Agree that LOS blocking terrain is a must. At least one big piece in the middle of the battlefield to create flanks.

 Bottle wrote:
Agree that LOS blocking terrain is a must. At least one big piece in the middle of the battlefield to create flanks.

The scenario where all terrain blocks LoS...and eats running or charging models...really showcased how strategic this game can be and was the most fun I've had playing the game...just stinks most FLGS don't have a vast amount of terrain to be shared and GW stores don't like non-GW stuff used, or so I've heard.

Most games I've played though have been on planet bowling ball :( and even a few tall concrete walls would help that.

Mj445 wrote:
I feel shooting into combat, and shooting in general, would be less of an issue if people used more terrain and added LoS blocking walls and such...I never played WHFB but it seems to me like terrain wasnt a very big part of the game and AoS rules for placement only enforces playing with few pieces. If everything can hit anything whenever, it makes shooting that much stronger. My two cents.

I always found WHFB played better with a good amount of terrain, but the rules for 'special' terrain in the core rulebook were absolutely stupid so no one wanted much terrain.

Forests that would start murdering everyone and walk if you cast a spell near them, rivers that could murder your troops horribly if you try to cross, hills that grand a quarter of the table flaming weapons.. there was some really BS crap in there.

I maintain that the pitched battle and no terrain boards that people really lamented towards the end of WHFB's life is entirely because no one wanted to roll a 6 and play the watchtower mission that some armies absolutely dominated (WoC) and others had no way to win (Bretts) and no one wanted to roll on those stupid magic terrain charts for every single piece of terrain.

It's a good point about using plenty of terrain to block LoS. The same thing applies to 40K too, where a lot of people are complaining that shooty armies are too good.

Terrain is vital. Playing on barren tables and doing nothing but pitched battle variants was common where I am as well, to the point that if you did NOT play on barren tables people would accuse you of rigging the game in your favor and "screwing over" shooty armies.

And people seem to love the games where no terrain is in the center of the table and they met in the middle and pounded on each other until one fled.

However if you could get games in that WERE NOT this, whfb was fun. Double fun if you didn't have to play against 4th level wizards six-dicing their killer spell as their primary "tactic"

In AOS terrain is still vital as it breaks up the board, though for Azyr Empires we have it so forests block line of sight and that helps break up the table even more.

Mj445 wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Agree that LOS blocking terrain is a must. At least one big piece in the middle of the battlefield to create flanks.

The scenario where all terrain blocks LoS...and eats running or charging models...really showcased how strategic this game can be and was the most fun I've had playing the game...just stinks most FLGS don't have a vast amount of terrain to be shared and GW stores don't like non-GW stuff used, or so I've heard.

Most games I've played though have been on planet bowling ball :( and even a few tall concrete walls would help that.

You don't even need to play a specific scenario; the Time of War rules for Realm of Fire have the following special rule that can be put into play simply by you choosing to use the Realm of Fire rules:

Clouds of Smoke and Steam
Terrain features in the Brimstone Peninsula are wreathed in smoke and steam that block sight. A model cannot see over a terrain feature to any targets that lie beyond it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a good point about using plenty of terrain to block LoS. The same thing applies to 40K too, where a lot of people are complaining that shooty armies are too good.

To be fair, it's not simply that "shooty armies are too good" it's that specific shooty armies(Tau) are too good because of their ability to gain Ignores Cover at the drop of a hat.

Whenever I play I set up plenty of terrain but there's too many ways to ignore it like marker lights.

Terrain is not a panacea that solves all issues and its silly that the answer to valid complaints is "use more cover", the answer is better written rules.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mj445 wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Agree that LOS blocking terrain is a must. At least one big piece in the middle of the battlefield to create flanks.

The scenario where all terrain blocks LoS...and eats running or charging models...really showcased how strategic this game can be and was the most fun I've had playing the game...just stinks most FLGS don't have a vast amount of terrain to be shared and GW stores don't like non-GW stuff used, or so I've heard.

Most games I've played though have been on planet bowling ball :( and even a few tall concrete walls would help that.

You don't even need to play a specific scenario; the Time of War rules for Realm of Fire have the following special rule that can be put into play simply by you choosing to use the Realm of Fire rules:

Clouds of Smoke and Steam
Terrain features in the Brimstone Peninsula are wreathed in smoke and steam that block sight. A model cannot see over a terrain feature to any targets that lie beyond it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a good point about using plenty of terrain to block LoS. The same thing applies to 40K too, where a lot of people are complaining that shooty armies are too good.

To be fair, it's not simply that "shooty armies are too good" it's that specific shooty armies(Tau) are too good because of their ability to gain Ignores Cover at the drop of a hat.

I never understood that..... If I am standing behind a tree how does a guy see me or better yet shoot me.

hobojebus wrote:
Whenever I play I set up plenty of terrain but there's too many ways to ignore it like marker lights.

Terrain is not a panacea that solves all issues and its silly that the answer to valid complaints is "use more cover", the answer is better written rules.

I don't think that the argument was that more terrain fixes problems, more that not enough terrain creates/compounds them.

Correct. Terrain doesn't fix everything, but playing on planet bowling bowl makes the problems much much worse.

Better written rules would be great, but the community is largely shunned from producing house rules and GW has no interest in writing better rules so - rock and hard place.

I think the terrain rules are nice and succinct. Even the local GW has lots of LOS blocking terrain. The giant tower from the Chaos Castle set being the main one.

Now is a perfect time to get the Ruins of Osgiliath. £18 for some sweet as terrain that will block LOS for grunts

hobojebus wrote:
Whenever I play I set up plenty of terrain but there's too many ways to ignore it like marker lights.

Terrain is not a panacea that solves all issues and its silly that the answer to valid complaints is "use more cover", the answer is better written rules.

It is certainly not silly. Or would you enjoy a video game cover shooter like Gears of War if you suddenly removed the "cover" part of the levels? The rules are designed to work best with lots of terrain, just like Gears of War is designed to be a cover shooter.

All games are improved with terrain. I'm not sure it's possible to have too much of it.

Herzlos wrote:
All games are improved with terrain. I'm not sure it's possible to have too much of it.

Yes there is. If you are a 40K player and rely on a shooty army to fire from far away then the person will say there is too much terrain.

If the terrain eats three-quarters of your army before it contacts the enemy, you might be a little hesitant to use it...

I know I only used the mysterious terrain rules for 8th once or twice a game, keeping the rest as generic forests and such. Are people doing that with Age of Sigmar?

Yeah we generally dont go for mysterious terrain, maybe one in the center for some extra interest but once youve had a few games where one teams terrain was all nasty on top of all there objectives, well thats just sucky.
Id rather we just picked out and wrote some of our own rules for certain terrain, if i wanted more narrative pieces id happy just to make them and have done just that, i have wayshrines and sigmarite statues and lizardman spawning pools, meteor craters, hermit caves ect. The terrain is super important for me, in any war game lots of terrain is a must. Its great fun making home made terrain like this to enrich the battle field narrative.


That reminds me, anyone know of company's that do good fantasy cottages that are quite reasonably priced, laser cut mdf or similar?? thx

At our store they use mysterious terrain all the time.

For our campaign, each piece of terrain is only special on a D6 roll of a 6.

I usually pick 2-3 pieces before the start of the game to be mysterious and roll for them, so not strictly mysterious so much because we both know what they are during deployment. I like how it affects the game doing it that way.

We use full mysterious terrain all the time. It adds a lot to the game in my opinion. We usually just use the basic mysterious terrain though and don't use the specific warscrolls for things like the Archway or the Realm Gate... Unless it's a special scenario revolving around it.

Once I've finished putting together my home set up I am going to compile a list of house rules for the pieces - such as where is impassable and what always counts as a certain type (for example I would like my walls with spikes on top to always count as deadly.

 Spinner wrote:
If the terrain eats three-quarters of your army before it contacts the enemy, you might be a little hesitant to use it...

I know I only used the mysterious terrain rules for 8th once or twice a game, keeping the rest as generic forests and such. Are people doing that with Age of Sigmar?

In Sylvaneth terrain is army!

We do mysterious terrain if we remember to and it's fun. There are several options on each side of the Atlantic to get tokens, markers or templates, or just make your own.
Hell, Erik from Mortal Realms podcast made some to sell for cost coverage but also put out templates for free if you don;t mind doing the work and printing them off.

I hope the new point base system will help repair the shattered fan base AoS has caused. If I walk into a new store and see a game of warhammer being played,
I can not assume it is a game of Age of Sigmar. It could be 9th age, old 8th edition or kings of war. I am sure Games Workshop didn't see this coming and thought
everyone would just except the new system and move on.

One thing that also troubles me is the scale of new miniatures being released. All newer models are a lot larger than previous, I don't know if this is to help newer
players with painting or GW just decided to separate themselves even more by moving again to a new scale of models. But comparing the sigmarites, Orrcks
and models like the vanguard chaos knights they are clearly a different scale of model.

