. Whilst I've not played much since then I still tend to pop into the stores and see what is new etc, and over the years I've noticed less and less players, of fantasy in particular. Of course that may be a local issue, or a different time I may be going in now (and I'm missing the busy periods?).
Not really following the game for quite a few years I can't say what caused that. But for the UK that would be IMO the biggest issue GW face if it is a general thing. If they can't get people playing in the stores then it becomes less of an advertisement for those who do go into them. That of course would affect WFB or 40k as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
all the stores around me are on the high streets in good positions. Most aren't one man stores either.
Same here, of the 5 stores that I might go to one has moved about 3 times over the years, but each spot has been a good city center location. The others have not moved, though I'd have to go look up one as I haven't been to it in a good while.
I really think that as different as the ruleset might be, it's the game world change that is killing things. I think that a large scale skirmish game (by that I mean AoS sized rather than 5-12 troops in a warband) set in the old world would have worked better.
That or the fact that GW is basically trying to launch a new line, but with half the effort that makes new lines for companies a success. Even much smaller companies. Four decades of existence really should not see them having this much trouble with a release schedule.
I think that a large scale skirmish game (by that I mean AoS sized rather than 5-12 troops in a warband) set in the old world would have worked better.
Same here. I like AoS, and fluff doesn't really bother me, in fact I really didn't like WFB fluff - the whole gunpowder empire thing wasn't my cup of tea at all. I still played it though. But it seems a bit odd to throw away a well known background, especially with all the licensing of video games that has been going on that might have fed into that.
Again, read the financial reports - the process still continues, but they are actively moving to less expensive locations.
Yes, I read that, it hasn't happened much yet that I've seen. And it doesn't mean that there will be that much difference, even a small move can be too a less expensive location and still be a good position. Like I said 'warhammer' is a very well known thing in the UK by high school, and that is the age group (teens) that GW has nearly always focused on, the same age group I was when it first came out in the 1980s. It's hard to see how more competitive vets getting disgruntled and not passing on word of mouth will affect that demographic much.
AegisGrimm wrote:I think that a large scale skirmish game (by that I mean AoS sized rather than 5-12 troops in a warband) set in the old world would have worked better.
Ditto.
Along with rules that reward manipulation of general mechanics, rather than manipulation of a list of what models to buy.
Bottle wrote: ^ in the UK they are on the high street in good locations usually.
No, they were on high streets and in good locations.
They have been moving out of the good locations, and opening on back streets for a few years now.
Read the financial reports - they are actually quite open about this. (And those reports are also where I got my 30% loss of sales figure.)
The Auld Grump
Do you live in the UK?
all the stores around me are on the high streets in good positions. Most aren't one man stores either.
Yes, I do, despite the flag on my profile insisting otherwise.
I very much doubt any of the stores are what a commercial agent would term prime locations, sure, maybe one or two if they got a good deal on a lease, given the economic conditions over the last few years that's quite likely, but those will move when the leases expire, mark my words, and it still doesn't change the fact that any one of the shops I've ever seen wasn't in anything close to a prime location.
Maybe it's peculiar to where you live then. Here in Bristol the two stores are in great locations. And as I said before even the new stores around here are in good areas. The new one in Taunton for example. The only local store I would cite as not being in a prime location is the Bath store.
I can only speak for Sheffield, but of the two stores we had when I moved here, the one in the "prime" location (which was based in Meadowhall - tiny store, but a lot of footfall) is the one which has been closed, and their attempt at opening a gaming center was closed after the intro period on the lease (or rates) expired.
The one which I would describe as in the worse location, whilst still roughly in the town centre, is still going. In theory passing traffic should be increasing, due to the town market being moved there and a redevelopment taking place, bu I wouldn't describe it as prime real estate.
In fact, if the rent goes up, I wouldn't be shocked if it moved to a different location.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Again, read the financial reports - the process still continues, but they are actively moving to less expensive locations.
They have not yet moved all (or most?) of their stores out of the high rent locations, but they are seeking to do so, as leases expire.
It is possible that they will reverse this process, but I would not hold my breath.
They are following the same method in the US, while actively trying to open more stores.
The Auld Grump
Maybe it's time you stopped believing everything written in those reports, Auld.
What, you mean that legally binding document issued by the company themselves? The main conduit for communicating with investors and letting them know what's happening with the firm? The investors who own the company?
Yeah, no way you should believe anything in there.
Even the new opened stores around me have been in good areas (Taunton, for example).
Well, isn't this hilarious.
I'm not far from you, and what you're describing as "a good area" just so happens to be a location I know well. I know it well because the company I used to work for had a location in that very shopping centre, and it was a freaking graveyard for store managers. Nobody made that store work, I was even sent there for a few weeks once to try and help turn it around, but the simple lack of footfall, outside of people parking in Sainsbury's car park and hurrying through to the rest of the (main) shopping area, not to mention the on street entrance is quite a way from the heart of the focus of the shopping, meant it was very tough to make any money there.
Still, IIRC, the rent was cheap for the square footage.
Yet before they moved the store there, it was up near Boots and did great business.
When I checked back into Warhammer in the last couple of years, I was surprised it was still alive, to be honest. And I was extra surprised to see that the hobby has so many other games coming out too. To me and everyone I talk to about it, it seems like an impossible sell in the video game age, what with all the work and investment you have to do in basically an unknown quantity if you're new to it.
I wish I lived in the UK sometimes, if just for the Warhammer scene. From my experience in Canada, being seen near a Games Workshop was bad enough, entering one was worse than going in a porn store, and there might be some people who have vaguely heard the word Warhammer or had a slight interest when they were a child, but it was certainly nowhere near a household name.
Anyway, I'm a fan of Sigmar and Warhammer in general.
I just had a quick look on Google Maps at the Bristol store too.
Cribbs, I'll grant, proabably counts as a good location, although I suspect it's a shoe box, the footfall will compensate, the other one though..
Really?
Good location?
Its a narrow frontage unit, in a shopping centre clearly nowhere near the retail centre of Bristol or any real draw for people next door to a pawnbrokers.
Bottle, you and I have very different ideas of a 'good' retail location.
If you're in the business you probably know better than me.
For the Taunton one its in a shopping mall with a McDonalds, Subway, a children's toy shop and the biggest supermarket in the town. So, you've got kids going to the toy shop exposed to it, kids with parents walking past it into sainsburys, and teenagers spending all their time there when they want a fast food fix. Like I said, if you have personal experience there then fine. Seemed really busy when I walked past yesterday.
For the Bristol one, that's my regular and your conjecture isn't correct. It isn't in a shopping center it's a shop facing the street. It's on the main road to the train station from Broadmead, it's also right next to Saint Nick's market. A Starbucks has just opened two doors down, my experience is that Starbucks are built on busy streets too. All things combined it means loads of footfall goes past. That's why I thought them both good areas :-)
Every teen boy in UK knows about GW?
Almost no teen boy in Germany knows about GW!
I guess this can be generalized to include Europe bar UK, US, and AUS.
Maybe it's time you stopped believing everything written in those reports, Auld.
What, you mean that legally binding document issued by the company themselves? The main conduit for communicating with investors and letting them know what's happening with the firm? The investors who own the company?
Yeah, no way you should believe anything in there.
Looks like you three are on opposing sides of this discussion. I'll let you all discuss this then.
Maybe it's time you stopped believing everything written in those reports, Auld.
What, you mean that legally binding document issued by the company themselves? The main conduit for communicating with investors and letting them know what's happening with the firm? The investors who own the company?
Yeah, no way you should believe anything in there.
Looks like you three are on opposing sides of this discussion. I'll let you all discuss this then.
Not really, I was utilizing a little known conversational ploy called 'sarcasm'.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Like all publicly traded companies, the folks working for GW are required, by law, to give an accurate description of decisions that directly affect their profitability as a company.
Which is why that 30% is cause for concern - it is likely that those high street locations that you are touting are money pits, sucking pounds and pence from out of the corporate coffers.
So, please take the time to read the bloody things, hmm?
Bottle wrote: If you're in the business you probably know better than me.
For the Taunton one its in a shopping mall with a McDonalds, Subway, a children's toy shop and the biggest supermarket in the town. So, you've got kids going to the toy shop exposed to it, kids with parents walking past it into sainsburys, and teenagers spending all their time there when they want a fast food fix. Like I said, if you have personal experience there then fine. Seemed really busy when I walked past yesterday.
GW stores will attract GW customers. The issue is not people who are already interested, but attracting those who may be potentially interested. For this, the location sucks. It's the retail equivalent of trying to chat a girl up in a corridor at a party when she's either on her way to the kitchen to get a drink or has been to the kitchen and is trying to rejoin her friends. Being on a thoroughfare is not conducive to idle interest, and food outlets are a lousy measure of a location, people are either hungry, or going back to whatever they were doing before they got hungry, so you have the same issue.
I'm sure the guys that game there are very happy to have food and drink on the doorstep, but the original point was around GW stores as a marketing tool, and this location doesn't serve that purpose in any meaningful way. In fact, IIRC County Walk closes out of hours, so it wouldn't even serve as an advert 24/7 like a street side location would.
For the Bristol one, that's my regular and your conjecture isn't correct. It isn't in a shopping center it's a shop facing the street. It's on the main road to the train station from Broadmead, it's also right next to Saint Nick's market. A Starbucks has just opened two doors down, my experience is that Starbucks are built on busy streets too. All things combined it means loads of footfall goes past. That's why I thought them both good areas :-)
Ok, centre was the wrong word, arcade or precinct may have been more accurate, but cash4cheques don't open in premium, high cost locations.
Starbucks are everywhere I don't think one can take that as an indication of the location's quality. Either way, they probably aren't there to catch the consumer so much as the commuter I'd imagine (or perhaps there's a lot of offices nearby?) and not the sort of person a store acting as advertising is ever really going to impact.
Has to be said I don't ever recall any of the UKGW shops I've visited being in great locations, my local is in 'the charity shop zone' that most towns of a certain size seem to have
The next nearest (Exeter) isn't too bad as its sort of in the city centre but never seems to be that busy
Not really, I was utilizing a little known conversational ploy called 'sarcasm'.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Like all publicly traded companies, the folks working for GW are required, by law, to give an accurate description of decisions that directly affect their profitability as a company.
Which is why that 30% is cause for concern - it is likely that those high street locations that you are touting are money pits, sucking pounds and pence from out of the corporate coffers.
So, please take the time to read the bloody things, hmm?
The Auld Grump
No need to use bad language. Go get some fresh air dude.
Bottle wrote: If you're in the business you probably know better than me.
For the Taunton one its in a shopping mall with a McDonalds, Subway, a children's toy shop and the biggest supermarket in the town. So, you've got kids going to the toy shop exposed to it, kids with parents walking past it into sainsburys, and teenagers spending all their time there when they want a fast food fix. Like I said, if you have personal experience there then fine. Seemed really busy when I walked past yesterday.
GW stores will attract GW customers. The issue is not people who are already interested, but attracting those who may be potentially interested. For this, the location sucks. It's the retail equivalent of trying to chat a girl up in a corridor at a party when she's either on her way to the kitchen to get a drink or has been to the kitchen and is trying to rejoin her friends. Being on a thoroughfare is not conducive to idle interest, and food outlets are a lousy measure of a location, people are either hungry, or going back to whatever they were doing before they got hungry, so you have the same issue.
I'm sure the guys that game there are very happy to have food and drink on the doorstep, but the original point was around GW stores as a marketing tool, and this location doesn't serve that purpose in any meaningful way. In fact, IIRC County Walk closes out of hours, so it wouldn't even serve as an advert 24/7 like a street side location would.
For the Bristol one, that's my regular and your conjecture isn't correct. It isn't in a shopping center it's a shop facing the street. It's on the main road to the train station from Broadmead, it's also right next to Saint Nick's market. A Starbucks has just opened two doors down, my experience is that Starbucks are built on busy streets too. All things combined it means loads of footfall goes past. That's why I thought them both good areas :-)
Ok, centre was the wrong word, arcade or precinct may have been more accurate, but cash4cheques don't open in premium, high cost locations.
Starbucks are everywhere I don't think one can take that as an indication of the location's quality. Either way, they probably aren't there to catch the consumer so much as the commuter I'd imagine (or perhaps there's a lot of offices nearby?) and not the sort of person a store acting as advertising is ever really going to impact.
Those were all reasons as to why it would be good for potential customers.
Turnip Jedi wrote: Has to be said I don't ever recall any of the UKGW shops I've visited being in great locations, my local is in 'the charity shop zone' that most towns of a certain size seem to have
The next nearest (Exeter) isn't too bad as its sort of in the city centre but never seems to be that busy
That's because it's the wrong side of the magic line marked by the road going up by John Lewis. A mate of mine actually got injured stopping a mugging in the walk-through to the car park just next to where GW is now, that area goes downhill fast once you've moved away from the high street!
If you're in the business you probably know better than me.
For the Taunton one its in a shopping mall with a McDonalds, Subway, a children's toy shop and the biggest supermarket in the town. So, you've got kids going to the toy shop exposed to it, kids with parents walking past it into sainsburys, and teenagers spending all their time there when they want a fast food fix. Like I said, if you have personal experience there then fine. Seemed really busy when I walked past yesterday.
GW stores will attract GW customers. The issue is not people who are already interested, but attracting those who may be potentially interested. For this, the location sucks. It's the retail equivalent of trying to chat a girl up in a corridor at a party when she's either on her way to the kitchen to get a drink or has been to the kitchen and is trying to rejoin her friends. Being on a thoroughfare is not conducive to idle interest, and food outlets are a lousy measure of a location, people are either hungry, or going back to whatever they were doing before they got hungry, so you have the same issue.
I'm sure the guys that game there are very happy to have food and drink on the doorstep, but the original point was around GW stores as a marketing tool, and this location doesn't serve that purpose in any meaningful way. In fact, IIRC County Walk closes out of hours, so it wouldn't even serve as an advert 24/7 like a street side location would.
For the Bristol one, that's my regular and your conjecture isn't correct. It isn't in a shopping center it's a shop facing the street. It's on the main road to the train station from Broadmead, it's also right next to Saint Nick's market. A Starbucks has just opened two doors down, my experience is that Starbucks are built on busy streets too. All things combined it means loads of footfall goes past. That's why I thought them both good areas :-)
Ok, centre was the wrong word, arcade or precinct may have been more accurate, but cash4cheques don't open in premium, high cost locations.
Starbucks are everywhere I don't think one can take that as an indication of the location's quality. Either way, they probably aren't there to catch the consumer so much as the commuter I'd imagine (or perhaps there's a lot of offices nearby?) and not the sort of person a store acting as advertising is ever really going to impact.
Those were all reasons as to why it would be good for potential customers.
What, that they're all in locations where people have different priorities than actually buying stuff?
What priorities would you have being in a shopping center other than buying stuff? The point was their targetted demographics will be in that shopping center a lot.
Not really, I was utilizing a little known conversational ploy called 'sarcasm'.
Perhaps you have heard of it?
Like all publicly traded companies, the folks working for GW are required, by law, to give an accurate description of decisions that directly affect their profitability as a company.
Which is why that 30% is cause for concern - it is likely that those high street locations that you are touting are money pits, sucking pounds and pence from out of the corporate coffers.
So, please take the time to read the bloody things, hmm?
The Auld Grump
No need to use bad language. Go get some fresh air dude.
I take that to mean that you actually haven't read them, then?
Also, 'bad language', really?
Are you referring to 'sarcasm' or 'bloody'?
Either way, hardy the worst language you will find on this site.
If you are that easily offended, perhaps you need to take a deep breath yourself. You are being overly defensive.
When you find your opinion to be on the opposite side from most informed opinion then it is likely that your opinion is the one in the wrong, especially when the opposing opinions can look to documented support in the form of the company's own financial reports.
Informing your opinion is never a bad idea - I actually do recommend reading the past few reports. No sarcasm needed there.
It will also allow you to engage further than complaining about 'bad language'.
I rather suspect that the 2015-2016 report is going to be a mixed bag, with highs (Warhammer 30,000) and lows (Age of Sigmar) - with the end result being a slightly better RoI for this year.