A complaint I have heard a few times is about the older boxes still having square bases and more groups are starting to mostly use round bases. I know it don't
matter, but if every army you play has round bases its kind of peer pressure to go ahead and change over bases. Plus most older sets still have squares so the
additional cost is there to buy round bases to your purchase.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
If the terrain eats three-quarters of your army before it contacts the enemy, you might be a little hesitant to use it...

I know I only used the mysterious terrain rules for 8th once or twice a game, keeping the rest as generic forests and such. Are people doing that with Age of Sigmar?

In Sylvaneth terrain is army!

In Sylvaneth Russia, tree chop YOU!

 Genoside07 wrote:
I hope the new point base system will help repair the shattered fan base AoS has caused. If I walk into a new store and see a game of warhammer being played,
I can not assume it is a game of Age of Sigmar. It could be 9th age, old 8th edition or kings of war. I am sure Games Workshop didn't see this coming and thought
everyone would just except the new system and move on.

One thing that also troubles me is the scale of new miniatures being released. All newer models are a lot larger than previous, I don't know if this is to help newer
players with painting or GW just decided to separate themselves even more by moving again to a new scale of models. But comparing the sigmarites, Orrcks
and models like the vanguard chaos knights they are clearly a different scale of model.

A complaint I have heard a few times is about the older boxes still having square bases and more groups are starting to mostly use round bases. I know it don't
matter, but if every army you play has round bases its kind of peer pressure to go ahead and change over bases. Plus most older sets still have squares so the
additional cost is there to buy round bases to your purchase.

The scale isn't bigger actually, take a look at comparison pics of the new dwarves, they're exactly the same scale as the 8th edition dwarves. Your other examples (Stormcast, Orruks and Varanguard) all represent completely new types of elite units that are supposed to be a lot bigger than normal people of their race. Varanguard are not Knights, they're huge chaos champions of Archaon. Orruk ironjawz aren't normal orcs, they're huge orcs who are to normal orcs like LotR Uruk-Hai to goblin orcs or even bigger. Same with Bloodbound. And so on. The dwarves on the other hand not supposed to be bigger than a normal dwarf, and indeed they aren't.

There is a definite scale creep happening in my opinion. The design notes in the 2nd White Dwarf from the Silver Tower mention that the Kairic Acolytes are standard human sized and yet I have put one side by side with an upright Empire model and it is much larger (the article actually compares the acolytes to the new Warrior Priest who is even larger still!).

 Bottle wrote:
There is a definite scale creep happening in my opinion. The design notes in the 2nd White Dwarf from the Silver Tower mention that the Kairic Acolytes are standard human sized and yet I have put one side by side with an upright Empire model and it is much larger (the article actually compares the acolytes to the new Warrior Priest who is even larger still!).

Design notes don't always mean model fact, and it's also likely that they could mean standard -chaos- human size which has always been bigger than empire. Comparing them to WoC marauders would be a good check for scale creep. Other than that we don't have any real evidence because the bigger stuff released is supposed to be bigger and is described as such in the fluff.

I'll have to dig out the White Dwarf again later, but it was a direct quote from the sculptor and definitely read as though they were talking about a standard human size and not a chaos enhanced one.

I would love to be wrong, and for a new human or Aelf faction to be released on 25mm bases.

I really don't mind the mechanics for age of sigmar. What really kills me is killing off the old world. I can't get past that, which is why I refuse to buy any age of sigmar stuff.

i am loving the scale of the models...
it is only a slight increase, but makes painting so much more enjoyable...
it isn't really new, in my experience...
it noticed it back in about 2013-ish, with that last Dwarf release, and with the first round of new style Marines...
the minis just seemed to be a slightly bigger all around, and gives the perfect size canvas for awesome paintjobs...

there are just as many stinkers as there have always been, but when the stars align, the sculpts are brilliant, like the Auric Runemaster and the Ironjaws Megaboss...
cracking open Silver Tower made me feel like a kid at Christmas again...
so many awesome minis!!!

i am happier with the sculpts than i have ever been in 30 years of collecting minis...
the future's so bright, i gotta wear shades

cheers
jah

 Genoside07 wrote:
I hope the new point base system will help repair the shattered fan base AoS has caused. If I walk into a new store and see a game of warhammer being played,
I can not assume it is a game of Age of Sigmar. It could be 9th age, old 8th edition or kings of war. I am sure Games Workshop didn't see this coming and thought
everyone would just except the new system and move on.

One thing that also troubles me is the scale of new miniatures being released. All newer models are a lot larger than previous, I don't know if this is to help newer
players with painting or GW just decided to separate themselves even more by moving again to a new scale of models. But comparing the sigmarites, Orrcks
and models like the vanguard chaos knights they are clearly a different scale of model.

A complaint I have heard a few times is about the older boxes still having square bases and more groups are starting to mostly use round bases. I know it don't
matter, but if every army you play has round bases its kind of peer pressure to go ahead and change over bases. Plus most older sets still have squares so the
additional cost is there to buy round bases to your purchase.

The points system may get a few people back but it'll also cause some to leave when they can't do the pointless play they prefer.

And end of the day it's still not the rank and file game people want.

No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

 auticus wrote:
No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

No but given the poor reception of AoS and the large spike in kings of war and 9th ages well received arrival I'd say far more wanted ranks than wanted a shallow skirmish game.

Total war has saved this financial year for GW not AoS.

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

No but given the poor reception of AoS and the large spike in kings of war and 9th ages well received arrival I'd say far more wanted ranks than wanted a shallow skirmish game.

Total war has saved this financial year for GW not AoS.

I really don't know where this "large spike in Kings of War" comes from. I have yet to ever see anybody playing/buying the stuff in the wild.

I haven't seen a large spike in KOW either. In my entire region, KOW is a very minor game. (or 9th age)

I know that there are people that like rank and file but I think trying to pass it off quantitatively is misleading.

The single most largest issue that most everyone in my area that vocalizes their hate of AOS is typically revolving around lack of points.

Since points have been announced and are coming, our AOS activity has grown exponentially.

Yeah honestly I've never seen a KoW game played either (or 9th age for that matter). AoS isn't big, but KoW is non-existent and the Generals Compendium has many people excited to start playing.

I think Mantic selling out of their first print run of the second edition book shows a pretty decent spike in interest. You guys seem to have pretty established AoS communities; I'm not all that surprised you don't have many Kings of War games being played in the area.

 Kanluwen wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

No but given the poor reception of AoS and the large spike in kings of war and 9th ages well received arrival I'd say far more wanted ranks than wanted a shallow skirmish game.

Total war has saved this financial year for GW not AoS.

I really don't know where this "large spike in Kings of War" comes from. I have yet to ever see anybody playing/buying the stuff in the wild.

Crazy how individual experience isn't remotely a metric of a game's player-base. I'm going to a Kings of War doubles-tournament, tomorrow with 30 registered players, and this is coming off a GT in the area that saw about 45 players.

KoW is doing incredibly well in the competitive scene with a high adoption among groups that run Grand Tournaments. Now... as far as seeing it played with official Mantic models... i'll give you that. :-p I am starting to think its a myth that people play KoW with actual KoW models. :-p


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
I think Mantic selling out of their first print run of the second edition book shows a pretty decent spike in interest. You guys seem to have pretty established AoS communities; I'm not all that surprised you don't have many Kings of War games being played in the area.

The KoW 2nd Ed book is on its SEVENTH print run, and the expanded armies book Uncharted Empires is on its third.

The game is actually doing really, really well.

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

No but given the poor reception of AoS and the large spike in kings of war and 9th ages well received arrival I'd say far more wanted ranks than wanted a shallow skirmish game.

Total war has saved this financial year for GW not AoS.

What has Total War saving financial year for GW have to do with what Auticus said? I don't really Auticus saying AoS saved GW financial for GW this year. I am sure Total War didn't save it either. If there was no Total War GW still wouldn't be going bankrupt so there is no saving here.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

No but given the poor reception of AoS and the large spike in kings of war and 9th ages well received arrival I'd say far more wanted ranks than wanted a shallow skirmish game.

Total war has saved this financial year for GW not AoS.

I really don't know where this "large spike in Kings of War" comes from. I have yet to ever see anybody playing/buying the stuff in the wild.

Crazy how individual experience isn't remotely a metric of a game's player-base. I'm going to a Kings of War doubles-tournament, tomorrow with 30 registered players, and this is coming off a GT in the area that saw about 45 players.

KoW is doing incredibly well in the competitive scene with a high adoption among groups that run Grand Tournaments. Now... as far as seeing it played with official Mantic models... i'll give you that. :-p I am starting to think its a myth that people play KoW with actual KoW models. :-p


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
I think Mantic selling out of their first print run of the second edition book shows a pretty decent spike in interest. You guys seem to have pretty established AoS communities; I'm not all that surprised you don't have many Kings of War games being played in the area.

The KoW 2nd Ed book is on its SEVENTH print run, and the expanded armies book Uncharted Empires is on its third.

The game is actually doing really, really well.