From GW's PoV, WHFB was likely already being written off.
I hope that the return of the Specialist Games spurs new activity - they present a lower barrier in the form of entry costs.
But as for Age of Sigmar? It is a failure, but a failure likely offset by gains in another line of product.
Bottle wrote: It's my theory? When did I say anything such lol. I said that position exposes the store to their targetted demographic, children and teenagers, well.
Yes, unless you've actually sat there and counted people patronising the food places and then being drawn into the GW, when it wasn't their original intent to go in and they weren't already GW customers, you're just making assumptions.
County Walk is not a premier location, it will not expose the GW brand to the general public in a way that a premier location would, and therefore it is at a disadvantage if one is trying to argue that they're being used to advertise GW.
Even the basic theory that those other types of stores will draw the right people is shaky, as there are other places nearer to the town centre which are likely to attract the lions share of custom.
Either way, hardy the worst language you will find on this site.
There's a language filter on here so it is probably the worst language you can find on this site. I'm not offended, of course, it just highlights your lack of maturity in my opinion.
The rest of your post seems to be mistaking me for a GW white knight of sorts. I have already given my opinion in this thread as to what AoS lacks.
Azreal13 wrote:
Bottle wrote: It's my theory? When did I say anything such lol. I said that position exposes the store to their targetted demographic, children and teenagers, well.
Yes, unless you've actually sat there and counted people patronising the food places and then being drawn into the GW, when it wasn't their original intent to go in and they weren't already GW customers, you're just making assumptions.
A few posts ago I acknowledged that if you had personal experience of managing a failing store in that center then you know better than me. I was explaining why it seemed like a good area to me. Maybe we should stop here rather than dragging this out further.
Okay guys, let's step back from this tangent, please - whether a shop is in a "good" or "bad" location is somewhat subjective and has definitely been discussed enough, by now.
Also, please try to avoid quoting large blocks of text to add only a single sentence / few sentences reply, to keep the thread uncluttered.
Anyways. My point is only that I don't think that a bunch of ads anywhere will make a huge difference to the hobby at large. Most people who are interested in miniatures hobbies know where the very small number of stores are and seek out any stores that are within travelling range, and quickly become familiar with what they can buy locally. Then, it's not a huge leap for them to figure out what's available online. In a way, it's not much different from model trains. I have friends who are into that kind too, and it's just something you have an interest in and then hunt down, and either grow a passion for or abandon.
I find this part "Most people who are interested in miniatures hobbies know where the very small number of stores are and seek out any stores that are within travelling range" quite baffling. How could somebody know of miniature hobbies if they are not exposed to them in any way. Sure people who already know of all of this don't need ads but they should be aimed at other people who have no exposure to their games. This is a new product, you have to somehow announce and expose it to people. If I write the best novel ever I don't sell it by letting visitors look at it once in a while. I get it to a publisher or at least go the DIY self-publishing route. Do something and not just lean back in my rocking chair and declare it finished.
I got introduced to basic scale model stuff through a regular toy store when I was little, Heroquest and Star Quest (aka Space Crusade) through a friend (and advertisement) in first/third grade or something like that, and Warhammer through another friend who got an english WD when he was in England (at that time there was neither a German GW branch nor WD or rules). Without one or two lucky coincidences and advertisement I would have never know that all of this existed (and stopped with Heroquest). A lot of people were also introduced to all of this through the LotR bubble (and the non WD magazine that was produced at the time and had a listing of GW stores inside plus some free stuff) or the Dawn of War video games.
Even if we assume they wanted to get rid of all the grumpy veterans and replace them with completely new customers for AoS how would this random somebody know about "the hobby" if they don't advertise it? Nobody just wakes up one day thinking they need this hobby in their life. They don't know anything about this and they don't magically find the nearest store (google for "I want to glue stuff together, paint it, … and then play?"). Every time some outside product gets into contact with GW they get some exposure that benefits them but for some reason advertisement or marketing are anathema to GW. Introducing new customers shouldn't be left to some random process that is about as reliable as a conversion field generator if they are a $100/150 million revenue company. Especially if they relied on veterans (to some degree) to expand their customer base but then pushed a chunk of them away with AoS.
Focusing a lot of AoS while their main game has a little break/slowdown of releases and completely stopping production of the other game that at least gave them 10 to 20% of their revenue just seems kinda naive in my opinion. Like they rolled a D6 in real life because they didn't know how to solve that rules (or in this case financial) problem.
I find this part "Most people who are interested in miniatures hobbies know where the very small number of stores are and seek out any stores that are within travelling range" quite baffling. How could somebody know of miniature hobbies if they are not exposed to them in any way.
Again I can only talk about how the UK appears to work to me.
You won't find ads for almost any miniature game, outside of stuff that would require that you already know about that sort of stuff anyway. Games workshop stores are in all major towns, in fairly decent locations. It is somewhat hard to go through high school without being exposed to it some way via your peers. The sort of kids who might be into that sort of thing will probably be into other related stuff and come across it via those channels as well. Games workshop or Warhammer are just one of those things you come across growing up in the UK. Maybe it is because it is a UK company and has been here for 40 years, and is about the only place you can get those sort of models outside a handful of other shops spread across the country. If a random kid asked his dad about it there is a decent chance that his dad will have also heard of warhammer/GW even if he has never looked at it. It even appeared for many years that GW were the place parents left their kids whilst they went shopping.
Add in the computer games and you have further likely hood that teens are going to see something about GW, and if they like the computer games there is at least a good chance they will know who GW are and know where a store is if they live in any large town or bigger.
Will that change, well everything does over time, and maybe that will no longer hold true going forward, but for a long time GW appears to have just been part of growing up in the UK. Advertising may well help, but just as you need to overcome inertia to start with, once you have got going inertia can keep you going along for a while and that may be whats happens here.
In my area, it's not that different from yours, puree, except that there aren't GW stores everywhere There is one nice GW store that used to be in a major shopping center, and has since moved to across the road from another big shopping center -- but it's not in a location that would get a ton of traffic. There are hobby shops scattered throughout the metropolitan areas, but throughout the years, many have closed up shop.
Within the hobby realm, you have the shops that have gaming (PP, GW, Malifaux, XWing, etc), and then some that just have scale models, or not enough gaming to be worth mentioning.
It's pretty hard to grow up having *no* exposure to miniature wargames; that is, to not know that they exist; and at some point in one's childhood, there is a high likelihood of entering an hobby shops. Like I said, it's no different than model trains: it's nearly impossible to grow up not having *some* exposure to them, and if you marvel at them in wonderment and wish to build one yourself, you'll go and do the research to find out where to buy not only the trains, but all the paraphernalia that goes with it. There's no need for Woodland Scenics to advertise to you, because when you inevitably show up at the store, you'll see a wall of their stuff.
I'm sure there are people who are exposed to miniatures and gaming in different ways (like friends and word of mouth), but at the end of the day, here, it's just like in the UK - there is no mass advertisement for any miniature wargame that I can recall in memory, except in places where only people who are already wargamers and hobbyists would look anyways. I'm not sure if it would be effective in the mass media (where it's very expensive), because such a tiny percentage of the population is interested in it; to put it into perspective, Halo 5 -- a single $50 title -- will make more profit than all the miniature wargaming companies added up for the 5 year.
I only got into miniatures because my father was into model trains and the Rider's Hobby Shop he would get his stuff from carried most of the minis lines that were out in the early 90's, and they caught my eye one day when I was about 12, back in the heady days of 40k 2nd edition, and Mutant Chronicles. N3cromunda came out when I 2as in 7th grade.
None of my friends painted or played minis games other than if they were using my models and I was the only kid I know of all throughout all my years at school that did, either.
Those weren't the days of the internet, with easy accessible knowledge. I don't know how else I would have gotten into gaming, or if I stumbled across it despite my dad, how many years later that would have been.
@AegisGrimm - I got into the hobby because we had an AD&D play group (this was around Grade 4, and that group lasted for about 7+ years, which is pretty amazing at that age). At that time, I religiously bought every issue of Dragon magazine and White Dwarf. At some point in the late 80s, WD went from being a magazine about D&D supplements with Thrud the Barbarian in the back to being about Citadel models
How did I get into AD&D? I was in the shopping center, and there was a games shop, walked in, saw Gary Gygax stuff and it was love at first sight. Incidentally, I was interested in Ral Partha miniatures long before 40k, but the scale of interest was tiny relative to what it became once I saw Eldar, Space marines and Squats. ZOMG miss squats.
I saw an ad on TV for the LOTR magazine someone put out in partnership with GW. Had I not seen that I'd never have know the hobby exists and would never have been able to seek out any stores.
I bought my first Citadel miniature in 1979. I used it for D&D.
I'm a long time tabletop fantasy wargamer/roleplayer.
With AoS, I lost all interest in everything GW. The rules for 40K have been unbalanced for some time and after they Sigmarred WHFB, I figured it wouldn't be long before they did the same with 40K.
I played WHFB long before I ever got into 40K, too.
With so many choices that are, quite frankly, much less expensive, I see no reason to buy GW products simply because of the name. Yes, the miniatures are premium for the most part. So are Reaper, minis, IMO. The cost difference is the final hurdle.
RiTides wrote: whether a shop is in a "good" or "bad" location is somewhat subjective
I'm not going to continue the tangent, but as someone who has worked extensively on new shop placement at several UK retailers, the amount of data and historical experience that has been collected in the field makes it very much not "somewhat subjective" (only people's opinions of what the data would be if we could access it).
How many boys in the western world from about 1950 onwards did not have toy soldiers or at least cowboys and indians? These used to be easily available in toy shops and nowadays there are still various ranges of knights, Star Wars figures and so on.
That is the basic introduction to wargames with figures. You start by making up narrative games, and maybe later you introduce some simple rules with dice.
One day a relative gives you a copy of Military Modelling or a paperback book on 'proper' wargames.
In my area almost nobody playes AoS. But hardely anyone played WHFB anymore either, so AoS does not do worse really...
I play since 1990 and always liked 40k more.
The last 10 years WHFB went down hard in this area, from bigger then 40k in some areas to almost dissappearing.
I will not sell my WHFB armies, something will turn up later i time, another GW or non-GW-system. AoS is not my thing either.
I don't know if Age of Sigmar is failting though.
In the local GW stores the models sell, better then WHFB did.
And that matters more than if veteran players, that do not buy much, are happy or not.
And i am one of those veteran players.
If AoS fails, the plug will be pulled or, a new option, it will move to the "Specialist games" corner as well.
That is the same corner from which i expect a WHFB revival in about a year from now, earler would be too soon to let the AoS brand become self-sufficient.
Kilkrazy wrote: How many boys in the western world from about 1950 onwards did not have toy soldiers or at least cowboys and indians? These used to be easily available in toy shops and nowadays there are still various ranges of knights, Star Wars figures and so on.
That is the basic introduction to wargames with figures. You start by making up narrative games, and maybe later you introduce some simple rules with dice.
One day a relative gives you a copy of Military Modelling or a paperback book on 'proper' wargames.
Heck, the very first 'proper' wargame was played using toy soldiers. (H.G. Wells - Little Wars.)
And even as a Wee Grump I had a system for rolling dice to see whether a shot killed one of the plastic army men. (A very simple system - roll a d6, 5-6 remove the target. Bazookas got the guy that you hit and the guys in an area around him. (I used a paper plate as a template.) I forget how I handled tanks, but I remember that one tank equaled ten guys - the most rudimentary of points systems, where one Joe equaled 1 point.)
Kilkrazy wrote: How many boys in the western world from about 1950 onwards did not have toy soldiers or at least cowboys and indians? These used to be easily available in toy shops and nowadays there are still various ranges of knights, Star Wars figures and so on.
That is the basic introduction to wargames with figures. You start by making up narrative games, and maybe later you introduce some simple rules with dice.
One day a relative gives you a copy of Military Modelling or a paperback book on 'proper' wargames.
Heck, the very first 'proper' wargame was played using toy soldiers. (H.G. Wells - Little Wars.)
And even as a Wee Grump I had a system for rolling dice to see whether a shot killed one of the plastic army men. (A very simple system - roll a d6, 5-6 remove the target. Bazookas got the guy that you hit and the guys in an area around him. (I used a paper plate as a template.) I forget how I handled tanks, but I remember that one tank equaled ten guys - the most rudimentary of points systems, where one Joe equaled 1 point.)
The Auld Grump
Congratulations. This makes you more qualified than any of GW rules writers!
Kilkrazy wrote: How many boys in the western world from about 1950 onwards did not have toy soldiers or at least cowboys and indians? These used to be easily available in toy shops and nowadays there are still various ranges of knights, Star Wars figures and so on.
That is the basic introduction to wargames with figures. You start by making up narrative games, and maybe later you introduce some simple rules with dice.
One day a relative gives you a copy of Military Modelling or a paperback book on 'proper' wargames.
Heck, the very first 'proper' wargame was played using toy soldiers. (H.G. Wells - Little Wars.)
And even as a Wee Grump I had a system for rolling dice to see whether a shot killed one of the plastic army men. (A very simple system - roll a d6, 5-6 remove the target. Bazookas got the guy that you hit and the guys in an area around him. (I used a paper plate as a template.) I forget how I handled tanks, but I remember that one tank equaled ten guys - the most rudimentary of points systems, where one Joe equaled 1 point.)
The Auld Grump
Congratulations. This makes you more qualified than any of GW rules writers!
What, that clearly broken system. Anyone can see that bazooka spam is OP, not too mention that the rule is just far too vague, by RAW I can bring a big paper plate and rofl stomp you.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Congratulations. This makes you more qualified than any of GW rules writers!
What, that clearly broken system. Anyone can see that bazooka spam is OP, not too mention that the rule is just far too vague, by RAW I can bring a big paper plate and rofl stomp you.
I haven't been keeping as much of an eye on AOS lately since it does not appear to be a product that I am interested in, and I do not think that I am alone in this mindset. It's such a strange system that it would appear to have been cobbled together by a group of hedge fund managers attempting to make a game.
Blowing up the WHFB universe and replacing it with this multi-verse was the first big mistake. It destroyed most of the attachment people had to the previous universe and created some sort of infinite realm background that makes everything feel inconsequential. It's also lot more black and white, with the only big players really being Chaos vs Order (yes, I realize there are other forces). In that way it feels like AOS is tossing out the ubiquity Warhammer has always had over other games (through its wealth of factions) and transitioning backwards to only having a couple of pathways.
A lot of the destruction of the Old World seems to have been an attempt at trying to distance the game from its inspired roots. In that regard, it feels very forced. Shoving fantasy Space Marines into the game just made the game feel like more of a clone of 40k...and in that regard, why buy the same game twice?
Beyond the universe, the rules for the game seem bizarre. Without points- or more concisely, without solid balancing mechanism- games lose the feeling that you are working towards something. Whether it be refining an army or your play skill, there isn't really anywhere to rise up to. That's not to say it can't be a fun experience, but it is missing the key components necessary for a long-term game, or at the very minimum one that you'd want to keep investing in. And the cost of the new units certainly put that investing into serious question! Each new release is bigger and badder than the next, but I have to question why each of these new kits has to be as big as it is. Short of the miniatures just being larger, there doesn't feel like there is a ton of value to be had in these upsizings. Of course the miniatures coming with very high prices makes sense from a size perspective, but make you question the need to buy them beyond a collecting stand point.
I guess that's what AOS feels like overall- an attempt to shift a game primarily to the collecting perspective. That certainly isn't bad for those who are interested in that sort of experience, but I think that community pales in comparison to the gaming-focused side (even if they're just aspiring gamers). AOS doesn't look to be a game that will be successful in its current form by a wide stretch.
The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
We have got a little AoS group going here. We found out about it because the store that we buy Magic the Gathering from had a pile of them. It ended up being something a few of us picked up and we play it once or maybe twice a week. Warhammer Fantasy Battle and 40k for as long as I've played Magic... it must be ten years. But I've never given it a second look.