Beat me to it In the US there's certainly some KoW. Last weekend there was a doubles event then 2-day full GT and there are a few more summer events coming.

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

No but given the poor reception of AoS and the large spike in kings of war and 9th ages well received arrival I'd say far more wanted ranks than wanted a shallow skirmish game.

Total war has saved this financial year for GW not AoS.

What has Total War saving financial year for GW have to do with what Auticus said? I don't really Auticus saying AoS saved GW financial for GW this year. I am sure Total War didn't save it either. If there was no Total War GW still wouldn't be going bankrupt so there is no saving here.

Bankrupt no but they did issue a warning about end year profits being bad in January's brief.

AoS is not selling well, worse than wfb according to my sources but kow sold out of its first few printings of the new edition to say people no longer wanted rank and file is clearly wrong.

And the game that saved their year is a rank and file war game set in the old world not the brand new mini game they've pushed for a year.

AoS quite obviously isn't the game people want.

hobojebus wrote:
AoS quite obviously isn't the game people want.

To be fair I recall pre AoS people asking for a skirmish game, but that was people wanting an updated Mordheim, which is very different than AoS, people were asking for it as a game to go alongside WHFB, not replace it, and I still maintain that AoS is designed and though of as a mass battle game by GW so it doesn't count anyway.

Despite all the people who have come out saying they love it since I never once heard anyone asking for a game without any sort of balancing mechanics, probably because those people would just ignore points with their friends anyway.

I can't say I ever saw anyone ask for WHFB to turned into 40k, without the rank and file and with round bases. Let alone with Space Marines in it..

Lol hobojebus, I love how much conjecture you put on things to twist it round to support you.

AoS isn't the game some people want. The fact that KoW has sold out some print runs doesn't say either way. How big are these print runs? How does that compare to what 7th or 8th Edition WHFB sold? We've got no real stats to support any point of view and can only make guesses.

GW sales initially expected to be lower than the forecast. that still doesn't intrinsically mean AoS is doing badly as a war game, or even that it was doing worse than WHFB. 40k has been on the backburner ever since AoS launched - there have been scant few releases since Ad Mech in 2015. It's basically been AoS + Boardgames holding the fort for the last year, and so that lack of 40k releases could be the real reason sales were reforcast to be lower than expected. It seems to me GW's biggest mistake was thinking AoS could match the popularity and profitability of 40k straight away and based a 12 month release cycle to be dominated by it. Unless you can give me some real sales figures from KoW and AoS to compare side by side you are just making wild guesswork.

hobojebus wrote:

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
No its certainly not the rank and file game that some people want but i don't think everyone wants rank and file either.

No but given the poor reception of AoS and the large spike in kings of war and 9th ages well received arrival I'd say far more wanted ranks than wanted a shallow skirmish game.

Total war has saved this financial year for GW not AoS.

What has Total War saving financial year for GW have to do with what Auticus said? I don't really Auticus saying AoS saved GW financial for GW this year. I am sure Total War didn't save it either. If there was no Total War GW still wouldn't be going bankrupt so there is no saving here.

Bankrupt no but they did issue a warning about end year profits being bad in January's brief.

AoS is not selling well, worse than wfb according to my sources but kow sold out of its first few printings of the new edition to say people no longer wanted rank and file is clearly wrong.

And the game that saved their year is a rank and file war game set in the old world not the brand new mini game they've pushed for a year.

AoS quite obviously isn't the game people want.

Talk about a broken record- haven't we been here already in this thread?!

Please, stop with the doom-saying speculation. No bugger has any idea how well it's doing (save for GW Head Office) and as was said earlier, comparing a game that has been around for 25-30 years to a new one doesn't really provide much to run the numbers against.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
comparing a game that has been around for 25-30 years to a new one doesn't really provide much to run the numbers against.

Well... comparing a 25 year old game to a new one is kinda fair if the 25 year old game was scrapped and replaced by the new one, and they both filled the same slot in the same company's financial reports.

I mean if we can't compare AoS to WHFB what the hell can we compare it to? 40k?

 Bottle wrote:
We've got no real stats to support any point of view and can only make guesses.

The most accurate rumors guy out there for - goodness, at least a decade now? - has repeatedly stated that AoS is doing quite poorly, and still hasn't matched the sales of WHFB, even during its worst periods. It's not "real stats," but I find it hard to imagine he's wrong, given his record.

 Lexington wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
We've got no real stats to support any point of view and can only make guesses.

The most accurate rumors guy out there for - goodness, at least a decade now? - has repeatedly stated that AoS is doing quite poorly, and still hasn't matched the sales of WHFB, even during its worst periods. It's not "real stats," but I find it hard to imagine he's wrong, given his record.

To be fair, looking at his accuracy? His record isn't spotless.

107 TRUE, 31 FALSE, 3 PARTIALLY TRUE/FALSE---and that's going back to 2009.

Heck, I think it's worth noting that he is also still on record as having claimed that there was going to be a 30K range replacing LOTR in the GW stores.

We've got rumours of more plastic 30k coming though don't we? And wasn't he claiming AoS would be coming with fantasy space marines well before anyone heard the name 'age of sigmar'?

hobojebus wrote:

Bankrupt no but they did issue a warning about end year profits being bad in January's brief.

AoS is not selling well, worse than wfb according to my sources but kow sold out of its first few printings of the new edition to say people no longer wanted rank and file is clearly wrong.

And the game that saved their year is a rank and file war game set in the old world not the brand new mini game they've pushed for a year.

AoS quite obviously isn't the game people want.

Fair enough. I thought you were trying to say that Total War Warhammer was the savings grace.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lexington wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
We've got no real stats to support any point of view and can only make guesses.

The most accurate rumors guy out there for - goodness, at least a decade now? - has repeatedly stated that AoS is doing quite poorly, and still hasn't matched the sales of WHFB, even during its worst periods. It's not "real stats," but I find it hard to imagine he's wrong, given his record.

To be fair, looking at his accuracy? His record isn't spotless.

Looked at in granular detail, most of the "false" components attributed to Hastings are, at best, misunderstandings, and sometimes plainly-stated uncertainties. Given that he's provided spot-on release schedules over a year in advance, and was the first source for Calth, Silver Tower, the Mechanicus releases, Deathwatch Overkill, Execution Force, and even AoS, I'd say this is a pretty poor barometer of the guy's useful accuracy.

While I would believe that AoS had a bad launch, it's possible that Hastings might not be well informed about how it has been doing recently or be up to date with his information. Apart from the ST rumor he hasn't said much lately. There certainly were some rumors in march that said that sales were "healthy," and most of the other predictions made in that post have turned out to be true.
Source: https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/784

And in regards to KoW, I don't doubt that some people jumped ship when AoS hit. But I doubt these numbers were great and it would seem that KoW remains a much less popular game than AoS. The AoS reddit forum has almost four times the amount of subscribers as the KoW forum, and appears to be growing faster.
Source: http://redditmetrics.com/r/ageofsigmar#compare=ageofsigmar+kingsofwar

 Bottle wrote:
Lol hobojebus, I love how much conjecture you put on things to twist it round to support you.

AoS isn't the game some people want. The fact that KoW has sold out some print runs doesn't say either way. How big are these print runs? How does that compare to what 7th or 8th Edition WHFB sold? We've got no real stats to support any point of view and can only make guesses.

GW sales initially expected to be lower than the forecast. that still doesn't intrinsically mean AoS is doing badly as a war game, or even that it was doing worse than WHFB. 40k has been on the backburner ever since AoS launched - there have been scant few releases since Ad Mech in 2015. It's basically been AoS + Boardgames holding the fort for the last year, and so that lack of 40k releases could be the real reason sales were reforcast to be lower than expected. It seems to me GW's biggest mistake was thinking AoS could match the popularity and profitability of 40k straight away and based a 12 month release cycle to be dominated by it. Unless you can give me some real sales figures from KoW and AoS to compare side by side you are just making wild guesswork.

The hard back of kow was 2K I think, soft back was 8K I seem to remember now compare that to the limited editions of AoS which couldn't sell out even 1k you tell me what's more popular? And remember you don't need to buy the kow books anymore than you do the AoS books.

We know the top 5 selling games thanks to icv2:
1)xwing
2)40k
3)armarda
4)warmachine
5)attack wing

So to suggest it's 40k that's not selling is false as AoS isn't anywhere in site and if it were outselling 40k it'd be on that list.

I can support my stance to some degree but can you offer any evidence at all that AoS is doing well?

hobojebus wrote:

The hard back of kow was 2K I think, soft back was 8K I seem to remember now compare that to the limited editions of AoS which couldn't sell out even 1k you tell me what's more popular? And remember you don't need to buy the kow books anymore than you do the AoS books.

Do you have a source for these numbers?
Anyway comparing rule book sales to limited edition army books for entirely new factions a few months after their introduction seems like apples to oranges to me.

If KoW is so much more popular than AoS, then how do you explain the reddit data I posted above?
I think numbers on a widely used social network like reddit are a better proxy of real numbers of players than speculation and rumors on forums like this.