Why AoS? Well first, it had nice boxes. Don't know how to put it and it's embarrassing but the starter box really caught my eye, and the cover sold the book, so to speak. The Chaos models were really neat inside, even if I can't paint them worth a damn. The game played well using the models in the starter box, and then we just added to those, and eventually bought some other models to add to them. I don't think we would have ever even given the game a chance if they had a "points system". I like how it's like Magic, you just take what you want (sort of). And if it's too lopsided for one player, they just tone it down, like Magic.
Price? Let's be honest the starter box of AoS or anywhere from 1-3 boxes of other miniatures still cost less than a case of boosters for Magic. I think I spend more in one release of Magic the Gathering then I will spend in 3 years of Age of Sigmar.
Trina wrote: We have got a little AoS group going here. We found out about it because the store that we buy Magic the Gathering from had a pile of them. It ended up being something a few of us picked up and we play it once or maybe twice a week. Warhammer Fantasy Battle and 40k for as long as I've played Magic... it must be ten years. But I've never given it a second look.
Why AoS? Well first, it had nice boxes. Don't know how to put it and it's embarrassing but the starter box really caught my eye, and the cover sold the book, so to speak. The Chaos models were really neat inside, even if I can't paint them worth a damn. The game played well using the models in the starter box, and then we just added to those, and eventually bought some other models to add to them. I don't think we would have ever even given the game a chance if they had a "points system". I like how it's like Magic, you just take what you want (sort of). And if it's too lopsided for one player, they just tone it down, like Magic.
Price? Let's be honest the starter box of AoS or anywhere from 1-3 boxes of other miniatures still cost less than a case of boosters for Magic. I think I spend more in one release of Magic the Gathering then I will spend in 3 years of Age of Sigmar.
Very interesting perspective from exactly the type of person GW seems to be targeting. How come you're on this forum btw?
Kilkrazy wrote: The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
I dont know they are a 15 wound box, so quite resilient, I dont think you would need more than 1 box for AoS. Yes not cheap but hopefully not many are required in order to have an enjoyable diverse force.
Kilkrazy wrote: The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
I dont know they are a 15 wound box, so quite resilient, I dont think you would need more than 1 box for AoS. Yes not cheap but hopefully not many are required in order to have an enjoyable diverse force.
Edit: i guess i should have gone to N&R before responding...
i see what you are on about now, Killkrazy...
i prefer the box of Juggers:(...
especially since it is actually a box of six models, rather than three...
not that that qualifies it as cheap, but it does make it less of a joke...
the new plastic designs also save you a lot of hassle with assembly, with no more huge gaps and miscast parts, and increasing the ease of conversions...
i can live with 10 Squids a mini, especially considering how much cooler the current design is, and how much bigger they are compared to the original metal Jugger from the Realms of Chaos days...
hit up an online retailer for your 20% off, and you are good to go...
8 Squids per Jugger with a big Chaos Knight riding each one, and all in Jes Goodwin's great style, seems like a good purchase to me...
Trina wrote:Price? Let's be honest the starter box of AoS or anywhere from 1-3 boxes of other miniatures still cost less than a case of boosters for Magic. I think I spend more in one release of Magic the Gathering then I will spend in 3 years of Age of Sigmar.
Gotta be honest, from what I hear of Magic, I don't know if that's saying much. Coming from the other end, I could easily spend much less money on many more minis - especially with £100 Archaons and £60-for-3 cav floating around - and get as much or more enjoyment.
But I'd like to know more. What's the put-off of points systems? What's the difference in taking what you want (sort of) from a hypothetically balanced army list, themed around a faction or army?
From what I remember of that MTG starter I got ages ago, I have the feeling that 'faction' element might be the psychological disconnect between CCGs and TTWGs... But until I find it again to reread the rules so I look like less of a numpty, aren't certain cards restricted and the game somewhat self-levelling (i.e. you need certain numbers of lands, creatures, spells etc. most of the time) anyway?
And in AoS' case, if things are lopsided, who's the 'they' that fixes it?
I think you bring up an interesting point about certain similarities with CCGs, and GW making inroads with that audience. It'll be interesting to see how far they might get, and whether CCG players get a taste for other wargames. (For another what-I-remember-of-MTG moment, if you like the tactical aspects of setting up defences and attacks, rethinking your plans based on the other player's actions and successes, playing your hand at the right moment, and just general resource management, I think some non-AoS/40K wargames have the potential to be a pleasant surprise for you.)
I used to play Warhammer in 5th/6th/7th, and I'm put off by points now too. As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me. Speaking for myself, no points has given me a freedom and ease of entry that has made my hobbying go up ten fold. I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
coldgaming wrote: As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me.
Is that points-based games in particular, or 40K's 'special' take on points and chrome? And doesn't unbound alleviate that for you?
I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Not actually gaming, then.
What do you think about making units and armies that match the setting and background?
Kilkrazy wrote: The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
Exactly, people keep saying WHFB died due to cost (but part of that is down to the player base) and here we have a unit thats £60! Sod right off! I would much rather start a whole new system with £60 and probably end up with either a full force or the full bear bones of one for many other gaming systems out there.
coldgaming wrote: As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me.
Is that points-based games in particular, or 40K's 'special' take on points and chrome? And doesn't unbound alleviate that for you?
I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Not actually gaming, then.
What do you think about making units and armies that match the setting and background?
40k in particular, but in the same way as old Fantasy. 40k is just too messy looking to me to even get into. Also not a fan of formations.
Well, I still game with my minis, I just enjoy the points-less style. Not to say it's the only way to go. I love making armies in whatever way I see fit.
When I was a kid, I was very into the whole points thing and maxing out my armies and whatnot. I was more into the "game" part then. It's not what draws me to the hobby now though. Now I'm more into the hobby/narrative.
Kilkrazy wrote: The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
I dont know they are a 15 wound box, so quite resilient, I dont think you would need more than 1 box for AoS. Yes not cheap but hopefully not many are required in order to have an enjoyable diverse force.
You mean I need to strike them 15 times with a hammer in order to crush them? Well if that's true I'll admit GW plastics have truly come a long way and the price is justified
I have to admit that I am thinking about at least some of the Stormcast from the boxed set, as they are crazy dirt cheap on Ebay, but they would never, ever be for Age of Sigmar. Either a full super cost-effective Kings of War army if I can find aa local group, or for indie skirmish games like Song of Blades and Heroes or Rack & Ruin.
Kilkrazy wrote: The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
I dont know they are a 15 wound box, so quite resilient, I dont think you would need more than 1 box for AoS. Yes not cheap but hopefully not many are required in order to have an enjoyable diverse force.
You mean I need to strike them 15 times with a hammer in order to crush them? Well if that's true I'll admit GW plastics have truly come a long way and the price is justified
£60 buys me:
25 men and the rulebook for Bolt Action with a bit left over for some weapon teams.
A full starter set for Warmachine or Hordes, complete with all the rules, templates and two 25 - 30 point sized armies (Basically two armies that are just a couple of£5 blisters away from being complete).
A Warmachine or Hordes starter warband box and enough blisters and units to make it a complete army. The only thing missing being my templates.
A Darkage starter box and a couple of extra units.
Battletech.
An Infinity army.
For the same price as three average at best models I could start up on an entirely new system and either have a complete army or the start of one, hell in Battletech's case I have enough stuff to potentially get 26 people playing right from the start... Or 25 if I ban the use of the Timberwolf.
£60 is not just a little high, £60 is ludicrously expensive.
I can buy the entire Stormcast side of the starter set on Ebay, plus at the very least a box of the archers/crossbowmen, for the same price as three Chaos knights?
That makes me giggle. And hurt inside. It's horrible that GW still meets my expectations of them.
Kilkrazy wrote: The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
I dont know they are a 15 wound box, so quite resilient, I dont think you would need more than 1 box for AoS. Yes not cheap but hopefully not many are required in order to have an enjoyable diverse force.
You mean I need to strike them 15 times with a hammer in order to crush them? Well if that's true I'll admit GW plastics have truly come a long way and the price is justified
£60 buys me:
25 men and the rulebook for Bolt Action with a bit left over for some weapon teams.
A full starter set for Warmachine or Hordes, complete with all the rules, templates and two 25 - 30 point sized armies (Basically two armies that are just a couple of£5 blisters away from being complete).
A Warmachine or Hordes starter warband box and enough blisters and units to make it a complete army. The only thing missing being my templates.
A Darkage starter box and a couple of extra units.
Battletech.
An Infinity army.
For the same price as three average at best models I could start up on an entirely new system and either have a complete army or the start of one, hell in Battletech's case I have enough stuff to potentially get 26 people playing right from the start... Or 25 if I ban the use of the Timberwolf.
£60 is not just a little high, £60 is ludicrously expensive.
You could get a full size Infinity force with rules and army builder!
To puree, and Talys: It was quite easy to not know about that this stuff (like it is for all the stuff one doesn't know about). Model rail road stuff and Revell/Tamiya were sold in regular toy stores while hobby shops (with Magic/RPG/GW stuff) were off in side streets where you have to actively look for them (if you know that this stuff exists). Toy soldiers didn't lead in any way to miniature wargaming, they were just sold in toy stores like everything else (kinda like Lego, that also wouldn't lead naturally to wargaming even if one could make rules and use the figurines). Just because some regions have high miniature wargaming background radiation doesn't mean it works the same everywhere and the company just not being interested in expanding their reach in any significant way sounds strange. Don't they like money?
Does GW even advertise at all? I mean like in historic/military modeling magazine and not like Destiny/Time Square? Just some outreach beyond WD (or whatever it's called now). Or some related website (gunpla enthusiasts, toy collectors, even something related to board games or video games?). Even if they don't want to aim at a more general public they can't just assume that everyone who is interested already knows of them (in all adjacent niches). The few external collaborations have shown that there are enough people who don't know of them to even create a bubble (and some of these new fans even stuck around and are now part of the hobby). If I remember correctly they used to participate in toy/gaming conventions but that also seems to have dried up.
Now they have licensed their world to everyone for some video games (well, a third of them for a system that doesn't exist anymore) and most of them look like a way to get a quick licensing fee instead of expanding their reach. If they wanted to reach new customers with AoS then they should have done more to reach new people and if they just wanted to aim at their old customer base why create the New Coke of wargaming?
Mymearan wrote: Very interesting perspective from exactly the type of person GW seems to be targeting. How come you're on this forum btw?
I was introduced by a friend-of-a-friend who plays 40k. Now, I lurk the News section for Age of Sigmar releases And I lurk the P&M section looking at pretty models and wishing I could paint better. And reading the very useful tips and tricks as I try to improve beyond the point of totally embarrassing.
Vermis wrote:
Trina wrote:Price? Let's be honest the starter box of AoS or anywhere from 1-3 boxes of other miniatures still cost less than a case of boosters for Magic. I think I spend more in one release of Magic the Gathering then I will spend in 3 years of Age of Sigmar.
Gotta be honest, from what I hear of Magic, I don't know if that's saying much. Coming from the other end, I could easily spend much less money on many more minis - especially with £100 Archaons and £60-for-3 cav floating around - and get as much or more enjoyment.
But I'd like to know more. What's the put-off of points systems? What's the difference in taking what you want (sort of) from a hypothetically balanced army list, themed around a faction or army? From what I remember of that MTG starter I got ages ago, I have the feeling that 'faction' element might be the psychological disconnect between CCGs and TTWGs... But until I find it again to reread the rules so I look like less of a numpty, aren't certain cards restricted and the game somewhat self-levelling (i.e. you need certain numbers of lands, creatures, spells etc. most of the time) anyway? And in AoS' case, if things are lopsided, who's the 'they' that fixes it?
I think you bring up an interesting point about certain similarities with CCGs, and GW making inroads with that audience. It'll be interesting to see how far they might get, and whether CCG players get a taste for other wargames. (For another what-I-remember-of-MTG moment, if you like the tactical aspects of setting up defences and attacks, rethinking your plans based on the other player's actions and successes, playing your hand at the right moment, and just general resource management, I think some non-AoS/40K wargames have the potential to be a pleasant surprise for you.)
And welcome to Dakka.
Thank you for the warm welcome!
Really, people who stick around and get addicted to Magic fall into 3 categories: the ones who end up buying cases and cases of every new release so that they own everything, the ones that buy specific cards to get really powerful decks, and the ones who play pretty casually, and just do the best with what they have and buy stuff kind of occasionally. I like to think myself as the third group, but I probably buy more cards than I should if my head were screwed on right. Magic definitely isn't a cheap to love.
Oh, and anyone looking for "fair" or "balanced" in the world of Magic, it doesn't exist The game becomes more fair with one more booster, because surely there will be a card that will help you. And if not, there's always the promise of the next booster... and if you totally flop two cases later, there's always the next big release where everything becomes irrelevant anyways, and you can start all over, buying boosters! But that's ok, we love it all the same.
I'm not sure I'll ever buy that Archaon model, so it doesn't really bother me that it's pretty expensive. I guess maybe one day I might buy a bloodthirster, but, maybe, one, ever? So no big deal, if I want to put all that effort into building a model. For the time being, the whole game has cost me $200 or so, plus $100 in paint and paintbrushes. Maybe I'll buy something on Boxing Day, if there's a good sale going, but probably most of my spending money will go to Magic.... I don't see myself buying a lot more AoS stuff, even though we're having fun playing it.
Why no points? It might be easier for newbs to get into it or maybe it just gives the illusion of being easier to get started in. A sleight of hand that cracked the door open Heck, if we had a point-based game, we'd all have to figure out how many points we wanted to buy models for, and knowing us, we'd never get rolling.
Oh to close of this crazy long post, in Magic, we all have decks that aren't really balanced against each other. Once upon a time, we tried, but we long since gave up; there are people who just own way better cards than me, so c'est last vie if I lose against a better deck. Maybe they'll pull some punches or whatever but either way, it's still fun, even if I'm at a disadvantage. So when people say AoS armies aren't really balanced against each other or that it's hard to fine tune, well, it just bothers me... less, I guess.
Kilkrazy wrote: The latest kit for AoS is three cavalry for £60 British Pounds!
They are big Kaos Kavalry, but even so it's a bit of a joke, and reinforces the impression that ultimately AoS is not going to be a cheap alternative to WHFB but an expensive one.
I dont know they are a 15 wound box, so quite resilient, I dont think you would need more than 1 box for AoS. Yes not cheap but hopefully not many are required in order to have an enjoyable diverse force.
You mean I need to strike them 15 times with a hammer in order to crush them? Well if that's true I'll admit GW plastics have truly come a long way and the price is justified
£60 buys me:
25 men and the rulebook for Bolt Action with a bit left over for some weapon teams.
A full starter set for Warmachine or Hordes, complete with all the rules, templates and two 25 - 30 point sized armies (Basically two armies that are just a couple of£5 blisters away from being complete).
A Warmachine or Hordes starter warband box and enough blisters and units to make it a complete army. The only thing missing being my templates.
A Darkage starter box and a couple of extra units.
Battletech.
An Infinity army.
For the same price as three average at best models I could start up on an entirely new system and either have a complete army or the start of one, hell in Battletech's case I have enough stuff to potentially get 26 people playing right from the start... Or 25 if I ban the use of the Timberwolf.
£60 is not just a little high, £60 is ludicrously expensive.
I could also buy 120 models from Perry miniatures. For three models.
Allow me to clear up a few things as im a regular player of AoS and am planning to run events in the upcoming year for our club.
As with most reports our group has some "cooling" interest as well,and some have moved on to play other games for now,but a few others are coming back for a game now and then.Many are taking a "wait and see" approach to see how their favored factions releases are handled.
Theres also players who are simply content with getting the new models painted,working on collecting and wanting a game every few months or so.
Its a slow growth thing that will likely never garner the level of high comp tournament play that 40k has and WHFB did have.But this doesn't mean that players don't want events,it just means the events are more fun/fluff oriented but could certainly still have solid prize support for certain achievements reached...things along those lines.
When the game came out we were all in on the "It needs points" thing and even had a club comp system in the works
We are actually moving away from that now and are finding that using the published Battleplans along with an equal wound count to be quite balanced,we usually restrict Hero/monster and WM scrolls and have a warscroll limit but that's pretty much it.
Example
100 wnds
1-3 Hero,0-3monster,0-3 WM max 10 WS No more than one each named hero/monster
All forces need to be from the same faction.