I am going to say the same thing I said in warseer. As long as GW is making enough money via any means to support the hobby and community for 40k and AOS that's enough for me.

If people are so concerned about GW's financials why don't you apply to the company and make them money yourselves if you can do it better?

If you dislike said game system find another one you enjoy comoparing game systems you don't even play is pointless. I think people should just relax and enjoy their hobby and minatures.

If a company is doing something you dislike you don't buy any of their stuff end of story. With the leaks of the general handsbook?

People seem interested and I think AOS has a healthy future. It will never be as popular as 40k sci fi and super soldiers is more popular than fantasy that's just how it is.

Still I think AOS will be around for a long time.

Sure AoS will survive it may even thrive, but it will do so as a bottom tier game. It is too divisive, it split an already dwindling fan base. It will sit down there with wrath of kings, guildball and infinity as the also rans. It is fun, but not terribly creative. Its nothing revolutionary. I am trying to get some of the local lads here to get in on it hopefully at my FLGS, but I am the only person there actually ordering AoS so its an uphill battle and with warmahordes mk 3 coming out. very little chance we will actually succeed in growing a community. I am not gonna sit and sing its praises like its some awesome hip new game, its not, its half assed. But if we can get some folks having fun with it, then its good enough. It does not have to compete with the big boys.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
No bugger has any idea how well it's doing (save for GW Head Office) and as was said earlier

No, but we can guess it had a poor launch compared to expectations based on the half year figures. They were low in spite of Calth selling like hotcakes.

motski wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

The hard back of kow was 2K I think, soft back was 8K I seem to remember now compare that to the limited editions of AoS which couldn't sell out even 1k you tell me what's more popular? And remember you don't need to buy the kow books anymore than you do the AoS books.

Do you have a source for these numbers?
Anyway comparing rule book sales to limited edition army books for entirely new factions a few months after their introduction seems like apples to oranges to me.

If KoW is so much more popular than AoS, then how do you explain the reddit data I posted above?
I think numbers on a widely used social network like reddit are a better proxy of real numbers of players than speculation and rumors on forums like this.

No no I didn't say it was more popular don't straw man, I said mantic books outsold GW books and they did, I said AoS wasn't the game most wanted and the rise of 9th and kow shows plenty of people didn't want yet another skirmish game the split in the community obviously proves that.

As for Apple's and Oranges I'm comparing one book you don't need to buy to another book you don't need to buy it doesn't get more apt than that.

As for social media that only represents younger gamers most old farts like me don't bother and just pick up our phones, reddit and Facebook only represent a portion not the whole so are fairly worthless as a standard to measure against.

hobojebus wrote:

No no I didn't say it was more popular don't straw man, I said mantic books outsold GW books and they did, I said AoS wasn't the game most wanted and the rise of 9th and kow shows plenty of people didn't want yet another skirmish game the split in the community obviously proves that.

As for Apple's and Oranges I'm comparing one book you don't need to buy to another book you don't need to buy it doesn't get more apt than that.

You didn't say it was more popular, but it's what you were trying to imply.
Apples and oranges?
As you pointed out, neither book was necessary. So why would you buy a deluxe version?
The limited edition books didn't sell out because they were expensive versions of unnecessary books.
KoW sold out because the size of print runs were too small.
There were people who backed the kickstarter who were waiting until the 2nd reprint to get their copies.

Neither of these comment as to the game, but to the mindset of the company.

No no I didn't say it was more popular don't straw man

mm..

you tell me what's more popular?

You explicitly asked him to comment on what's more popular.

He didn't say you said it was more popular. He asked how you'd explain some other data if KOW was more popular. In other words it appears he directly addressed your explicit question and that you are then creating the strawman.

puree wrote:

No no I didn't say it was more popular don't straw man

mm..

you tell me what's more popular?

You explicitly asked him to comment on what's more popular.

He didn't say you said it was more popular. He asked how you'd explain some other data if KOW was more popular. In other words it appears he directly addressed your explicit question and that you are then creating the strawman.

No to strawman you must mistate the other persons stance and then argue against that instead of what they actually said.

What I did was invite further discussion after citing my case and its supporting evidence.

What this is is misdirection to avoid the actual point which is a claim was made that aos isn't failing that's yet to be substantiated, I've given my argument as to why it is but the evidence it's doing well has not materialised.

So what evidence circumstantial as it is can the pro AoS crowd provide that it's not an abysmal failure?

When a company brags about print runs you know they were strugling with sales, reduced expectations, and went with short prints. WizKids does this regularly(Pathfinder Battles and D&D minis, most recent). Getting people to start valuing the product higher than their money. It works.I can't say adding self-wounding into the game would be popular, it's needlessly complicated. Archers would take turns 1 and 2, then fade out\cannon fodder themselves. Heroes don't auto hit basics either, that makes them too special to even be there.

hobojebus wrote:

puree wrote:

No no I didn't say it was more popular don't straw man

mm..

you tell me what's more popular?

You explicitly asked him to comment on what's more popular.

He didn't say you said it was more popular. He asked how you'd explain some other data if KOW was more popular. In other words it appears he directly addressed your explicit question and that you are then creating the strawman.

No to strawman you must mistate the other persons stance and then argue against that instead of what they actually said.

What I did was invite further discussion after citing my case and its supporting evidence.

What this is is misdirection to avoid the actual point which is a claim was made that aos isn't failing that's yet to be substantiated, I've given my argument as to why it is but the evidence it's doing well has not materialised.

So what evidence circumstantial as it is can the pro AoS crowd provide that it's not an abysmal failure?

I am just going to ask why does it matter to you if AOS is a failure or not? Do you play it? I suspect not considering your posts if you dislike a system find one you enjoy instead of using energy arguing about a game/miniatures you seem to have no interest in. What do you stand to gain from it?

The mistake people are making here is the idea of inherent exclusivity. People are assuming the players who play one system do not play the other, which is patently false. AoS and KoW are, to speak of their designs, not similar in the least. Both games have free rules, so it's difficult to properly ascertain how many people are playing what. Tournaments aren't a good metric, and really rulebook sales are poor as well ( retail stores buy the books too, and there is no guarantee they will sell those books.)
AoS wants to be a skirmish game, while KoW wants to be a massed army battle game. They are going to attract different people and players, so drawing comparisons serves little good.
Really, rather than wasting your time here with the cliched 'internet dick fight' you should discuss Age of Sigmar's future, or go do some modeling. Would be a much better use of your time.

As for AoS, I said it in the beginning - This game will take time to grow. And from what I can see at our local level, it has and will continue to do so. The biggest gaming store in town has trouble running WFB tournaments anymore. It wasn't a WFB place to begin with, but Aos is finding a way and growing. There is a lot of excitement for the new system, new factions and new models.
I haven't seen a single game of Kings of War locally. While this isn't indicitive of the market as a whole, it's the only hardcore data I have to go off of.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Please, stop with the doom-saying speculation. No bugger has any idea how well it's doing (save for GW Head Office) and as was said earlier, comparing a game that has been around for 25-30 years to a new one doesn't really provide much to run the numbers against.

Well GW themselves admitted in warhammer fest AOS started off badly...

Straight from GW's mouth. What more you need to believe AOS isn't doing great in sales?

tneva82: Source?

tneva82 wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Please, stop with the doom-saying speculation. No bugger has any idea how well it's doing (save for GW Head Office) and as was said earlier, comparing a game that has been around for 25-30 years to a new one doesn't really provide much to run the numbers against.

Well GW themselves admitted in warhammer fest AOS started off badly...

Straight from GW's mouth. What more you need to believe AOS isn't doing great in sales?

Yes they admitted it had a bad launch at warhammer fest anyone with eyes could see that the fact they launched with khorne and stormcast. What's important in my mind is that GW ALSO said that they are going to make their focus to be developing games and great miniatures and interacting with the community. Something which they are doing in spades and has had a good effect. The old GW with Kirby would have never done that that's why I still give them my money.

Of course months after that we hear according to rumors AOS is now "healthy" in terms of sales. Plus my GW manager and area manager confirmed it's doing good it's ancetodal evidence but hey I am sure you are not going to believe me.

Now I ask why does it matter if AOS is doing good or bad? If you are not interested in AOS why should you care if it's doing good or bad? If you care about the sales so much why not apply for GW and make them money? Why waste time thinking about stuff only investors and head office should truly care about?

As long as they are making enough money to support the hobby 40k and AOS that's enough for me. Why do people who enjoy AOS need to prove it's doing well? Just enjoy your hobby leave those people who don't like it to grind their axe somewhere else it's not worth the effort.

Why do people who enjoy AOS need to prove it's doing well?

Its appealing to the masses. That cultural phenomenon where if you aren't playing what's #1 then you need to be.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I really don't know where this "large spike in Kings of War" comes from. I have yet to ever see anybody playing/buying the stuff in the wild.

Its just one data point, but we have a long running regional tournament in town that draws players from 3-4 surrounding states every year. For years it was 40K/WFB but the last one was 40K/KoW. Our FLGS is doing a fair business selling KoW starter armies, but no one is playing AoS (or Oldhammer or 9th Age) in our shop. I'm finally starting to warm to AoS but I am waiting to see if the new General's book sparks any interest in the game before committing.

Visiting family for a few weeks and drove 45 mins to the GW store and guess what...damned it wasn't AoS dominating the scene there and they were having fun. Just like everyone on this board should be doing--having fun. Spend your hobby time happy and express that happy and if you haven't found it, go find the happy.

You. Will. Never. Ever. See GW specific numbers or what is actually going on. So. Please. Give. It.. A. fething. Rest.
You're starting to sound like warseer...

 shinros wrote:

Now I ask why does it matter if AOS is doing good or bad? If you are not interested in AOS why should you care if it's doing good or bad?

People will get some joy if they can see GW suffers and wish them to go bankrupt.

Davor wrote:

 shinros wrote:

Now I ask why does it matter if AOS is doing good or bad? If you are not interested in AOS why should you care if it's doing good or bad?

People will get some joy if they can see GW suffers and wish them to go bankrupt.

I have notice that a lot lately.

Davor wrote:

 shinros wrote:

Now I ask why does it matter if AOS is doing good or bad? If you are not interested in AOS why should you care if it's doing good or bad?

People will get some joy if they can see GW suffers and wish them to go bankrupt.

I think you're confusing that with people disliking the direction GW have been heading recently and knowing there needs to be a catalyst to change it (like we have seen with Roundtree taking over and now we're seeing heavily discounted getting started boxes and the like).

Serious question;
If Mantic are so popular, why do they go around with the kickstarter begging bowl *every* time they release/update a game?
Or allow *current* mini ranges / books to disappear?

You only have to look through the comments on their blog to see they struggle to fulfil their kickstarters anyway.

People keep fixating on GW's finances with gleeful schadenfreude, yet in Mantic's case to every outward appearance they are either living hand to mouth, or simply using kickstarter to maintain their 'plucky upstart ' cachet.

Yes, GWs profits might be falling but they are still a *long* way from the red.

RoperPG wrote:
Serious question;
If Mantic are so popular, why do they go around with the kickstarter begging bowl *every* time they release/update a game?
Or allow *current* mini ranges / books to disappear?

You only have to look through the comments on their blog to see they struggle to fulfil their kickstarters anyway.

People keep fixating on GW's finances with gleeful schadenfreude, yet in Mantic's case to every outward appearance they are either living hand to mouth, or simply using kickstarter to maintain their 'plucky upstart ' cachet.

Yes, GWs profits might be falling but they are still a *long* way from the red.

Because Kickstarter allows you to pay off the investment on the new product line and take preorders before production. That's great for any company. Maybe not the best for the customers who are putting forward money without having seen the product but it's working for them.
Kickstarter =/= begging.

RoperPG wrote:
Serious question;
If Mantic are so popular, why do they go around with the kickstarter begging bowl *every* time they release/update a game?

It's a great source of investment. They struggle with the logistics because they are still quite a small operation, and usually offer too much in kickstarters.
Their actual products all seem pretty well recieved by those that buy though, whilst the mini's aren't as good as GW, the games are so much better.

Yes, GWs profits might be falling but they are still a *long* way from the red.

They are only a few percentage points decline from being in the red, and don't seem to be improving. They won't disappear this year, but they aren't a million miles away from that inertia point.

Thing is... they've been ready to die anyday now since 2004 or so when Warmachine became popular and everyone said that Privateer was going to kill off GW.

Every year they are going to die any year now.

Every year they've been getting more sketchy, I don't think they're going to die any time soon.

Gw's new direction is great. Roundtree is making the right changes. No the games will never be very tourney friendly simply because that's not their aim. They are FUN though, except elder feth elder. Nor will they be bargain barrel pricing

Those who are still stuck in the rage of sigmar need to get over it and play a few games as the rules are written. its quick and dirty but fun. The lack of points is brilliant, I love it.

AOS is thriving in my area simply because we make the most of the game. We play path to glory, we use scenarios other than "kill eachother". This game has unbelievable potential and is only going to get BETTER. People need to realize they have the chance to get in to a game as its created that can be another WHFB that lasts the next 30 years.

All of that KOW is not WHFB and never will be. Its too simplistic and the tactics are the same for each army. I tried a few games and was very very underwhelmed with it. WHFB is gone. 9th age is trying really hard to fill that gap and is the closest thing to WHFB we will find but it still doesn't have the same feel to it. Too sterile, kinda blah for me. Its a pure tournament game and that just doesn't have the same kind of draw to me. To each their own though.

Moral of the story is if you are too stubborn to try and see what AOS has to offer and give it a real chance then you deserve to miss out on this game.

Oh and those that need points to play a game.....you are simply too unimaginative to be playing with toy soldiers and unfun.

And for the rare case that you have really given the game a good go and still don't enjoy it then the game simply isn't for you and its time to move on. Sorry you lost your WHFB many clubs still play 8th though.

[/rant]

Happy gaming im jacked for the new book next month

 namiel wrote:
And for the rare case that you have really given the game a good go and still don't enjoy it then the game

You mean those of us that liked WHFB because it was a massed battle rank and file game? I think there might be just a few more of us than your rant suggests

 jonolikespie wrote:

 namiel wrote:
And for the rare case that you have really given the game a good go and still don't enjoy it then the game

You mean those of us that liked WHFB because it was a massed battle rank and file game? I think there might be just a few more of us than your rant suggests

Ones that really played several games of AOS and really found it not a fun game. Im not talking about those that didn't give it an honest chance the ones that did. If my area is any indication of how that works out im willing to bet there are like 3 people here that fit that bill. Once people her really gave it a good go they have all converted and are now playing AOS regularly, more so than 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FYI I was not exempt from my own rant. I went to KOW after the end times, I didn't like it at all. I started playing 40k heavily again, still play it. I had the rage of sigmar a prejudice against this new thing that killed my old love, WHFB. I said "I cant play without points" I bitched and moaned about this game and what it represented THEN one day I played it. Then I played it again, and again and now im all in I love it.

My rant comes from my own perspective of how I felt about AOS.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 namiel wrote:
And for the rare case that you have really given the game a good go and still don't enjoy it then the game

You mean those of us that liked WHFB because it was a massed battle rank and file game? I think there might be just a few more of us than your rant suggests

Perhaps you should have bought models then, because something as risky as AoS was made possible by the near zero demand for WHFB. Consumers voted with their wallets, and found WHFB lacking. There could be millions of like minded individuals and if none of you invest in the hobby then it's for naught. AoS is a failure for different reasons, it is inherently more attractive to 40k players than WHFB (and 40k players are a spendy lot), and the simple rules make it super easy to get into. Seems like it would be a recipe for success other than a series of really horrible decisions left them without advocates in the gaming community. Once again consumer voted with their wallets, and GW was forced to listen. They have done a lot to address the issues with the launch, like shitcanning a CEO, changing their attitudes towards their customers, engaging with their customers via FAQs, and most applicably to AoS releasing a point system and trying to get into the tournament scene. If I'm honest I'm afraid it might be too little too late, but my friends and our local area seems pretty excited about it, so I'm a small bit hopeful.

Or did people vote with their wallets because of GW practices and shoddy rules writing and unbalanced books?

So basically you are blaming the victim of the crime. So instead of Games-Workshop fixing what THEY DID WRONG, they threw out the baby with the bath water.

So people are suppose to accept shoddy rule writing, price increase after price increase and unbalanced books and being made fun of from the CEO?

Something is wrong what you wrote Grimgold.

 Grimgold wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 namiel wrote:
And for the rare case that you have really given the game a good go and still don't enjoy it then the game

You mean those of us that liked WHFB because it was a massed battle rank and file game? I think there might be just a few more of us than your rant suggests

Perhaps you should have bought models then, because something as risky as AoS was made possible by the near zero demand for WHFB. Consumers voted with their wallets, and found WHFB lacking. There could be millions of like minded individuals and if none of you invest in the hobby then it's for naught. AoS is a failure for different reasons, it is inherently more attractive to 40k players than WHFB (and 40k players are a spendy lot), and the simple rules make it super easy to get into. Seems like it would be a recipe for success other than a series of really horrible decisions left them without advocates in the gaming community. Once again consumer voted with their wallets, and GW was forced to listen. They have done a lot to address the issues with the launch, like shitcanning a CEO, changing their attitudes towards their customers, engaging with their customers via FAQs, and most applicably to AoS releasing a point system and trying to get into the tournament scene. If I'm honest I'm afraid it might be too little too late, but my friends and our local area seems pretty excited about it, so I'm a small bit hopeful.

I did buy minis, says the end times books I bought for my NEWLY purchased 2500 point warriors of chaos army, how about my 5000 points of empire, no the proof lies in my 10000+ points of ogres

NO WAIT IT must be my hundreds and hundreds of skaven models I own.........