Simple summoning rules-need to have the scroll in your army to summon them(in the total listed above) then summoned models count toward casualties when they are summoned(as per rules).Ive played my Nagash a few times in this 100 wnd format and there was no problem at all..actually lost to a Glottkin/Nurgles deluge list ,great fight though.
Simple and makes for a 1.5 -2.5 hr battle.Also makes it easy if you have an odd number of players or even use teams
The key to making AoS work is using the published Battleplans(scenarios) Adding in the Time of War rules for the different realms adds a very fun aspect to the games.
And anyone who claims it to be totally void of any tactics or strategy simply has not played the game or just have not given it a fair shot using a battleplan,It is no more or less of a wargame than 40k is,it doesn't have all the convoluted layers of special rules/exceptions to keep track of that 40k has but that doesn't mean its a "simpleton" game.For many of us that enjoy it,that is a selling point...easy to play but much more to it to master.
Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
I could also buy 120 models from Perry miniatures. For three models.
By that logic, I could go to Amazon and buy 200 WWII Army Men Action Figures (plastic toy soldiers), including banners for the USA, UK, Germany, and Japan and a carrying case (bucket) for just $18.95. Shipped to your home. They're even in all sorts of dynamic poses, and I bet if you spent 10 hours each painting and basing them, they'd even look pretty decent from tabletop distance. They're even 2 inches tall, and out of 169 reviews customers rate them 4.8 out of 5 stars.
Essentially, hobby pricing, whether it's Bolt Action or 40k or AoS, comes down to what's the maximum that largest group of people who really, really like this specific toy soldier are willing to pay? That's what the price of the model will be set at.
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
Ummm, yeah... The reason you give for KoW not being mass battle is one of the reason WHFB wasn't really a mass battle game. Most mass battle games treat infantry and most smaller model units like KoW. Not the other way around.
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
That's... kinda the point of a mass battle game, you shouldn't have individual models. Even under 8th ed WHFB was really just a HUGE skirmish game.
I could also buy 120 models from Perry miniatures. For three models.
By that logic, I could go to Amazon and buy 200 WWII Army Men Action Figures (plastic toy soldiers), including banners for the USA, UK, Germany, and Japan and a carrying case (bucket) for just $18.95. Shipped to your home. They're even in all sorts of dynamic poses, and I bet if you spent 10 hours each painting and basing them, they'd even look pretty decent from tabletop distance. They're even 2 inches tall, and out of 169 reviews customers rate them 4.8 out of 5 stars.
Essentially, hobby pricing, whether it's Bolt Action or 40k or AoS, comes down to what's the maximum that largest group of people who really, really like this specific toy soldier are willing to pay? That's what the price of the model will be set at.
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
Ummm, yeah... The reason you give for KoW not being mass battle is one of the reason WHFB wasn't really a mass battle game. Most mass battle games treat infantry and most smaller model units like KoW. Not the other way around.
And yep, pretty much. I can't even think of a mass battle game that treats each model as a single unit. Just imagine controlling hundreds (maybe even thousands) of troops and you have to move each and every single one of them. One turn would last forever.
I could also buy 120 models from Perry miniatures. For three models.
By that logic, I could go to Amazon and buy 200 WWII Army Men Action Figures....
No, that's not the same logic at all. Perry miniatures are high quality plastics and metals designed for wargaming, not cheaply made soft plastic army men.
I've seen a few comments about AOS being the main game due to the statue at Warhammer HQ in Nottingham. I visited the place less than a month ago and I can say that there is no statue in sight now
200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
I could also buy 120 models from Perry miniatures. For three models.
By that logic, I could go to Amazon and buy 200 WWII Army Men Action Figures (plastic toy soldiers), including banners for the USA, UK, Germany, and Japan and a carrying case (bucket) for just $18.95. Shipped to your home. They're even in all sorts of dynamic poses, and I bet if you spent 10 hours each painting and basing them, they'd even look pretty decent from tabletop distance. They're even 2 inches tall, and out of 169 reviews customers rate them 4.8 out of 5 stars.
Essentially, hobby pricing, whether it's Bolt Action or 40k or AoS, comes down to what's the maximum that largest group of people who really, really like this specific toy soldier are willing to pay? That's what the price of the model will be set at.
For three GW miniatures NOW you could buy about 40 (aka a Chaos battalion) or 15 (3 boxes of chaos knights, which perfectly fit what these are meant to be - Archaon's Sword of Chaos) a couple of years ago. So what you're saying is that right now there are more people willing to pay more cash for less miniatures in AoS's target customers and that this is GW working as intended?
Welp, I guess it fits with the dying base of AoS. The few that resist are true fanatics and white knights that have the will - and the desire to dump their huge income of cash - to defend and support the brand to its final twitches.
I've skipped most of this thread because I can only watch Talys run up and down the field with the goalposts in hand before I get exhausted, but I do have one thing to ask:
Do we actually know that it's failing? What hard data is there to show that it's failing?
I ask because without that information the entire conversation comes down to perception, and really that's not worth a great deal.
[EDIT]: And to the people defending the AUD$170 box'o'3 knights, get a grip. That is a ludicrous price. No amount of mental gymnastics, goal-post moving, false equivalencies and cognitive dissonance is ever going to justify that price.
What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
We would be wise not tot forget the BaC box and its astounding success.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
To clarify, I was told specifically WHFB/AoS, not overall.
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
Ummm, yeah... The reason you give for KoW not being mass battle is one of the reason WHFB wasn't really a mass battle game. Most mass battle games treat infantry and most smaller model units like KoW. Not the other way around.
+1
Napoleonics games that work on a unit over model basis aren't mass battle games? Puh-lease.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
We would be wise not tot forget the BaC box and its astounding success.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
To clarify, I was told specifically WHFB/AoS, not overall.
Ah, ok. So compared to WHFB numbers then? With the lack of 40k releases for a while, it should still be interesting to see the interim report.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
To clarify, I was told specifically WHFB/AoS, not overall.
So that's box sets and panic buying, followed by tumbleweed?
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
To clarify, I was told specifically WHFB/AoS, not overall.
So that's box sets and panic buying, followed by tumbleweed?
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
Assuming that's correct, that would mean that Eldar, Space Marines and AOS release combine for a great success, while AOS on its own is a disaster.
Considering GW have rolled out 3 out of 4 of their 40k heavy hitters in this financial period (Eldar, Tau, SM, lacking an edition change), I'd expect moderate growth. Devation from that would be a god pointer to AOS's success.
In the past three years GW have released all of their 40K heavy hitters including SMs, Tau, and a new edition rulebook, multiple times, and registered sales decline year on year. There's no reason to expect things to have changed recently, so to be honest I would expect further decline in January's mid-year report.
If we see a sales increase in the January mid-year report, it presumably would signal a massive success for AoS.
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
Mask the lack of AoS sales from who? People on dakka? It's not like they can hide it from themselves which is what matters the most to their decision making. Even if they fool us into thinking AoS is doing well, so what? Most aren't going to buy it anyway because it's a terrible game that deserves to die (regardless of sales)
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
Mask the lack of AoS sales from who? People on dakka? It's not like they can hide it from themselves which is what matters the most to their decision making. Even if they fool us into thinking AoS is doing well, so what? Most aren't going to buy it anyway because it's a terrible game that deserves to die (regardless of sales)
All they need to do is keep the rot from being seen by the investors. Those are the people they really need to mask the decline from. Do remember that the majority of investors have zero to no knowledge of the community (or desire to know of it) They care about numbers, and that's what GW is trying to do.
What solid Information we have worldwide is from independents who report less sales than WHFB or no sales at all, everything else are assumptions, speaking for my country the story is less sales or no sales.
We can assume that the range has failed, but we do not know what targets GW has set for the range and what demographic they want to have, so we assume the AOS to be a replacement of WHFB and set to the same standards when this may not be true.
For example GW may have in their plan to have just 40kAOS be in the place of LOTR/Hobbit and create specialists games to fill the gap that has been created by the fall of WHFB as the second core game.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
Mask the lack of AoS sales from who? People on dakka? It's not like they can hide it from themselves which is what matters the most to their decision making. Even if they fool us into thinking AoS is doing well, so what? Most aren't going to buy it anyway because it's a terrible game that deserves to die (regardless of sales)
All they need to do is keep the rot from being seen by the investors. Those are the people they really need to mask the decline from. Do remember that the majority of investors have zero to no knowledge of the community (or desire to know of it) They care about numbers, and that's what GW is trying to do.
Exactly, the absolute most critical thing for GW to do is to avoid posting a loss in their annual reports. A small increase in profits is good, a small decline is alright if you've got a plan, but a large decrease would be disasterous. If BaC has managed to cancel out the AoS flop (double digit drop) then they might get away with it for another year.
If GW start losing money, the stock value will tank as everyone tries to get out, and that'll be an utter disaster for Kirby (6.7%? of stock)
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
That's how most historical games work, too. Arguably it's better because it means you can buy a box of 20 guys and build like 5 units (Put four guys per "unit" to represent them) instead of having only one, and also it means you can do diorama type bases (also common in historical wargaming). I don't see it as a bad thing, honestly.
Minijack wrote: Now it seems that there is still a lot of comparing KoW to AoS going on.I play KoW and I love the movement aspects that it captures from what WHFB was..but lets be honest here,KoW is NOT a mass fantasy army game.Actually I would say KoW uses far less miniatures than many skirmish games mainly due to the fact that you only have your models on the movement trays to represent the units size.I mean you could just place one model on each tray and as long as the tray is the proper size it would work to represent just fine...I don't do that of course and I know most wouldn't even considrer it.But seriously ,KoW is just battling movement trays with each side having from 8-14 or so units(movement trays) to fight with...
That's how most historical games work, too. Arguably it's better because it means you can buy a box of 20 guys and build like 5 units (Put four guys per "unit" to represent them) instead of having only one, and also it means you can do diorama type bases (also common in historical wargaming). I don't see it as a bad thing, honestly.
It's also a big distinction between the "game" portion and the model-dress-up portion. I rather have a solid game and have the models be a bit more abstract than have a terrible game that focuses on every single model.
I think it's just an artefact of how GW has always done it for 28mm scales - done differently is just wrong to people who grew up with GW. I mean, no-one complained about it in Warmasted, BoFA, or Epic, did they?
Units as units rather than individual characters makes sense for most mass battle games particularly in smaller scales, for at least as long as GW has been around.
I'd hate to have to play something like ancients or Napoleonics in 6mm with individual figure removal. It'd be home time before you've ranked all the little blighters up.
So basically starter set sold well, followed by Stormcast and Bloodbound that no one really cared about. Still a welcome surprise that it sold so well in the beginning. Not entirely unexpected... Let's hope that the dwarves early 2016 can really get the ball rolling for AoS. I'm hopeful that sales will start to pick up once older races get revamped, as long as they keep a good pace for releases (ie not like they've been doing until now).
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
You know what would really have been brilliant? Releasing a fantasy game that people wanted to buy instead of AoS.
I find the notion of GW planning their releases so as to mask bad selling products with good ones to be pretty ludicrous. Why would they release AoS at all if they expected it to be such a big flop that BaC was needed to cover the losses?
As someone who bought into AoS for the models (Yes, I like Bloodbound and all the skulls) and wasn't too worried about the rules the prices for the new releases have gotten a bit ridiculous.
I'm still happy with what I bought and had fun painting them but with the prices of the new models I'd rather buy something else than expand my AoS collection.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
I disagree his reasoning is sound and frankly I do not care if the ridiculous price flows to all other GW products, my objection is on the significant part, I disagree that there is a significant part of the market that can support GW on this price and the falling sales maybe supports that, I also disagree on the focus on models, GW despite what they may think say or want people to believe sell a wargame, the question is not if the buyer finds the price of the models right, but if he finds the whole package justifiable to have this cost.
I feel the critical mass of sustaining GW with their current philosophy is not obtainable and their back you plan is to exert the current mass for more to cover the gap, this will inevitably make more people leave and put more stress to those remaining, at what point the pressure is unsustainable and the whole thing breaks apart I do not know, but, the fact they have given everything the fans wanted and GW denied (except Squats) in the past two years including the imminent rebirth of specialist games is a worrying sign.
One can say they are turning face, but to be honest given their background it seems like a sign of not desperation, but lack of ideas, maybe their only "novel idea" AOS failed or they thing it failed and try everything that was successful in the past.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
I disagree his reasoning is sound and frankly I do not care if the ridiculous price flows to all other GW products, my objection is on the significant part, I disagree that there is a significant part of the market that can support GW on this price and the falling sales maybe supports that, I also disagree on the focus on models, GW despite what they may think say or want people to believe sell a wargame, the question is not if the buyer finds the price of the models right, but if he finds the whole package justifiable to have this cost.
I feel the critical mass of sustaining GW with their current philosophy is not obtainable and their back you plan is to exert the current mass for more to cover the gap, this will inevitably make more people leave and put more stress to those remaining, at what point the pressure is unsustainable and the whole thing breaks apart I do not know, but, the fact they have given everything the fans wanted and GW denied (except Squats) in the past two years including the imminent rebirth of specialist games is a worrying sign.
One can say they are turning face, but to be honest given their background it seems like a sign of not desperation, but lack of ideas, maybe their only "novel idea" AOS failed or they thing it failed and try everything that was successful in the past.
IMHO if AOS was actually a "novel idea" then it shows outright incompetence and bankruptcy in ideas. Okay, I get that the rules are relatively simple. I get that the idea behind no points is to try and imitate (poorly IMHO) how many historical games work, which often don't have points either and leave it up to you and your opponent to decide the reason for the battle, what the forces were, and the objectives of each side. I get that. Just I feel it's stupid to do that in the way that GW does it, along with everything else they do (e.g. poor rules in general, not just unbalanced ones) and the idea it's literally play whatever you want, as many as you want, GG have fun. That's not even poor game design, that's basically no game design whatsoever.
Herzlos wrote: I think if sales are up, it'll be a massive success of BaC, not AoS.
It was a brilliant move launching AoS and BaC in the same quarter, because we'll never be able to split them out. Desperate, but brilliant.
Hopefully they can push Blood Bowl out next year to mask the performance of AoS there too.
You know what would really have been brilliant? Releasing a fantasy game that people wanted to buy instead of AoS.
Definitely, but this is GW we're talking about.
I find the notion of GW planning their releases so as to mask bad selling products with good ones to be pretty ludicrous. Why would they release AoS at all if they expected it to be such a big flop that BaC was needed to cover the losses?
I don't think they planned for GW to be a flop; I think BaC was probably scheduled to come out next year to shore up the final year results, but has been brought forward after AoS tanked. Internal gossip says sales were good for 2 months, then fell off a cliff. 3 month lead time for WD fits in perfectly with that. If they'd dropped it in the other half, it'd be pretty obvious that the drop is due to AoS and the spike is due to BaC.
I honestly believe GW expected AoS to be huge, and are now flapping about in a panic trying to decide what to do; bringing forward BaC and announcing a new Specialist Games division, "Black Friday" bundles, and so on.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
That's all very pretty, Talys, but you're failing to see how the absurdity of the pricing is spreading from FW to GW. Soon enough ALL GW products will be priced just like FW's, because GW will keep pushing the prices due to the people who will blow a thousand bucks on a model without thinking twice. They are (dangerously) assuming everyone is like this.
I disagree his reasoning is sound and frankly I do not care if the ridiculous price flows to all other GW products, my objection is on the significant part, I disagree that there is a significant part of the market that can support GW on this price and the falling sales maybe supports that, I also disagree on the focus on models, GW despite what they may think say or want people to believe sell a wargame, the question is not if the buyer finds the price of the models right, but if he finds the whole package justifiable to have this cost.
I feel the critical mass of sustaining GW with their current philosophy is not obtainable and their back you plan is to exert the current mass for more to cover the gap, this will inevitably make more people leave and put more stress to those remaining, at what point the pressure is unsustainable and the whole thing breaks apart I do not know, but, the fact they have given everything the fans wanted and GW denied (except Squats) in the past two years including the imminent rebirth of specialist games is a worrying sign.