So don't put this on me like I or the people I game with somehow were the cause of gw creating AOS. Frankly I don't give a feth since I quite enjoy AOS now. My need for rank and file game has been killed, im no longer impressed seeing the alternatives out there now.

Sure, maybe it was bad rules and unbalanced books that made people leave the game in droves, whatever it was the fact is people stopped buying it so GW stopped making it. Could they have fixed everything, who knows, but GW didn't seem to think so because they chose to do something pretty risky rather than going the safe route and trying to fix their IP.

Also victim blaming is a weird phrase to use in this context, because if not buying WHFB models made you a victim, then 99.99% of the world are victims? As for what people should accept or not, that's up to them, but it's quite obvious that WHFB was beyond most peoples tolerance. By your own admission it was gak, overpriced, unbalanced, and most damning of all not fun to play. Is it any surprise people didn't buy it once there were better alternatives, and based on that is it any surprise GW stopped making it? I'm really failing to see why there is outrage on this, it's a simple sequence of cause and effect.

 Grimgold wrote:
Perhaps you should have bought models then

I did until I felt the rules go to hell and the model quality go down...

Also in hugely positive news, GW just announced an independently run tournament for AOS. Gw is headed in the right direction in what could be considered their biggest fault, customer involvement in the hobby outside of buying.

MORE HOPE FOR THE RIGHT DIRECTION

 shinros wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

puree wrote:

No no I didn't say it was more popular don't straw man

mm..

you tell me what's more popular?

You explicitly asked him to comment on what's more popular.

He didn't say you said it was more popular. He asked how you'd explain some other data if KOW was more popular. In other words it appears he directly addressed your explicit question and that you are then creating the strawman.

No to strawman you must mistate the other persons stance and then argue against that instead of what they actually said.

What I did was invite further discussion after citing my case and its supporting evidence.

What this is is misdirection to avoid the actual point which is a claim was made that aos isn't failing that's yet to be substantiated, I've given my argument as to why it is but the evidence it's doing well has not materialised.

So what evidence circumstantial as it is can the pro AoS crowd provide that it's not an abysmal failure?

I am just going to ask why does it matter to you if AOS is a failure or not? Do you play it? I suspect not considering your posts if you dislike a system find one you enjoy instead of using energy arguing about a game/miniatures you seem to have no interest in. What do you stand to gain from it?

Why does it matter? Why is he using energy arguing about it? You know, it's thanks to all the bitchers and complainers that games workshop is releasing this book. All of the AOS fanboys have no part in this step forward and evolution of the game. And we "bitchers" are just angry gamers that wanted to play fantasy warhammer but were given a gakky game. You should be giving thanks, because the protest is what has brought about the changes.

And there has been so much propaganda and protectionism given to this crappy game. Dhaka sencoring and deleting "negative" posts about AOS. Games workshop influincing popular YouTube channels to feature the game ( and never talk badly about it). But now our voices are being heard.

We wanted points, we wanted wargear and bam we got them. Now GW needs to add more tactics to the game. Benefits for the charging unit, more "rock paper scissor" unit countering ...some or any reason to create important combats. Give the player important decisions on where to move and who to fight. Then finally clean up the bad rules a bit...ie "no you can't fire your archers in hand to hand combat". Then maybe we've got something.

But you got to fight a little so GW can hear you. Complain, troll, do anything to spread the word. THAT is how the generals handbook was born!

Company releases product.
Customers complain product is inferior.
Company changes product to appeal to customers.

That's just how the world works, why are we debating why we are debating this?

bob82ca wrote:

 shinros wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

puree wrote:

No no I didn't say it was more popular don't straw man

mm..

you tell me what's more popular?

You explicitly asked him to comment on what's more popular.

He didn't say you said it was more popular. He asked how you'd explain some other data if KOW was more popular. In other words it appears he directly addressed your explicit question and that you are then creating the strawman.

No to strawman you must mistate the other persons stance and then argue against that instead of what they actually said.

What I did was invite further discussion after citing my case and its supporting evidence.

What this is is misdirection to avoid the actual point which is a claim was made that aos isn't failing that's yet to be substantiated, I've given my argument as to why it is but the evidence it's doing well has not materialised.

So what evidence circumstantial as it is can the pro AoS crowd provide that it's not an abysmal failure?

I am just going to ask why does it matter to you if AOS is a failure or not? Do you play it? I suspect not considering your posts if you dislike a system find one you enjoy instead of using energy arguing about a game/miniatures you seem to have no interest in. What do you stand to gain from it?

Why does it matter? Why is he using energy arguing about it? You know, it's thanks to all the bitchers and complainers that games workshop is releasing this book. All of the AOS fanboys have no part in this step forward and evolution of the game. And we "bitchers" are just angry gamers that wanted to play fantasy warhammer but were given a gakky game. You should be giving thanks, because the protest is what has brought about the changes.

And there has been so much propaganda and protectionism given to this crappy game. Dhaka sencoring and deleting "negative" posts about AOS. Games workshop influincing popular YouTube channels to feature the game ( and never talk badly about it). But now our voices are being heard.

We wanted points, we wanted wargear and bam we got them. Now GW needs to add more tactics to the game. Benefits for the charging unit, more "rock paper scissor" unit countering ...some or any reason to create important combats. Give the player important decisions on where to move and who to fight. Then finally clean up the bad rules a bit...ie "no you can't fire your archers in hand to hand combat". Then maybe we've got something.

But you got to fight a little so GW can hear you. Complain, troll, do anything to spread the word. THAT is how the generals handbook was born!

Right I see so you assume that people who liked AOS had no problems with the game? You assume that it's because of you that GW are doing this? So they did not get fans who liked AOS and those who organized tournaments to help with the general's handbook? Not the complainers or people who just troll? I am sure those people have early copies of the book they helped developed.

I am sure it was all the people who hate the game that truly helped give us what we had now. What I saw on facebook was people said they liked the game but they desired points for pick ups and gave constructive criticism not what I see here on the forums. I stand by what I said some people's obsession with grinding their axe with AOS in my opinion is a waste of time some people are complaining for the sake of it. Yes you can give constructive criticism to the game but I suspect the game won't turn into the thing you want. Well anyway you have you points I do hope you find at least some enjoyment in the wargame. Plus censoring? I see negative comments on facebook that have not been deleted yet.

GW are doing the correct thing as a business by supporting the hobby and community hence why people are giving them their money now. GW influencing youtubers? Or shockingly they may actually like the product and want to talk about? As I said if you don't like GW's practices don't give them your money vote with your wallet that's all a business care's about not a forums posting ranting and trolling and trolling would be the worst thing to do to get a companies attention since they won't take you seriously.

Anyway I am done with this topic tired of debating and the back and forth I am just going to enjoy the hobby.

 shinros wrote:

Anyway I am done with this topic tired of debating and the back and forth I am just going to enjoy the hobby.

The sooner everyone, doing the same thing, realize that this take from their REAL hobby time, the better. These discussions are worth it if one is interested in the discussion alone. Play the game, paint the miniatures and only get back here to discuss matters of principle

People are voting with their wallets which is why sales of minis are down 14% in the last few years.

Games stores are dropping GW stock because of how unreasonable they are.

X-wing has become number one after three years.

Kirby brought GW to its knees while doing everything to alienate customers that's why you have such ill will.

Roundtrees done some good but not enough to change direction .

Prices for new kits are still way too high to attract new people only the die hard fans will buy and there's simply too few of them to keep profits up.

Plugging the wound with royalties from games is a short term fix at best.

It might be enough to hold until they can turn around though. Maybe.

bob82ca wrote:


Why does it matter? Why is he using energy arguing about it? You know, it's thanks to all the bitchers and complainers that games workshop is releasing this book. All of the AOS fanboys have no part in this step forward and evolution of the game. And we "bitchers" are just angry gamers that wanted to play fantasy warhammer but were given a gakky game. You should be giving thanks, because the protest is what has brought about the changes.

And there has been so much propaganda and protectionism given to this crappy game. Dhaka sencoring and deleting "negative" posts about AOS. Games workshop influincing popular YouTube channels to feature the game ( and never talk badly about it). But now our voices are being heard.

We wanted points, we wanted wargear and bam we got them. Now GW needs to add more tactics to the game. Benefits for the charging unit, more "rock paper scissor" unit countering ...some or any reason to create important combats. Give the player important decisions on where to move and who to fight. Then finally clean up the bad rules a bit...ie "no you can't fire your archers in hand to hand combat". Then maybe we've got something.

But you got to fight a little so GW can hear you. Complain, troll, do anything to spread the word. THAT is how the generals handbook was born!

Entitled here aren't we?

You know, it can go the other way around.

If you are the saviour and are the reason why points are back, can't you be blamed for Fantasy failing in the first place and Age of Sigmar to happen?

*edit*

Going by the bitching part, maybe if you bittched before more proper changes could have happened before, but yet you let things slide and get out of hand. See, we can place blame as well. So do you really want to start placing blame now or at the least do you really want to start saying you have made change for the better?

Davor wrote:
can't you be blamed for Fantasy failing in the first place and Age of Sigmar to happen?

No, AoS was NOT an appropriate response to falling sales.

When sales fall you find out why and address the problem, not throw out a thirty year old game and setting.

I agree AoS is fun, but it should have been a 3rd game or something. I kind of doubt WHFB was going worse than LoTR, just saying.

Main problem I think it had that 40k has as well is the scaling, each new edition just seems to put a bigger and bigger door onto entrance. Formations kind of mitigate this for 40k by at least letting you play eaier with a smaller amount of stuff (and probably could have for whfb as well) but it feels like a bandaid solution.

To be fair GW might be either A) locked into some sort of contract and forced to stock LotR or B) holding onto the licence knowing it wont make them any money but that they also don't have to invest any more money into it, and while they hold the licence no one else can produce LotR figures to compete with WHFB/AoS.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:
can't you be blamed for Fantasy failing in the first place and Age of Sigmar to happen?

No, AoS was NOT an appropriate response to falling sales.

When sales fall you find out why and address the problem, not throw out a thirty year old game and setting.

I know that jonolikespie. My response was for BoB82ca. If he and his kiln were the saviours and reasons why we have points now, couldn't it be said they were the downfall of Fantasy as well? After all if he claims him and his kiln "bitching" got points back maybe if his and his kiln "bithced" more when Fantasy in 6th 7th and 8th, we would have Fantsy 9th now instead of AoS. Like I said it can go both ways. Don't claim you brought in something when you an be blamed when something failed.

What I said is just as ludicrous as what he is claiming.

Gw stopped promoting fantasy when it decided to make AoS which was around 2013 when it was the third best selling mini game.

Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

I always attributed the decline in 8th ed to the combination of the whacky chaos demons rules and the High Elf book back in like.. early to mid 2013?

Locally we loved 8th as a tourney game, most of the community was people who played 40k competitively and it was easy to draw them over with a tighter, less bloated, more balanced ruleset. The first half of 8th ed's lifespan was one of the most balanced GW games I have seen, but around the time of the high elves book it seemed like they decided that wasn't important and it showed in the new releases.

hobojebus wrote:
Gw stopped promoting fantasy

When did GW promote anything before mid 2000's-2016?

Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game

Proof please.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

So true.

hobojebus wrote:
Gw stopped promoting fantasy when it decided to make AoS which was around 2013 when it was the third best selling mini game.

Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

I get all of the GW hate, I do, but what your talking about is stark raving insanity, you don't kill a successful product to create market demand, and given that it's pure conjecture I'll give GW the benefit of the doubt. Were they working on a new edition of fantasy in 2013, certainly, there is significant lead up time involved in the miniatures industry, but by 2013 fantasy was already dying. You can see it in the 2012 earnings statement, which is probably what precipitated AoS. So you can either believe they tried some marketing stunt that a grade schooler would be able to tell you wouldn't work, or you can believe sales were soft and they decided to take a risk. Also don't mistake citing low sales as blaming the consumer, if fantasy wasn't selling, it's certainly GWs fault for having an inferior product. My comments were to poke holes in the idea that Fantasy was viable before AoS, eg: "If fantasy was so good why didn't more people buy it?", the answer fantasy wasn't good so people didn't buy it. No conspiracy needed, no elaborate villainous plans by Kirby to pee in your cheerios, just a product that was in need of work and more mistakes than you can fit in a dump truck.

 CoreCommander wrote:
The sooner everyone, doing the same thing, realize that this take from their REAL hobby time, the better.

For some people like hobojesus the hobby IS raging on about how GW is the great satan, and if they can turn one person away from GW, its worth their time.

The Ignore-button helps some, but it quickly becomes a jumbled mess to read a thread like this, which turns people off from participating and drift off to somewhere more uplifting. Bad for Dakka and AoS, but a win for the trolls. And so it continues...

Sounds like what warseer was.

Spiky Norman wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
The sooner everyone, doing the same thing, realize that this take from their REAL hobby time, the better.

For some people like hobojesus the hobby IS raging on about how GW is the great satan, and if they can turn one person away from GW, its worth their time.

The Ignore-button helps some, but it quickly becomes a jumbled mess to read a thread like this, which turns people off from participating and drift off to somewhere more uplifting. Bad for Dakka and AoS, but a win for the trolls. And so it continues...

It's a hobby not the hobby.

hobojebus wrote:
Gw stopped promoting fantasy when it decided to make AoS which was around 2013 when it was the third best selling mini game.

Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

Where in the world did you go to business school? Where ever it was get a refund....

 auticus wrote:
Sounds like what warseer was.

I'm still sadly seeing the ignore list folk in quote boxes since so many attempt to respond and reason with them, ha. Or maybe they are soon to be giving up trying.

Sadly, yes, some threads since the GHB was announced have devolved to the lowest form...Warseer-like. Gah, even trying to pop in and see if anything has remotely changed there...

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Gw stopped promoting fantasy when it decided to make AoS which was around 2013 when it was the third best selling mini game.

Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

Where in the world did you go to business school? Where ever it was get a refund....

So you are of the opinion gw is a well run company, y'know given that they are shrinking while the wargaming market market is growing.

 jonolikespie wrote:
To be fair GW might be either A) locked into some sort of contract and forced to stock LotR or B) holding onto the licence knowing it wont make them any money but that they also don't have to invest any more money into it, and while they hold the licence no one else can produce LotR figures to compete with WHFB/AoS.

Sorry to butt in, but that's crap. LotR still has a big following and a large fan base. They just re-did the contract for four years and have already put out previews of the next set of releases and supplement. They're certainly not forced to stock it, they're doing it because they know it sells well and has excellent support from the community.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
To be fair GW might be either A) locked into some sort of contract and forced to stock LotR or B) holding onto the licence knowing it wont make them any money but that they also don't have to invest any more money into it, and while they hold the licence no one else can produce LotR figures to compete with WHFB/AoS.

Sorry to butt in, but that's crap. LotR still has a big following and a large fan base. They just re-did the contract for four years and have already put out previews of the next set of releases and supplement. They're certainly not forced to stock it, they're doing it because they know it sells well and has excellent support from the community.

Um... I would not be surprised at all to hear it has a loyal fanbase, but a big one? Absolutely not. At least not online or here in Australia. I picked up a bunch of models like a year or two back to use for D&D and the GW employee joked that the head office would think he was scamming them somehow because he actually sold $200 worth of LotR stock.

Then there was the Hobbit fiasco, where they never sold out of the limited run box sets, and released what, 2 boxes and 4 blisters for the second movie and nothing for the 3rd? They clearly dropped all support for it except what they already had nearing the end of the pipepline after the first movie.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
To be fair GW might be either A) locked into some sort of contract and forced to stock LotR or B) holding onto the licence knowing it wont make them any money but that they also don't have to invest any more money into it, and while they hold the licence no one else can produce LotR figures to compete with WHFB/AoS.

Sorry to butt in, but that's crap. LotR still has a big following and a large fan base. They just re-did the contract for four years and have already put out previews of the next set of releases and supplement. They're certainly not forced to stock it, they're doing it because they know it sells well and has excellent support from the community.

Um... I would not be surprised at all to hear it has a loyal fanbase, but a big one? Absolutely not. At least not online or here in Australia. I picked up a bunch of models like a year or two back to use for D&D and the GW employee joked that the head office would think he was scamming them somehow because he actually sold $200 worth of LotR stock.

Then there was the Hobbit fiasco, where they never sold out of the limited run box sets, and released what, 2 boxes and 4 blisters for the second movie and nothing for the 3rd? They clearly dropped all support for it except what they already had nearing the end of the pipepline after the first movie.

Sorry, but yes a large one. I suggest you look at the Throne of Skulls which had it's largest attendance through the SBG since Warhammer World re-opened. In fact it was so popular they had to increase capacity twice because it sold out so fast. Not to mention Nova Open from both last year and this year. Both have record numbers of attendees hitting the triple figures.

hobojebus wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Gw stopped promoting fantasy when it decided to make AoS which was around 2013 when it was the third best selling mini game.

Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

Where in the world did you go to business school? Where ever it was get a refund....

So you are of the opinion gw is a well run company, y'know given that they are shrinking while the wargaming market market is growing.

That's not the counter position from yours.
Snoop is probably referencing your claim that GW intentionally nosedived WFB.
Which is patently ridiculous, but obviously fits with your continuing narrative that GW is run by idiots who don't know what they're doing.
Your comment about GW shrinking while the market was growing is also further evidence that you know the words but don't understand the implications.
So yeah, get that refund.

hobojebus wrote:

Spiky Norman wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
The sooner everyone, doing the same thing, realize that this take from their REAL hobby time, the better.

For some people like hobojesus the hobby IS raging on about how GW is the great satan, and if they can turn one person away from GW, its worth their time.

The Ignore-button helps some, but it quickly becomes a jumbled mess to read a thread like this, which turns people off from participating and drift off to somewhere more uplifting. Bad for Dakka and AoS, but a win for the trolls. And so it continues...