One can say they are turning face, but to be honest given their background it seems like a sign of not desperation, but lack of ideas, maybe their only "novel idea" AOS failed or they thing it failed and try everything that was successful in the past.
I may be reading it wrongly but, with all due respect, I can't get the sense of what you're getting at. I really can't.
From what I can tell after seeing multiple threads about this same topic, it simply wasn't what fans wanted, and to a lot of people it seemed like GW really didn't care about rules whatsoever. GW has yet to figure out that the models and rules go hand-in-hand, and unless they want to lose a large chunk of their customers by completely discontinuing all of their rule books and codices, they need to step up their game.
Of course, they've needed to do that for the last 5 years, but hey.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Anything more than that is just a question of how much you love the models and how much you're willing to pay for a 2 inch tall piece of plastic/resin/metal. They're obviously not all the same -- or equivalent -- because SOME people will pay much more for a Primach than a Victoria Haley than a generic Perry soldier than a handful of Army Men. how much do you love Garro? $50 worth? $100?
Anyways, my point is that the guy who is going to spend $80 or whatever on Garro or $100 for 3 knights exists and you might feel that he's being silly because there are other cheaper miniatures, but unless your talking about pennies each, there are ALWAYS cheaper miniatures. But if it's not what someone wants, it's worth nothing at all to them. If it's what the buyer wants and it's expensive, the only question is, is it worth it, and FW has proven that there are people who will blow a thousand bucks on a mpdel without thinking twice. I understand that it annoys some people to no end that there is a significant market for, relatively, very expensive models, because so long as that market exists, there is no incentive to lower prices, and every incentive to test the upper limits of that market.
But hey, that's the world we live in, man. It's no different than anything else... people want to make money where they can, and generally speaking as much of it as possible for as little work as possible.
There's obviously a middle ground, both in the sense of milking a product for its maximum profit margin per unit and also in terms of expecting your customers to actually pay it.
Army men aren't cheap for no reason, they are cheap to make as well. On the other side, Tamiya sells aircraft kits that are around $150, I think the Mosquito is about $250. But people don't complain because aside from being large you get 10+ sprues, photo etch parts, removable magnetised panels showing a detailed interior, engine bay, wheel wells, gun bays, etc, 500+ parts, metal bolts, shafts, nuts where appropriate, pre-cut masking sheets for canopies, movable control surfaces, optional flying stand and they come with full colour reference booklets (12 to 16 pages).
Point being, they aren't just expensive because that's what people are willing to pay, they're expensive because you actually get a crap ton of cool stuff in the box. I have heard people comment on the high price of the 1:32 Tamiya range, but it only takes a quick look at what comes in the box and the response changes from "that's expensive" to "that's awesome".
It's an insult to Perry miniatures when you say "By the same logic....army men" because Perry produce quality wargaming models that are simply good value. They may not sell the big flashy monster kits but that's simply because it doesn't match their business.
When GW comes along and releases kits that are $30-50 per sprue and they aren't even very large sprues they rightfully attract scorn.
Herzlos wrote: I think it's just an artefact of how GW has always done it for 28mm scales - done differently is just wrong to people who grew up with GW.
This. The ubiquity of GW, the whole culture of "there are no games, rules or minis but GW's games, rules and minis", the slow growth of Warhammer from a skirmish/warband game to a - as mentioned - big skirmish/warband game... it has people convinced up is down and black is white, because they don't know any other games.
I mean, no-one complained about it in Warmasted, BoFA, or Epic, did they?
I would guess that they did, but then quietly went back to same-old Warhammer, LotR, and 40K. Barring Epic's heyday as the third core game, I'd hazard they were viewed by a lot of gamers as mild distractions, sideshows to the 'real' games. Y'know - the way AoS might have been widely accepted. "A unit manoeuvring and acting as one cohesive, gestalt... what's the right word... unit? It's unnatural!"
I'd hate to have to play something like ancients or Napoleonics in 6mm with individual figure removal. It'd be home time before you've ranked all the little blighters up.
At points like this I like to trot out a friend's anecdote: he and another guy set up a game of Epic:A at a club, next to a table where others were setting up a game of 40K Apocalypse. The game of Epic was played and over before the other table had finished turn one.
I genuinely never understood 40K Apocalypse as a game. As a way to drop cool stuff on the table and talk smack for 4 hours, fine, but from the games I've seen there's no real game as such, just a lot of set up (about 3-4x the table space dedicated to storing stuff than playing) and then that's it..
There's just no room to do anything that isn't move forward and shoot at nearest target.
Gw's pricing absurdity is not so absurd they have a mass of people who buy their products in always increasing prices and they push for that instead of trying to expand their customer base by making the product more accessible.
He believes the segment of consumers willing to buy models from GW under these terms is significant, I disagree and believe the critical mass of sustaining them is beyond the ever shrinking customer base capabilities and the ever increasing prices just make more to leave and puts more pressure on the customers who remain.
AOS seem to be a "novel idea" to address this issue, I think it failed (or better I have indications that make me think it failed) because the problems were not correctly diagnosed and the direction they took was not the one their wider potential consumer base wanted, I have novel in quotes because I think it is novel for them and their past history, not because it is really novel, moves after the release of AOS show a company who historically denied certain things to their consumer base keeping them as "aces up their sleeve" to give in and release them to the consumers in a very short time frame.
This is a worrying thing for the casual observer, especially if you read the small notes, Specialist Games want designers who can throw a game system fast, as if they are in a hurry to a finish line.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
So the answer is "Maybe?".
As I said, that's not all that helpful. This conversation would be better had after the next financial results. Until then it's so much bluster over scattered, second-hand anecdotal information.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
So the answer is "Maybe?".
As I said, that's not all that helpful. This conversation would be better had after the next financial results. Until then it's so much bluster over scattered, second-hand anecdotal information.
If those numbers are for AoS only then the financial report won't help either, since it'll be buoyed by 30/40k. I'm guessing they will be very taciturn when describing AoS sales, something like "we're pleased with the reception blaha blaha" and no hard numbers. So when will we know? In a couple of years I guess, when they either drop AoS or don't
WayneTheGame wrote:I get that the idea behind no points is to try and imitate (poorly IMHO) how many historical games work, which often don't have points either and leave it up to you and your opponent to decide the reason for the battle, what the forces were, and the objectives of each side.
It's my understanding that a lot of pointsless historical games are played out according to carefully researched orders of battle and terrain. Very specific scenarios, if you will. Exploring significant wars, battles and events that decided the course of a country's history and culture, if not the world. Maybe even relating to the circumstances, decisions and fate of those for whom it wasn't a game.
On a lighter note, I'm reminded of the grand debut of the Black Powder/Hail Caesar/Pike & Shotte trio, proudly wearing their no-points status on their sleeves. Boy did the reaction make WG hurry out a few sets of points lists.
Vermis wrote: It's my understanding that a lot of pointsless historical games are played out according to carefully researched orders of battle and terrain. Very specific scenarios, if you will. Exploring significant wars, battles and events that decided the course of a country's history and culture, if not the world. Maybe even relating to the circumstances, decisions and fate of those for whom it wasn't a game.
On a lighter note, I'm reminded of the grand debut of the Black Powder/Hail Caesar/Pike & Shotte trio, proudly wearing their no-points status on their sleeves. Boy did the reaction make WG hurry out a few sets of points lists.
How does AoS compare, so far?
We do a lot of pointsless historical games but only about half the time do we use specific scenarios, They're a lot of work. The other half of the time we just dump stuff on the table and hope for the best.
Baragash wrote: What I've been told 3rd hand on the ex-employee grapevine isn't "hard data", but the YoY I was quoted was double-digit positive for the first two months then double-digit negative after that.
So the answer is "Maybe?".
As I said, that's not all that helpful. This conversation would be better had after the next financial results. Until then it's so much bluster over scattered, second-hand anecdotal information.
Not really. Based on the numbers I have for WHFB and AoS, the YoY deficit of AoS would not be material to the overall financial performance - so if there is a bad revenue position in the next report, people are going to get hung up on AoS doing badly when actually the majority of it will be driven by 40k.
But yeah, the only way you'll get official confirmation of the state of AoS is by how GW change the positioning and marketing of the game in the future.
Mymearan wrote: So basically starter set sold well, followed by Stormcast and Bloodbound that no one really cared about. Still a welcome surprise that it sold so well in the beginning. Not entirely unexpected... Let's hope that the dwarves early 2016 can really get the ball rolling for AoS. I'm hopeful that sales will start to pick up once older races get revamped, as long as they keep a good pace for releases (ie not like they've been doing until now).
5 six-footed-tall Dwaerphians for 50€. Can't wait.
Oh, and anyone looking for "fair" or "balanced" in the world of Magic, it doesn't exist The game becomes more fair with one more booster, because surely there will be a card that will help you. And if not, there's always the promise of the next booster... and if you totally flop two cases later, there's always the next big release where everything becomes irrelevant anyways, and you can start all over, buying boosters! But that's ok, we love it all the same.
Okay then. Thanks for the insights. And if you thought your post was long:
For our part, the complaints about a £100 Archaon that we'll never own anyway, are just another symptom of the fact that a lot of us are still hooked on GW to some extent. We enjoyed the games, the models, meeting up in the stores, the game world...
Strewth, the game world started off and developed as a generic pastiche of Tolkien, Moorcock, Leiber and other fantasy authors, mixed up with a liberal helping of real-world cultures and folklore; and as goofy as some bits turned out, it can't be denied that they made it their own, and made it deep, expansive, compelling and addictive. Even when other factors of the game and the company put people off, the setting, the lore - or for us older grognards, the 'fluff' - is almost always cited as the thing that keeps them in, or at least the thing they still like.
(I'm gearing up for Dragon Rampant - an upcoming 'big skirmish' fantasy game that allows any minis and any setting - along with a lot of other gamers. You could easily use it to play games set in very popular, well-known worlds like Middle-Earth or Westeros, and I plan to, but at the mo they don't get a look-in compared to all the possible warbands and retinues set in the old Warhammer World, spinning in my head.)
Unfortunately there are a lot of those factors of the game and company that put people off. The rules changed every few years, on a game and army level (though some armies were deprived of updates to bring them in line with new editions), but rarely to include objective improvements so much as seeming change for the sake of change, to make people buy the latest or newly-effective minis, and bigger armies. I guess that might not be so different to MtG... (and I think it's natural to gravitate away from Warhammer's style of rules anyway, but that's another matter)
The minis became more and more expensive, even despite changes from metal to ostensibly cheaper materials like injected polystyrene and 'finecast' resin, 'til they passed the threshold for too many people. (Finecast is a trigger word among GW spectators. Watch this.)
FINECAST
Anyway, as mentioned, from a wargaming perspective: newer, less experienced companies can sell plastic kits for 50p-£1 per infantry figure, compared to some of GW's kits at £3.50+ per figure. Heck, some of GW's plastic minis cost more than other, smaller companies' 'expensive' metal miniatures. The increasing price of bigger, deadlier-rules, centrepiece models can only make some of us shake our heads.
Meeting up in the stores... well, has a WotC employee ever told you to clear out of your regular MtG night and stay away, so other people can come in to buy boosters? (But that's nothing compared to how they treat smaller mini companies, retailers, and people who dare to write novellas containing the words 'space' and 'marine'.)
So all the bad bits piled up, and grew, and people quit. But there's still something there, still an emotional connection. Although we are talking about a business and this comparison is hyperbolic, it's like watching a good friend turn into a meth addict. You can walk away for your own good if they won't listen, but it's not so easy to shut down cold, and you hope they can recognise their self-destructive behaviour and turn it around, and the good times will return. As you say, we love it all the same.
AoS was probably one of the biggest acts of self-destruction yet, in the view of a lot of people. The previous edition, Warhammer 8th, turned off a lot of gamers for the sheer size and cost of armies needed, among other things. When rumours of a new edition or game with smaller start-up requirements started circulating, folk were optimistic, or at least interested. Even those of us who walked away before 8th ed. It sounded like a step in the right direction. The good times might be returning. But when more rumours and the game itself arrived, it was like a disaster.
Smaller model requirements? A good thing. But in the course of doing that they ripped out almost everything else too. The main rules, the block-manoeuvre mechanics, the means to organise a theoretically balanced, even-sided game. The Warhammer World, and it's decades of built-up history, probably the single biggest draw of the game, were blown up. Just scrapped, in an orgy of spending on 'End Times' books and models. And by extension causing the slow death of the existing factions and players' model collections, within the new game. The replacement background and it's minis, so far, are as deep as a puddle in comparison.
Remember the nerdrage over the Star Wars prequels? Imagine if George Lucas hadn't gone back in time, but instead said "That galaxy far, far away blew up. Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie, they're all dead. The Rebel Alliance is dead. The Empire is gone. It was all for nothing. So here's the new Star Wars: six hours of Gungans and Nemoidians shooting at eachother with catapults! Check that crazy JarJar!"
It was an almost unbelievable moment of (conscious?) alienation of Warhammer's existing fanbase, which includes us 'haters', waiting in the wings, who wouldn't show up on GW's sales sheet. While there are people who like AoS, old fans and newcomers alike, it's just too different to what went before and what most old fans wanted. A big chunk of hardcore GW fans, a set who can be notoriously contemptuous of other games, jumped to Kings of War. If you're not familiar with GW history and culture, it might be difficult to grasp how significant and unprecedented that is. (Other games like Warmachine, Infinity etc. have been chipping away at GW's market, but there hasn't been a single exodus like this, AFAIK)
With most of GW's main advertising route - word of mouth by fans - now working against it's latest fantasy iteration, and anecdotes of people staying away in droves, it's difficult to see if AoS fans can pick up the slack and make it work. For some of us it's difficult to see if it deserves to work.
Kilkrazy wrote: How many boys in the western world from about 1950 onwards did not have toy soldiers or at least cowboys and indians? These used to be easily available in toy shops and nowadays there are still various ranges of knights, Star Wars figures and so on.
That is the basic introduction to wargames with figures. You start by making up narrative games, and maybe later you introduce some simple rules with dice.
One day a relative gives you a copy of Military Modelling or a paperback book on 'proper' wargames.
Heck, the very first 'proper' wargame was played using toy soldiers. (H.G. Wells - Little Wars.)
And even as a Wee Grump I had a system for rolling dice to see whether a shot killed one of the plastic army men. (A very simple system - roll a d6, 5-6 remove the target. Bazookas got the guy that you hit and the guys in an area around him. (I used a paper plate as a template.) I forget how I handled tanks, but I remember that one tank equaled ten guys - the most rudimentary of points systems, where one Joe equaled 1 point.)
The Auld Grump
Now that brings back memories of my earliest "wargaming" with plastic army men!
Movement was easy: Soldiers moved one foot-length. Tanks and jeeps moved two foot-lengths.
Shooting was firing a rubber band off your finger while standing/kneeling over the model. Anyone who fell over died. For tanks and bazookas, you got to throw a dirt clod. Worked out pretty well since it's hard to knock over a tank with a rubber band, but a well hurled dirt clod?? Well... For mortars you lobbed the dirt clod. Cover worked pretty well too (although we didn't penalize for moving through cover).
We didn't have rules for melee/assault, but rubber bands at 2" are pretty accurate!
Didn't really have points totals, it was usually my bag of soldiers against yours... Huh... Guess that might be GW's demographic after all! Games were either "to the death" or, more often, "capture the flag".
cygnnus wrote: Now that brings back memories of my earliest "wargaming" with plastic army men!
Movement was easy: Soldiers moved one foot-length. Tanks and jeeps moved two foot-lengths.
Shooting was firing a rubber band off your finger while standing/kneeling over the model. Anyone who fell over died. For tanks and bazookas, you got to throw a dirt clod. Worked out pretty well since it's hard to knock over a tank with a rubber band, but a well hurled dirt clod?? Well... For mortars you lobbed the dirt clod. Cover worked pretty well too (although we didn't penalize for moving through cover).
We didn't have rules for melee/assault, but rubber bands at 2" are pretty accurate!
Didn't really have points totals, it was usually my bag of soldiers against yours... Huh... Guess that might be GW's demographic after all! Games were either "to the death" or, more often, "capture the flag".
Good times!
I would line up my army men on a castle, my opponent a car parking lot, and we'd take turns throwing marbles at each other's men. The trick was to spread them out so one marble couldn't take out 3 men in one go.
It's an insult to Perry miniatures when you say "By the same logic....army men" because Perry produce quality wargaming models that are simply good value. They may not sell the big flashy monster kits but that's simply because it doesn't match their business.
When GW comes along and releases kits that are $30-50 per sprue and they aren't even very large sprues they rightfully attract scorn.
Well, we can certainly disagree on this, but frankly, to 95% of my friends, Army Men, Privateer Press, Games Workshop, and Perry miniatures are indistinguishable So I don't mean to insult Perry any more than GW or PP or Wyrd. They're all toy soldiers, and if you don't actually care about the model (and some people don't), you can always go cheaper, until they are virtually free.
And you're right: there most certainly should be what *feels* like a middle ground to the consumer, but practically, everything is creeping towards profit maximization today, whether by milking the customer or by milking the supply chain, and ultimately, both, hence my comment "the world we live in today".
Incidentally, I don't know if you saw my comment earlier, but in our group, some of us (me included) suspect that Australia is some kind of GW testing ground for upping the price to test sensitivity. It does boggle my mind that you guys down under buy so much GW stuff given their price, and apparently, lack of discounters.
When we disagree on whether GW kits are too expensive or not, bud, but keep in mind that in North America we probably effectively pay less than half what you do in Australia, so the perspective is a little different. For example, I just bought the Blood Angels Chaplain on Jump Pack and paid $26.40 CAD, which is $19.80 USD. I think your price there was $57? Now, $20 is expensive, sure, and trust me, we grumble about it, but for most of us that play or collect the faction here, it's not a dealbreaker. But $57 AUD (Is that about $43 USD?)... well, most of us -- even dedicated fans -- would just not buy it unless it were "must have".
coldgaming wrote: I used to play Warhammer in 5th/6th/7th, and I'm put off by points now too. As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me. Speaking for myself, no points has given me a freedom and ease of entry that has made my hobbying go up ten fold. I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Bear in mind though, there is a difference between a points system, and a gw points system.
There is no reason to suggest that a use of points translates into a lack of freedom or a difficulty of entry into a game. You can still do armies that are cool. If you want more, up the points limits. Its just another way of saying 'take more stuff'. Points are basically just a structural tool that can be used to help assign in-game value.
bear in mind, I play both points-based games and I also play point-less games. I enjoy both. There is value in both approaches but the latter is not necessarily better, and while it can open you up to a new perspective on gaming, it does come with its own series of hurdles to overcome and it has its own requirements and needs that you won't find in points-based games.
Mymearan wrote:
Very interesting perspective from exactly the type of person GW seems to be targeting. How come you're on this forum btw?
I was introduced by a friend-of-a-friend who plays 40k. Now, I lurk the News section for Age of Sigmar releases And I lurk the P&M section looking at pretty models and wishing I could paint better. And reading the very useful tips and tricks as I try to improve beyond the point of totally embarrassing.
Vermis wrote:
Trina wrote:Price? Let's be honest the starter box of AoS or anywhere from 1-3 boxes of other miniatures still cost less than a case of boosters for Magic. I think I spend more in one release of Magic the Gathering then I will spend in 3 years of Age of Sigmar.
Gotta be honest, from what I hear of Magic, I don't know if that's saying much. Coming from the other end, I could easily spend much less money on many more minis - especially with £100 Archaons and £60-for-3 cav floating around - and get as much or more enjoyment.
But I'd like to know more. What's the put-off of points systems? What's the difference in taking what you want (sort of) from a hypothetically balanced army list, themed around a faction or army?
From what I remember of that MTG starter I got ages ago, I have the feeling that 'faction' element might be the psychological disconnect between CCGs and TTWGs... But until I find it again to reread the rules so I look like less of a numpty, aren't certain cards restricted and the game somewhat self-levelling (i.e. you need certain numbers of lands, creatures, spells etc. most of the time) anyway?
And in AoS' case, if things are lopsided, who's the 'they' that fixes it?
I think you bring up an interesting point about certain similarities with CCGs, and GW making inroads with that audience. It'll be interesting to see how far they might get, and whether CCG players get a taste for other wargames. (For another what-I-remember-of-MTG moment, if you like the tactical aspects of setting up defences and attacks, rethinking your plans based on the other player's actions and successes, playing your hand at the right moment, and just general resource management, I think some non-AoS/40K wargames have the potential to be a pleasant surprise for you.)
And welcome to Dakka.
Thank you for the warm welcome!
Really, people who stick around and get addicted to Magic fall into 3 categories: the ones who end up buying cases and cases of every new release so that they own everything, the ones that buy specific cards to get really powerful decks, and the ones who play pretty casually, and just do the best with what they have and buy stuff kind of occasionally. I like to think myself as the third group, but I probably buy more cards than I should if my head were screwed on right. Magic definitely isn't a cheap to love.
Oh, and anyone looking for "fair" or "balanced" in the world of Magic, it doesn't exist The game becomes more fair with one more booster, because surely there will be a card that will help you. And if not, there's always the promise of the next booster... and if you totally flop two cases later, there's always the next big release where everything becomes irrelevant anyways, and you can start all over, buying boosters! But that's ok, we love it all the same.
I'm not sure I'll ever buy that Archaon model, so it doesn't really bother me that it's pretty expensive. I guess maybe one day I might buy a bloodthirster, but, maybe, one, ever? So no big deal, if I want to put all that effort into building a model. For the time being, the whole game has cost me $200 or so, plus $100 in paint and paintbrushes. Maybe I'll buy something on Boxing Day, if there's a good sale going, but probably most of my spending money will go to Magic.... I don't see myself buying a lot more AoS stuff, even though we're having fun playing it.
Why no points? It might be easier for newbs to get into it or maybe it just gives the illusion of being easier to get started in. A sleight of hand that cracked the door open Heck, if we had a point-based game, we'd all have to figure out how many points we wanted to buy models for, and knowing us, we'd never get rolling.
Oh to close of this crazy long post, in Magic, we all have decks that aren't really balanced against each other. Once upon a time, we tried, but we long since gave up; there are people who just own way better cards than me, so c'est last vie if I lose against a better deck. Maybe they'll pull some punches or whatever but either way, it's still fun, even if I'm at a disadvantage. So when people say AoS armies aren't really balanced against each other or that it's hard to fine tune, well, it just bothers me... less, I guess.
What works for Magic, doesn't work for tabletop wargames. Magic game takes minutes, tabletop battle 1 -5 hours depending on game and ussualy towards the latter number. Investing so much time into a hopeless battle where you can't even judge how good your moves actualy are (like AoS) is not my perfect idea for an evening and I assure you that majority of players think that too.
Magic is also predominantely strategic game. What you bring matters much more than what you do on the table. In tabletop games, especially those that are not AoS, the idea is that tactical play should be at least as important as strategic planning (where strategic in this context would be list and off the table plans). Now, if you don't have armies on similar level of power, or if you have unbalanced armies and can't even tell how unbalanced they really are, you will have trouble judging your tactical decisions and therefore have hard time improving your game. Ofc after many many games you will develop some eye for relative worth of the units but why waste so much time for something that proper games provide from the start and differneces between AoS point systems show that it takes more time and work than many "just talk with your opponent" guys think.
"Magic with miniatures" used to be thrown as an insult to one or another tt wargame, meaning unbalanced, pay-to-win and decided before the game. Now, I really like magic, have a few decks myself also buy into 40k conquest atm but wargames really shouldn't be like ccgs. I understand your aproach but it's just another thing that makes AoS a bad game in my eyes.
McNinja wrote: From what I can tell after seeing multiple threads about this same topic, it simply wasn't what fans wanted, and to a lot of people it seemed like GW really didn't care about rules whatsoever. GW has yet to figure out that the models and rules go hand-in-hand, and unless they want to lose a large chunk of their customers by completely discontinuing all of their rule books and codices, they need to step up their game.
Of course, they've needed to do that for the last 5 years, but hey.
Fixed:
Of course, they've needed to do that for the last 25 years, but hey.
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Thank you - that is exactly what I did, getting back into the hobby. Keep it cheap, keep it simple, keep it fun. Wrote my own rules system, wrote my own backstory. And you know what - turns out the DIY ethic is hugely satisfying
Mymearan wrote: I'm guessing they will be very taciturn when describing AoS sales, something like "we're pleased with the reception blaha blaha" and no hard numbers.
'Sales of Warhammer: the Age of Sigmar were broadly in line with expectations' would be my guess.
cygnnus wrote: Now that brings back memories of my earliest "wargaming" with plastic army men!
Movement was easy: Soldiers moved one foot-length. Tanks and jeeps moved two foot-lengths.
Shooting was firing a rubber band off your finger while standing/kneeling over the model. Anyone who fell over died. For tanks and bazookas, you got to throw a dirt clod. Worked out pretty well since it's hard to knock over a tank with a rubber band, but a well hurled dirt clod?? Well... For mortars you lobbed the dirt clod. Cover worked pretty well too (although we didn't penalize for moving through cover).
We didn't have rules for melee/assault, but rubber bands at 2" are pretty accurate!
Didn't really have points totals, it was usually my bag of soldiers against yours... Huh... Guess that might be GW's demographic after all! Games were either "to the death" or, more often, "capture the flag".
Good times!
I would line up my army men on a castle, my opponent a car parking lot, and we'd take turns throwing marbles at each other's men. The trick was to spread them out so one marble couldn't take out 3 men in one go.
Myself and my little brother used to make castles out of wooden blocks and fill them with cannons and soldiers. A cannon had to have at least three men near it to fire and each 'turn' we would throw a number of models equal to active cannons at our opponents castle. The objective was to kill all the enemy soldiers or knock their castle down. If a soldier or a cannon was knocked over/down then it was destroyed and if a cannon was hit and knocked out of trim then it could not fire next turn.
Soldiers could move one hand length per turn, but assaulting the enemy was never a good idea.
(I used to lose a lot - my little brother was always unerringly accurate)
People talk about historical games that lack points systems, but the comparison ignores how different units can be. A game about real life historical battles can assume that most people are equal to most other people because it doesn't have to handle normal humans alongside 20-foot monsters and flying wizards.
My Zulu games don't use points, and those are two pretty differing sides! It doesn't matter what is on each, lack of points in games is an approach rather than the be all and end all.
Indeed they are, and Historicals gives us examples of games with points systems, points without systems, both of them very successful, and capable of accommodating units as various as the light infantry javelinman, the Macedonian pike phalanx, the scythed chariot, the Burmese elephant mounting 12 archers, the fire syphoneer, and Sung Chinese rocket artillery.
Furthermore both point and non-point systems also support successful fantasy variations. (Dragon = elephant + fire syphon + ignores terrain.)
The only thing that frustrated me with the GWWHFB points system was the army composition percentages.
As End Times kicked off, my friend and I were all for starting fantasy armies. I was going to do Vampire Counts. I loved (still do!) the Nagash model, but the plans fell apart on the realisation that I'd need to a) field about a 4000 point army to be able to take him in the first place and b) spend the rest of my life painting compulsory bloody skeletons...
Crispy78 wrote: The only thing that frustrated me with the GWWHFB points system was the army composition percentages.
As End Times kicked off, my friend and I were all for starting fantasy armies. I was going to do Vampire Counts. I loved (still do!) the Nagash model, but the plans fell apart on the realisation that I'd need to a) field about a 4000 point army to be able to take him in the first place and b) spend the rest of my life painting compulsory bloody skeletons...
Didn't they change the army composition rules so you only needed 2000pts to field him, 1000pts of which was Nagash himself? Or was that my imagination?
Crispy78 wrote: The only thing that frustrated me with the GWWHFB points system was the army composition percentages.
As End Times kicked off, my friend and I were all for starting fantasy armies. I was going to do Vampire Counts. I loved (still do!) the Nagash model, but the plans fell apart on the realisation that I'd need to a) field about a 4000 point army to be able to take him in the first place and b) spend the rest of my life painting compulsory bloody skeletons...
Didn't they change the army composition rules so you only needed 2000pts to field him, 1000pts of which was Nagash himself? Or was that my imagination?
End Times 1 (released with nagash) introduced the 50% lord rule so yes, he could fit into a 2000 point game. End times 5 allowed you to throw all restrictions out the window and run him alone.
Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
GW classify their sales according to channel, not region or product type, so AoS could be a massive success and still get buried under a flood of bad results from 40K, and no-one would be the wiser as we would only be shown that the web store was doing well.
At the moment we can only use the information presented by users of the forum. This seems to indicate the game has not been very well receivede.
However there could of course be large numbers of people who never go on forums, enthusiastically buying Aos books and kits.
Kilkrazy wrote: However there could of course be large numbers of people who never go on forums, enthusiastically buying Aos books and kits.
But not the limited editions, and not from 3rd parties, or eBay resellers.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that there's a lot of hidden AoS purchasers, but they don't seem to fit the usual spending pattern of GW fans. Maybe they have managed to find entirely new customers.
That said; even the occasional new AoS customer that makes it onto the forums say that they don't intend buying much more than the starter sets.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
Ah ok, that would make sense. It's a shame if AoS is failing since GW had to do something in regards to the decline of fantasy. I personally think AoS is a cracking entry level game, but can definitely see how it would cause such a divided opinion.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
Ah ok, that would make sense. It's a shame if AoS is failing since GW had to do something in regards to the decline of fantasy. I personally think AoS is a cracking entry level game, but can definitely see how it would cause such a divided opinion.
I think AoS could have been great alongside Fantasy as the smaller scale one, then once you want to buy the larger army you can 'graduate' on to WHFB. There would be a ton of potential there too with linked narratives/campaigns that start with AoS games and escalate to WHFB.
The problem was that they destroyed a setting with 30 years of history and swapped a mass battle (or rather super high model count skirmish) game with a much smaller skirmish game.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
There are two common errors involving anecdotal evidence- the first is to rely upon it, giving it too much weight.
The other error is to ignore it, and not give it sufficient weight.
I remember the D&D 3.X/4e/Pathfinder debates - with the 4e fans crying 'Anecdotal evidence! It doesn't matter'... until WotC announced that 5e was in the works, because 4e suffered from exactly what the anecdotal evidence was supporting.
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
There are two common errors involving anecdotal evidence- the first is to rely upon it, giving it too much weight.
The other error is to ignore it, and not give it sufficient weight.
I remember the D&D 3.X/4e/Pathfinder debates - with the 4e fans crying 'Anecdotal evidence! It doesn't matter'... until WotC announced that 5e was in the works, because 4e suffered from exactly what the anecdotal evidence was supporting.
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
I think it's problem was that a lot of people were excited to see what new things their armies would get, what new fluff, new aesthetics, new models, etc. Then the first month or two is just sigmarines after sigmarines after sigmarines and us Dark Elf players STILL don't even know if our army still exists anymore.
I'm thinking GW expected Sigmarines to be a lot more popular than they were, and, anecdotally, it seems that's what we have heard from store owners. Big sales at the beginning for the starter, then absolutely no sales for the actual sigmarines.
jonolikespie wrote: I think it's problem was that a lot of people were excited to see what new things their armies would get, what new fluff, new aesthetics, new models, etc. Then the first month or two is just sigmarines after sigmarines after sigmarines and us Dark Elf players STILL don't even know if our army still exists anymore.
I'm thinking GW expected Sigmarines to be a lot more popular than they were, and, anecdotally, it seems that's what we have heard from store owners. Big sales at the beginning for the starter, then absolutely no sales for the actual sigmarines.
Part of the "problem" may be in the value of the starter and the culture that the game encourages. First, the starter has a lot of good stuff for Sigmarites in it; pretty much everything you "need" to play. Then, it's buy what you want, play what you want, and cut out some stuff to make it fair against the other guy. The game doesn't inherently encourage the arms race culture via rules -- starter box gives you 1000 points but you need 2000 points; starter box gives you a playable force but to win you want super duper formation; spamming 30 of these is way better than mixing it up; etc. -- mostly because if your battleforce is really effective and the other person's isn't, you are expected to to tone it down anyhow.
So unless you want to model more Sigmarites and love them from a unique model perspective, why buy them? My wife has the starter and almost new every Sigmarite release, and she really likes the game, yet she has barely touched to the non-Starter Sigmarites. I think a couple of the winged fellas (Prosecutors) and two heroes, and that's it. Why? If she painted and played them, it would just mean that she'd have to cut something else out of her army, since her friends aren't really building bigger or more powerful armies.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
In answer to this question, as well as HMBC's similar comment: I've been extremely busy with work lately, and so haven't been following the fortunes and comments of anything on Dakka in much detail. I have noticed quite a few comments scattered about suggesting that the game has "failed", which seemed a little extreme this early on. I asked the questions in the OP in order to see if it was just "H8rs gonna h8" type stuff, or if there's more to it. While there's not much in the way of "hard facts" at this stage, there are some telling and interesting points. I certainly didn't expect the thread to turn into this kind of juggernaut...
Anyone near GWHQ? Able to drive past and see if the Sigmarine has indeed come down already?
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
The Auld Grump
Speaking of anecdotal...
I bought my own 4 boxes of the starter pretty quickly, but haven't felt a need to buy any more since then...
jonolikespie wrote: I think it's problem was that a lot of people were excited to see what new things their armies would get, what new fluff, new aesthetics, new models, etc. Then the first month or two is just sigmarines after sigmarines after sigmarines and us Dark Elf players STILL don't even know if our army still exists anymore.
I'm thinking GW expected Sigmarines to be a lot more popular than they were, and, anecdotally, it seems that's what we have heard from store owners. Big sales at the beginning for the starter, then absolutely no sales for the actual sigmarines.
Were I to invent my own scurrilous rumor, it would be that Age of Sigmar only exists because End Times was so successful, that the original intent of End Times was just to sunset Warhammer Fantasy Battle....
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
The Auld Grump
Speaking of anecdotal...
I bought my own 4 boxes of the starter pretty quickly, but haven't felt a need to buy any more since then...
Also anecdotal, I felt no urge to buy a single starter set, and still don't. (Rules aside, I just don't like the figures.)
In a group of 28 players, only one has bought the starter, and he got it to convert to Blood Angels.
By comparison, pretty much everybody in the group hated 8th edition Warhammer... but several still bought boxes of Island of Blood for use in Kings of War - the High Elves, in particular, are well worth the price of the box.
Outside of the peculiar universe of Warhammer: We Done Blowed Up The World, most of the Sigmarine figures just aren't all that useful, and the Khorne figures just don't make the box all that worthwhile on their own.
Azazelx wrote: I quite like the models, and buying the starter boxes from a US Discounter was a reasonable price for me as opposed to AU retail.
I plan to use the Sigmarines as Basilean-Ogres in KoW and/or Custodes/Inquisitors/Marine Heroes. There are some lovely conversions out there.
The Khorne guys can be used as Berserkers in 40k, or whatever Not-Chaos is called in KoW.
I have not seen the Sigmarines next to Mantic Ogres, for a comparison, but I do know that I quite like the Mantic Ogres.
The Sigmarines... just do not excite or interest me - they seem like faceless automatons, while the Mantic Ogres have very expressive faces, and a commander that looks more like he is talking to somebody than threatening him. (Again, I quite like that figure.)
As constructs/servitors of Basilea, and as Counts As Ogres for such a use... yeah, I can see that - not my cuppa, but I would have no trouble playing against that army, and it seems a good fit.
If I were still playing 40K then the Sigmarines might interest me more, but the last two editions of WH40K made me finally sell off my Dark Angels. (I do not dislike Unbound, I loathe it.)
Not-Chaos humans are called the Varangur - Khorne would be closest to Brand of the Warrior.
Khorne has always been the least interesting of the Chaos gods, as far as I have been concerned, Tzeench and Nurgle have always topped my list for Chaos, even in Mordheim. (Carnival of Nurgle.)
Given the lack of interest in the box among my group... I am not the only one that just sort of shrugged and moved on. It is quite possible that it would take something very special to bring my group back into the fold. We have flipped from being negative-neutral to active dislike.
That said, some of us still have hopes for the return of Specialist Games, so we may not be as much of a lost cause as our reaction to AoS might indicate.
II really want to find a gaming club that would want to play Kings of War, as I really want to use Stormcast in KoW for the ubiquitous Ogre/Basilean army, as well as maybe a cool skirmish force for something like Song of Blades and Heroes. Hell, going through Ebay, the Stormcast half of a boxed set plus a box of judicators w/ an extra guy bought as a solo (so you have two three-man troops of shooters) nets a really workable KoW army for around $100us, which is pretty damn good.
I will never, ever buy any of the hugely priced solos, though. I feel after 20 years of Space Marine conversions I can convert perfectly good, unique-to-me versions by buying bitz off Ebay. $40 for a Knight Venator, or less than $10 for a boxed set Prosecutor single, plus a few dollars for the bits for a Skybolt bow and quiver of arrows (or use the spare bits not used from a box if using those for crossbows) to make my own?
But I find myself far more exited to use them in KoW than in Age of Sigmar.
Interesting mixed views in the thread. I know it seems to be growing around me. I must say its all new people playing and none of the previous WHFB crowds. I myself came back to AoS after leaving WHFB 15 years ago. It has been tons of fun and I now own two large armies and a third after Christmas. I'm looking forward to some of the many upcoming tournaments that seem to be going well. The clash comp seems to answer almost every imbalance concern most people had.
coldgaming wrote: I used to play Warhammer in 5th/6th/7th, and I'm put off by points now too. As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me. Speaking for myself, no points has given me a freedom and ease of entry that has made my hobbying go up ten fold. I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Bear in mind though, there is a difference between a points system, and a gw points system.
There is no reason to suggest that a use of points translates into a lack of freedom or a difficulty of entry into a game. You can still do armies that are cool. If you want more, up the points limits. Its just another way of saying 'take more stuff'. Points are basically just a structural tool that can be used to help assign in-game value.
Yes, I mean points in general. I wrote in that post I don't want to follow a points limit or army comp, so that is my reason to suggest no points gives me more freedom and ease of entry. I don't want to have to paint 5 units of core for the one unit I actually want and be constrained about how to put together my force. I don't disagree there's value in both ways.
coldgaming wrote: I used to play Warhammer in 5th/6th/7th, and I'm put off by points now too. As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me. Speaking for myself, no points has given me a freedom and ease of entry that has made my hobbying go up ten fold. I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Bear in mind though, there is a difference between a points system, and a gw points system.
There is no reason to suggest that a use of points translates into a lack of freedom or a difficulty of entry into a game. You can still do armies that are cool. If you want more, up the points limits. Its just another way of saying 'take more stuff'. Points are basically just a structural tool that can be used to help assign in-game value.
Yes, I mean points in general. I wrote in that post I don't want to follow a points limit or army comp, so that is my reason to suggest no points gives me more freedom and ease of entry. I don't want to have to paint 5 units of core for the one unit I actually want and be constrained about how to put together my force. I don't disagree there's value in both ways.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
No.
It's DOA. Saving grace for Fantasy is the reemergence of the Mordhiem Rules set, and incoming Specialist Games, who will do the obvious, Mr. Obvious, and bring back Empire In Flames, so you can get back to Fantasy.
It's DOA. Saving grace for Fantasy is the reemergence of the Mordhiem Rules set, and incoming Specialist Games, who will do the obvious, Mr. Obvious, and bring back Empire In Flames, so you can get back to Fantasy.
I don't know if I'd put Mordheim in the saving grace category just yet. When they discontinued support for Mordheim it opened up the niche for Frostgrave which has been very good.
Honestly i would be supremely worried if it had failed that badly this fast, keeping the statue up is Importent for GW, taking it down would be a bad sign.
But I have been thinking myself, if Age of sigmar has really changed anything. We still have players sitting around wondering if they will get an update, players wondering if there chosen army's where abandoned. The same reasons we had struggle to keep players beforehand.
Even the chaos players who may be keen are sitting around expecting that after this there chosen God will have to wait years for a update.
It's just a repeating again!
Honestly i would be supremely worried if it had failed that badly this fast, keeping the statue up is Importent for GW, taking it down would be a bad sign.
But I have been thinking myself, if Age of sigmar has really changed anything. We still have players sitting around wondering if they will get an update, players wondering if there chosen army's where abandoned. The same reasons we had struggle to keep players beforehand.
Even the chaos players who may be keen are sitting around expecting that after this there chosen God will have to wait years for a update.
It's just a repeating again!
Yes, I mean points in general. I wrote in that post I don't want to follow a points limit or army comp, so that is my reason to suggest no points gives me more freedom and ease of entry. I don't want to have to paint 5 units of core for the one unit I actually want and be constrained about how to put together my force. I don't disagree there's value in both ways.
Like what was said, this is still a very GW-centric viewpoint and not necessarily indicative of either points in general, or army compositions. And I would argue it’s less about points (because if you want a bigger army in a points-based game, you can always aim for a higher points total – it’s just nomenclature really and no different to saying ‘I want to take more stuff’) and more about army structure, and army organisation. Games like warmachine, infinity and the various historicals are far more open in terms of army design for example and don’t require anything like ‘5 units of core’ to field the one unit that you want. Just field it. Done. Heck, even 40k has unbound.
I would also argue with not following any points limits or army comp, it doesn’t necessarily allow the freedom and ease of entry you wish for. It has its own limiting factors – lack of structure or guidance in the first place (basically, where to go). But mainly in this case, the limiting factor is your opponent. Your ability to field whatever you want is entirely dependent on your opponent acquiescing to your wishes and enabling you. What happens when they say ‘no, I don’t want to face that’? Or ‘no, I don’t think that’s fair’. The lack of structure that follows on from having no points limits and army compositions/restrictions etc opens games up to a lot of issues, mismatches and potential abuses. It can be dealt with and worked around, but it often requires very like-minded opponents, who are on the same wavelength as yourself, which is its own restriction- it’s often harder to find these folks than you realise (and this can often lead to the problem of fracturing the community into small self-contained gaming ‘cells’ that are often entirely at odds or incompatible with each other when people go outside their own group). And it’s quite hard to grow this kind of community.
What happens when what they bring to the table top (and bear in mind they’re approaching this from the same POV – ‘freedom’, ‘ease of entry’, and ‘I want to play whatever I want, restrictions only limit me’) is completely out of sync (either better or worse) than what you bring? And they’re not necessarily the villain in the story either for fielding what they are fielding. Often the ‘freedom’ you want is illusory –its pseudo-freedom at best, and often comes at the cost of universality and the ‘common ground’ to meet on that most two-player games, and a lot of gamers need to thrive.
Deadnight wrote:What happens when what they bring to the table top (and bear in mind they’re approaching this from the same POV – ‘freedom’, ‘ease of entry’, and ‘I want to play whatever I want, restrictions only limit me’) is completely out of sync (either better or worse) than what you bring? And they’re not necessarily the villain in the story either for fielding what they are fielding. Often the ‘freedom’ you want is illusory –its pseudo-freedom at best, and often comes at the cost of universality and the ‘common ground’ to meet on that most two-player games, and a lot of gamers need to thrive.
Illusory freedom sums up my feelings about the latest ice world campaign for AoS: bring whatever models you want! Then pick out thirty of them... and then chat with your opponent about what's fair. (I.e, let your opponent nerf your list)
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
It's almost as if... GW didn't change at all!
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
Actually I'd quite fine with that system for FB... provided the points would remain in place. Otherwise it's just a game of nerf-the-list.
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
My experience wasn't that is was very balenced. I had the ghost lady starter box and my friend got the twin merc lady box. I had nothing in my army that could stop them from steam rolling my army.
When I asked how to beat them in the message board the answer was to buy a different resurectionist gang box, even a creator of the game commenting that as long as my friend was playing right their was no way for me to beat him.
I quietly put my malufaux on ebay that same day. Didn't make a stink about it, just wasn't the game for me. I love the model range but unless the 2nd ed made huge changes to fix the no win match ups I feel it's a broken mess. Witch to me the whole selecting a army before the match reeks of the fact the creators know this is still a issue in their game.
First time poster here but here's my two pennies...
I'm a 39 year old dad based in the UK, in my youth I was a huge GW fan collecting Talisman, Rogue Trader, BloodBowl (with the Polystyrene board), WFRP etc, eventually running a pretty successful club each week at a local hall getting around 60 attendees a week.
Life moved on though, I discovered Magic the Gathering and other geeky offerings and all my Games Workshop collection was eventually sold off to pay for new hobbies. Leap forward 20 years and I have 9 & 8 year old sons, both of whom are taking after their dad in love of all things geek. They're pretty bright lads so thought I'd take them down to a Games Workshop store, bear in mind that I'd not stepped foot in one for 2 decades.
First impression? Where have all the games gone? I walked in to find pretty much 2 options, AoS or 40K, sure there was the Hobbit as well but that was all tucked away in a corner covered in dust, I was used to around 6 different games as a min, Epic, Man O War, Bloodbowl, Necromunda etc (I am looking forward to what the Specialist range does). The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked, in just over a month it's quickly become the hobby I first fell in love with all over again, it's now The Xmas present this year for both boys, with the likes of Archaon, Bloodthirsters, Celestant Primes etc under the tree.
Yes it's simplified, but there's plenty of fan-based rules out there that add as much depth as you wish, and yes I fully understand that it's driven away the puritans of 8th ed, but I've noticed I'm not the only dad coming back to the hobby and that others are rediscovering GW whilst also their children are getting into the hobby.
I quietly put my malufaux on ebay that same day. Didn't make a stink about it, just wasn't the game for me. I love the model range but unless the 2nd ed made huge changes to fix the no win match ups I feel it's a broken mess. Witch to me the whole selecting a army before the match reeks of the fact the creators know this is still a issue in their game.
Tis a shame. Amazing setting.
I've never played 1st Ed but I got the impression from hearing others that 2nd Ed was a significant improvement. I've certainly never witnessed a match-up where someone could get steam rollered (the weaker armies were often better for the objective grabbing), and it's still possible to win even if you lose all of your models.
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
My experience wasn't that is was very balenced. I had the ghost lady starter box and my friend got the twin merc lady box. I had nothing in my army that could stop them from steam rolling my army.
When I asked how to beat them in the message board the answer was to buy a different resurectionist gang box, even a creator of the game commenting that as long as my friend was playing right their was no way for me to beat him.
I quietly put my malufaux on ebay that same day. Didn't make a stink about it, just wasn't the game for me. I love the model range but unless the 2nd ed made huge changes to fix the no win match ups I feel it's a broken mess. Witch to me the whole selecting a army before the match reeks of the fact the creators know this is still a issue in their game.
Tis a shame. Amazing setting.
Just FYI 2nd ed was a huge overhaul and fixed most balance issues. As to creating lists after finding out the strategy, it means the creators aknowlege that it is very difficult to have varied missions for which a single list will be balanced for all of them. Take 40k for example a list that is very good at objectives might not also be good in Kill points. All that said several large tournaments have been one by people playing the same crew every round, so it is not necessary to own everything. It is also important to not that the starter boxes are not balanced against eachother, and that the game is balanced at a very specific points level.
Hero606v2 wrote: First time poster here but here's my two pennies...
I'm a 39 year old dad based in the UK, in my youth I was a huge GW fan collecting Talisman, Rogue Trader, BloodBowl (with the Polystyrene board), WFRP etc, eventually running a pretty successful club each week at a local hall getting around 60 attendees a week.
Life moved on though, I discovered Magic the Gathering and other geeky offerings and all my Games Workshop collection was eventually sold off to pay for new hobbies. Leap forward 20 years and I have 9 & 8 year old sons, both of whom are taking after their dad in love of all things geek. They're pretty bright lads so thought I'd take them down to a Games Workshop store, bear in mind that I'd not stepped foot in one for 2 decades.
First impression? Where have all the games gone? I walked in to find pretty much 2 options, AoS or 40K, sure there was the Hobbit as well but that was all tucked away in a corner covered in dust, I was used to around 6 different games as a min, Epic, Man O War, Bloodbowl, Necromunda etc (I am looking forward to what the Specialist range does). The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked, in just over a month it's quickly become the hobby I first fell in love with all over again, it's now The Xmas present this year for both boys, with the likes of Archaon, Bloodthirsters, Celestant Primes etc under the tree.
Yes it's simplified, but there's plenty of fan-based rules out there that add as much depth as you wish, and yes I fully understand that it's driven away the puritans of 8th ed, but I've noticed I'm not the only dad coming back to the hobby and that others are rediscovering GW whilst also their children are getting into the hobby.
Thanks for posting that, Hero, and I've seen a few folks say similarly. I definitely agree that AoS is a game more suited to a game you can get your sons into (well, maybe not all of the models, but you know what I mean!). I think part of the problem is that they replaced a game that was the opposite (a much more intricate system aimed at dedicated gamers) and did not manage the transition very well.
But as for AoS' strength, it's definitely the scenario that you describe. Seems like it would've been the perfect thing to add on as a separate ruleset for folks to use without completely removing the former... but as it is they have to build up their playerbase from scratch for the most part. Stories like yours give them some hope, I'm sure!
I don't fit that target demographic so will happily focus on other games, but it would be false to say there is no demographic for AoS - it's just hard for them to reach it the way they've handled things.
Oh I very much agree that they the way they've gone about the launch of AoS is just beyond ridiculous from a PR point of view. I used to be a big Vampire the Masquerade player, loved the clans it had with it, the whole grandiose Gehenna setting and back story and then they did very similar to GW and killed their main offering only to replace it with a similar but different enough to irk me way.
I'd have very much done it in a WFB-lite way, an accessible option to which to bring in new blood to the hobby whilst allowing them then to discover the full WFB as they grow more confident with the rules.
Hero606v2 wrote: I'd have very much done it in a WFB-lite way, an accessible option to which to bring in new blood to the hobby whilst allowing them then to discover the full WFB as they grow more confident with the rules.
I think that's genius (and being in the UK, you could always use the Kings of War fantasy rules as your sons progress through!). If GW had thought of doing it this way they'd be facing an entirely different reception from the gaming community, I think! As an introduction-to-wargaming, I do think AoS is overall a very good fit.
Hero606v2 wrote: Oh I very much agree that they the way they've gone about the launch of AoS is just beyond ridiculous from a PR point of view. I used to be a big Vampire the Masquerade player, loved the clans it had with it, the whole grandiose Gehenna setting and back story and then they did very similar to GW and killed their main offering only to replace it with a similar but different enough to irk me way.
I'd have very much done it in a WFB-lite way, an accessible option to which to bring in new blood to the hobby whilst allowing them then to discover the full WFB as they grow more confident with the rules.
Onyx Path announced that they are doing a new edition of the old Vampire: the masquerade. (Not much left of White Wolf itself, now.)
Rumblings from folks I know on the retail end of things makes it sound like the Anniversary edition of V:tM outsold the newer Vampire game, at launch.
WotC made a similar bungle with both 4e and the way they rolled the game out. (It is a very bad thing when the first shots in an edition war are fired by the publisher.)
So, Onyx Path is doing a new edition of the old game, updating the rules, while WotC released a 5th edition of D&D that returned to being backwards compatible.
If only GW could do the same thing, looking at what worked in previous editions and reairing damage that they have done to their own properties....
I kind of suspect that the folks in charge of their Forge World arm could do a better job with both Warhammer and Age of Sigmar. (My feeling with 4e D&D was that it really could have been a separate game, and that WotC should have kept the 3.X architecture rolling. My feelings for AoS bear some similarities - it could have been rolled out as an addition to the setting, not a replacement.)
Hero606v2 wrote: First time poster here but here's my two pennies...
I'm a 39 year old dad based in the UK, in my youth I was a huge GW fan collecting Talisman, Rogue Trader, BloodBowl (with the Polystyrene board), WFRP etc, eventually running a pretty successful club each week at a local hall getting around 60 attendees a week.
Life moved on though, I discovered Magic the Gathering and other geeky offerings and all my Games Workshop collection was eventually sold off to pay for new hobbies. Leap forward 20 years and I have 9 & 8 year old sons, both of whom are taking after their dad in love of all things geek. They're pretty bright lads so thought I'd take them down to a Games Workshop store, bear in mind that I'd not stepped foot in one for 2 decades.
First impression? Where have all the games gone? I walked in to find pretty much 2 options, AoS or 40K, sure there was the Hobbit as well but that was all tucked away in a corner covered in dust, I was used to around 6 different games as a min, Epic, Man O War, Bloodbowl, Necromunda etc (I am looking forward to what the Specialist range does). The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked, in just over a month it's quickly become the hobby I first fell in love with all over again, it's now The Xmas present this year for both boys, with the likes of Archaon, Bloodthirsters, Celestant Primes etc under the tree.
Yes it's simplified, but there's plenty of fan-based rules out there that add as much depth as you wish, and yes I fully understand that it's driven away the puritans of 8th ed, but I've noticed I'm not the only dad coming back to the hobby and that others are rediscovering GW whilst also their children are getting into the hobby.
While your enthusiasm is to be lauded and you are correct,why bother with rules that you need to augment with fan-based rules to add depth? My problem with AoS looking at the rules is that they are way too "thin" to account for anything. The idea seems to be that the rules are extremely basic, and then you add in custom things as you see fit, whether that be scenarios, army restrictions, special rules, etc.
While I like that idea in theory, it breaks down when it relies on my opponent to agree, which is a problem with virtually all GW games right now; too much emphasis on knowing your opponent when outside of the UK and possibly Europe as a whole, very few games are played amongst like-minded gamers who know each other as part a gaming club. Indeed, most games in the US occur at game shops where you might not even know your opponent or have ever seen them before, they are just some random guy who showed up to play, you showed up to play, and the two of you have a game. That's the big problem and while it's not necessarily a bad one (I'd love to have an actual gaming club), it's one that exists.
It might be cool to add on your own things to the rules, for instance come up with a narrative that my Chaos army is ransacking the countryside and a heroic band of Stormcast Eternals arrive to stop them, so since my army is laden with spoils of war I need to cross the bridge and escape with my ill-gotten loot, etc. etc. but that's not something that's going to happen all the time.
They should of just released content, books, and new models and released a true 9th edition. 40k was failing just like fantasy 3ish years ago. Then it came back strong by releasing book after book... Should of done the same with fantasy, and maybe still will.
<----Played LARP, one world by night. Vamp the Masq!
The whole "knowing your opponent" thing doesn't really work in the UK either, we've had a pretty stable 40K player base at the local club for some time (who are barely playing 40K right now, but that's not pertinent to my point) but we had one guy who refused to play anything but full bore competitive lists, while the rest of us were firmly in the "causally competitive" bracket. Whoever ended playing him had the choice of either creating a list they didn't want to play in order to compete, or bending over for two hours.
I have had very little luck in getting people to agree to house rules in the past. The people I usually encounter want something "official". I made house rule after house rule, and even created an online campaign system. People looked at me like I was trying to pull something over on them. They want the company to do the work and they want to play.
AoS seems to require finding people to agree to house rules, because the rules as written are not really feasible.
While your enthusiasm is to be lauded and you are correct,why bother with rules that you need to augment with fan-based rules to add depth? My problem with AoS looking at the rules is that they are way too "thin" to account for anything. The idea seems to be that the rules are extremely basic, and then you add in custom things as you see fit, whether that be scenarios, army restrictions, special rules, etc
That's the basic idea I think. Some people like to 'bother' with adding fan-based rules as it lets them be creative. After all, we write our own backstories for our dudes, we name them, we design our own paint schemes for our dudes and so on. Why stop being creative when it comes down to actually doing stuff with them? I'm all for organised play at the end of the day, but it's ludicrous to suggest this is the only way to play, or that you can 'only' play with your toy soldiers in an 'officially approved manner' as defined by a non sentient set of rules in a book.
While I like that idea in theory, it breaks down when it relies on my opponent to agree, which is a problem with virtually all GW games right now; too much emphasis on knowing your opponent when outside of the UK and possibly Europe as a whole, very few games are played amongst like-minded gamers who know each other as part a gaming club. Indeed, most games in the US occur at game shops where you might not even know your opponent or have ever seen them before, they are just some random guy who showed up to play, you showed up to play, and the two of you have a game. That's the big problem and while it's not necessarily a bad one (I'd love to have an actual gaming club), it's one that exists.
It can break down. Sure. I will acknowledge that as one of the biggest hurdles to overcome. But it won't always break down. And there's no reason to just dismiss it out of hand.
But when you talk about very few games played amongst like minded opponents, not knowing who you are going up against, or playing against strangers, well, frankly it paints a very unflattering and unappealing image about your meta and American gamers in general than it does about the game itself. It sounds like gamers In the states are petty, small minded anti social and quite hostile to the concept of 'community'.. And I seriously doubt that this is the reality.
Really, while its tricky to find those like minded folks, it's not tricky to organise and communicate. Then they tend to make themselves known. We have Facebook and forums for a start and the art of conversation has never died. If 'I can't do this because strangers' is a hurdle, then don't make them strangers. Trade numbers, get in touch, meet up for beers or football. Network, and find out the different groups thst play different games in your area. Find what the landscape looks like. Make them into friends, turn the gamers into a cohesive community, and then those insurmountable barriers lower quite significantly. You'll go out of your way for a good mate, won't you? Aos might require all this bridge building to work (which is a bit of a pain), but being honest with you, all that bridge building is rewarding in its own right, and useful for any gaming community. There is no reason to be a disconnected bunch of strangers, and every advantage to organising and being more than that.
It might be cool to add on your own things to the rules, for instance come up with a narrative that my Chaos army is ransacking the countryside and a heroic band of Stormcast Eternals arrive to stop them, so since my army is laden with spoils of war I need to cross the bridge and escape with my ill-gotten loot, etc. etc. but that's not something that's going to happen all the time.
No it's not going to happen all the time. Nor should it. That type of gaming requires a lot of work and organisation. Often it's garage based, over the course of a weekend, with pizza, beer and a bbq. It's more than 'just' a game - it's an occasion. And frankly, sometimes it's nice to just turn up, say '50points'?, roll scenario and get on with it. The whole narrative gaming thing is one of those 'the more you put in, the more you get out of it' kind of scenarios. It can be incredibly fun to do. But I doubt your the only horse in town that wants to do this, even if it's just evry once in a while. And frankly, the best way to do it, is to just get proactive and try to organise, and communicate your desires.
kenofyork wrote: I have had very little luck in getting people to agree to house rules in the past. The people I usually encounter want something "official". I made house rule after house rule, and even created an online campaign system. People looked at me like I was trying to pull something over on them. They want the company to do the work and they want to play.
AoS seems to require finding people to agree to house rules, because the rules as written are not really feasible.
I do not see how it can work.
Wrong community would be my guess. Either that or they were folks so steeped in one way of playing (and that way of playing isn't wrong to be fair) thst they can't comprehend of other ways of doing it. Folks into home brewing do exist. They don't tend to go to clubs though - they tend to be more the folks that play at home, or In garages with close friends. You should have a look into some of the historical playing groups - in my experience they see far more amenable to home brews. My first proper warmachine opponent in Ireland was a fanatic for home brews and putting in interesting terrain to mix up games (raised bridges etc) and when I moved to Scotland I fell in with a bunch of historical players (through infinity, of all games!) who do home brews as their primary mode of play.
You don't need to play with any house rules if you don't want. I have played AoS straight from the 4 page rules against an opponent in a pick up game before, no problems. They deployed an Elite army and stopped. I gauged my entire collection would be a good match (but be a tough game on my part) - and it was a fun game.
I hope that AoS fortunes begin to change with the Fyreslayers. I hope that GW improve the game with better source books and a suppliment that allows more competetive play.
My experience wasn't that is was very balenced. I had the ghost lady starter box and my friend got the twin merc lady box. I had nothing in my army that could stop them from steam rolling my army.
Yeah, 1st ed C. Hoffman starter for me, similar experience. The slowest master in a game of zipping about, capturing objectives, backed up by glass cannon constructs. Struggled against other, tailored crews, but I really suffered when my most regular opponent discovered Mei Feng from the Ten Thunders faction. If Malifaux is balanced now, you should've seen the power creep when that character & crew appeared - made 40K look like chess. Even when I tried expanding my crew a bit, with a peacekeeper... a ten-SS guild construct that had to spend resources just to keep functioning. First game vs. a steam golem, a ten-SS Ten Thunders/Arcanist (?) construct that generates resources to keep going. I got stepped on like a beetle.
Anyway. I'll agree that Malifaux was levelled out a bit in 2nd ed, but not enough suck me back in. As I said, the buy-more-stuff-to-pick-your-crew bit was only one thing among others that put me off the game, but I'm still not happy to see it pop up in these AoS campaigns. Especially when your opponent has to 'chat' with you (i.e. potentially putting a veto on certain models) which has a chance of leaving some of those titanically expensive models on the bench, and necessitating buying more minis to fill that Archaon/Varanguard-shaped hole.
Hero606v2 wrote:The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked
RiTides wrote:
I think that's genius (and being in the UK, you could always use the Kings of War fantasy rules as your sons progress through!). If GW had thought of doing it this way they'd be facing an entirely different reception from the gaming community, I think! As an introduction-to-wargaming, I do think AoS is overall a very good fit.
Agreed. I think the strategy-heavy, tactics-lite nature of GW games is arguably more attractive to younger gamers, and AoS even more so. That seems to be how it's made, and that's fine.
Trouble is, younger gamers don't stay younger for long, and barring whatever GW does with the Specialist Studio, there's less and less for older gamers. Hero: you mention 8th ed purists, but that edition already haemorrhaged a lot of players. I'd even suggest that's one of the reasons for upset about edition changes and rules shakeups - GW's auduence keeps growing up, but the rules didn't.
Deadnight wrote:I'm all for organised play at the end of the day, but it's ludicrous to suggest this is the only way to play
With AoS, it's been cut out almost completely. Disorganised play is 'the only way to play' there.
But when you talk about very few games played amongst like minded opponents... *snip* There is no reason to be a disconnected bunch of strangers, and every advantage to organising and being more than that.
I don't disagree with all you say. In fact I used to post up rants quite a lot like that, myself. But after reading the responses I used to get, I started to think it was perhaps too narrow a view, too unappreciative of other gamers' circumstances. So while structured - even points-based - games might inherently encourage wham bam thank you ma'am and even page 5 style gaming, like so many others have said I think they're a more stable, inclusive base to work from. You can try to persuade other points-preferring gamers to use them in scenario-based, narrative games; but if that doesn't work then you can at least still get a game, and maybe keep plugging. With AoS, whether persuading points-preferrers or trying to impose some sort of points system, things could be a little more difficult.
But when you talk about very few games played amongst like minded opponents... *snip* There is no reason to be a disconnected bunch of strangers, and every advantage to organising and being more than that.
I don't disagree with all you say. In fact I used to post up rants quite a lot like that, myself. But after reading the responses I used to get, I started to think it was perhaps too narrow a view, too unappreciative of other gamers' circumstances. So while structured - even points-based - games might inherently encourage wham bam thank you ma'am and even page 5 style gaming, like so many others have said I think they're a more stable, inclusive base to work from. You can try to persuade other points-preferring gamers to use them in scenario-based, narrative games; but if that doesn't work then you can at least still get a game, and maybe keep plugging. With AoS, whether persuading points-preferrers or trying to impose some sort of points system, things could be a little more difficult.
This. It is a lot easier to ignore point values than it is to come up with a method of reinstating them that everyone can agree on.
so understandable to the vast majority of wargamers now. And yeah, I just think it's that combination that's making things difficult... I could consider one or the other, but not both.
) as balanced as possible. If players want to modify those painstakingly developed systems, then nothing is stopping them. It's much harder to try and and turn an anything goes system into something that allows a fair contest. Because the nature of what's "fair" is entirely subjective, if there's no limits imposed on the situation and it makes games between star angers harder. It doesn't make games between players who know each other well any more difficult to alter if they want to break out of the status quo.
Since 
).