It's a hobby not the hobby.

Then could you take your hobby of raging against GW and trying to turn people away from their games, to someplace else?
Maybe another forum, maybe your own blog or whatever. Poisoning the well here is hurting these forums.

RoperPG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Gw stopped promoting fantasy when it decided to make AoS which was around 2013 when it was the third best selling mini game.

Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

Where in the world did you go to business school? Where ever it was get a refund....

So you are of the opinion gw is a well run company, y'know given that they are shrinking while the wargaming market market is growing.

That's not the counter position from yours.
Snoop is probably referencing your claim that GW intentionally nosedived WFB.
Which is patently ridiculous, but obviously fits with your continuing narrative that GW is run by idiots who don't know what they're doing.
Your comment about GW shrinking while the market was growing is also further evidence that you know the words but don't understand the implications.
So yeah, get that refund.

So instead of actually addressing the argument your just attacking me, ad hominem attacks don't go anywhere.

The company is struggling in a period where the sector it operates in has grown 20%, that's clear incompetence.

Instead of doing customer surveys and market research they just release what they think will sell, that's clear incompetence.

In the social media age they closed their own forums, when they made a face book page they demand only positive feedback, that's laughably incompetent.

And even knowing price is the number one thing killing sales they won't let their CEO drop prices.

Anyway you cut it GW is not a well run company.

Ad hominem? Again, using words you don't understand. Get a refund on your debating club, too.
1) The market for Wargames has grown because of other offerings on the market. A shrinking company in that environment does not denote incompetence. But to understand why requires nuance, which I'm pretty sure by now you won't allow yourself to see.
2) Not doing market research is not incompetence. Apple under Steve Jobs were renowned for not using market research, except people WHO HAD ALREADY BOUGHT APPLE PRODUCTS. So yeah, not incompetence.
3)They closed down forums and social media presence because - largely - it became toxic. That's worse than nothing at all.
And if you think that any other company doesn't police/moderate its' social media, you're incredibly naive.
4) Really? Definitely price killing sales? They know? Or you say?

Still, it's good to know that 'incompetent' was in your word of the week toilet paper. Can't wait to see what you've got for us next week.

hobojebus wrote:
Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

I don't think go 'wanted' anything to decline. Gw is reactive. If fantasy had been selling, general would have supported it. The interest, and the money that backed up the interest wasn't forthcoming. Gw certainly played a big role in how the game declined, but they don't bear all the responsibility. the decline was already happening, had been happening for years, and gw saw no way forward with what they had. Fantasy had fans, but the fans weren't buying, and a lot of them weren't playing either. The time to save fantasy was ten years ago. Ultimately what they did was clinical, ruthless and entirely about keeping an eye on the bottom line, from a corporate point of view, they weren't exactly wrong for doing what they did, as much as it sucks from a wfb fans point of view.

I don't think it's 'blaming' the customers as such, but rather being honest and admitting that the players of fantasy themselves had a part to play (or rather, a part they didn't play) in the decline and fall of fantasy. It's dishonest to hand wave away and and all personally responsibility and heap the blame on 'someone else'.

hobojebus wrote:

So you are of the opinion gw is a well run company, y'know given that they are shrinking while the wargaming market market is growing.

They're no better or worse than any other company, generall speaking. Most corporations are slow to change, relatively static and dogmatic etc. As to them shrinking - bear in mind there are other ways of Looking st it. Gw want to be a 'high end' producer, rather than 'mass market' and would rather sell less for more. Thry want to cater to a Smaller affluent customer base, that's easier to please. Selling lots of stuff to lots of people isn't the only way of doing things. I often compare it to my dad. My dad has run his own business for 35 years. He's good at it. And for years he expanded. And got to the point where he had quite a few people working for him part time at the busy parts of the year, and lots of sales. Also lots of costs, and red tape and regulation by extension. And he was getting older, and I wasn't going to follow him into it. What do he do? He cut back. He started selling less and less. His sales went down. His costs went down, turns out that as a one man band he was coming out of it with a relatively decent result, for a lot less of the hassle, and a lot less of the costs that he had when he was a bigger operation, selling more stuff to more people. He wasn't wrong in doing what he did. Then of course the recession hit and the only reason he was able to stay in business was that he had cut back in the supposed 'good' times. Post is though, selling less isn't a bad call. As they say, 80% of your sales come from 20% of your customers. One or two high end customers often nets you far more at the end of the day and fifty nickel and dime customers. And this is the route gw are going down,

hobojebus wrote:
So instead of actually addressing the argument your just attacking me, ad hominem attacks don't go anywhere.

There were no arguments hobo - just like your usual bile, like how you previously gave out that gw was out of touch with kids because they're atheist and gw use Christian mythology as some of their inspiration. It just seems that whatever they do, you will jump through any amount of mental gymnastics in order to turn in into s bad thing, because it has to be all of the hate, all of the time, turned to 11.

hobojebus wrote:
The company is struggling in a period where the sector it operates in has grown 20%, that's clear incompetence.

No it's not.
The market has grown because there is more stuff there. It's not that every company is growing by 20% and gw isn't. Board games are probably the biggest part of that. Miniature wargaming is pretty tiny fare compared to everything else - the margins aren't that great. The fact that gw have gotten to the state they are at shows that they have plenty competencies at a lot of the corporate aspects of the gsme at the very least.
They were going down a bad road with a bad ending up to a few years ago, but there have been some more positive changes recently. 'Struggling' is a harsh word - they're still the 600lb gorilla in the room, and operate on a scale that all of their competitors can only dream of. Incidentally, I know anecdotally of enough 'behind the scenes' chat from several other notable wargames companies to know that quite a few of them lean towards 'incompetence' in how they operate as well. Heck, this is an industry where a lot of companies have to rely on what amounts to charity - volunteer play testers - in order to quality control their product. Gw turn over in a day what a lot of these other companies then over in a quarter. Remember that.

hobojebus wrote:
Instead of doing customer surveys and market research they just release what they think will sell, that's clear incompetence.

No, not necessarily. Personally, I think it's foolish to ignore it completely, and I think while gw probably get plenty relevant data from sales, their interpretation of it can be off, but being fair, on the other side of the coin. Sometimes a lot of those surveys and research ends up being producing massive white noise to signal ratios, or costs too much for what it returns.

hobojebus wrote:
In the social media age they closed their own forums, when they made a face book page they demand only positive feedback, that's laughably incompetent.

No.i actually remember the forums. they were terrible. They were hostile, rude and incredibly toxic, like most wargamers. Considering some of the incredibly nasty, spiteful, malicious and passive aggressive nastiness that has been directed towards individuals of that company, who were only doing their jobs, and aren't movers or shakers in the company (so basically, they get all the bile directed at them, despite never being the ones who are actually driving the decision making processes)- I'm not surprised they said 'screw this' and killed it. They did not want to be dealing with nasty hypercritical detail obsessed toxic fans that obsess over minutes. I'd feel the same way in their shoes, frankly. Sometimes it's better to just shut the door.

hobojebus wrote:
And even knowing price is the number one thing killing sales they won't let their CEO drop prices.

People still pay it. As far as they're concerned, the bottom line is ok, thr right people are buying their products and everybody else does not concern them.

hobojebus wrote:
Anyway you cut it GW is not a well run company.

No worse than anyone else to be fair. There is a lot more involved in running a worldwide company of 2,000 people than you realise, and for everything that they do wrong (which lots of other companies do too!), they're still there, making money's for their investors and models for their fans. I've seen those cries of 'gw is going to the wall!' For fifteen years now, and they were there before me. They're still there. If they were as bad or as terribly run as you so want to believe they are, they would not be here now.

Deadnight wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Gw wanted fantasy to decline so there'd be a hunger for a new game instead it backfired in spectacular fashion.

People who blame the customers are just sad, accept gw isn't perfect.

I don't think go 'wanted' anything to decline. Gw is reactive. If fantasy had been selling, general would have supported it. The interest, and the money that backed up the interest wasn't forthcoming. Gw certainly played a big role in how the game declined, but they don't bear all the responsibility. the decline was already happening, had been happening for years, and gw saw no way forward with what they had. Fantasy had fans, but the fans weren't buying, and a lot of them weren't playing either. The time to save fantasy was ten years ago. Ultimately what they did was clinical, ruthless and entirely about keeping an eye on the bottom line, from a corporate point of view, they weren't exactly wrong for doing what they did, as much as it sucks from a wfb fans point of view.

I don't think it's 'blaming' the customers as such, but rather being honest and admitting that the players of fantasy themselves had a part to play (or rather, a part they didn't play) in the decline and fall of fantasy. It's dishonest to hand wave away and and all personally responsibility and heap the blame on 'someone else'.

What are you talking about here? Blaming the customer you are. People were not buying because GW didn't make a good rule set. People were not buying because there was too much imbalance in the game. People were not buying because there was no real support for the game, quick and timely FAQs that people actually asked and not put out FAQs that nobody seemed to ask and not address the questions people needed. People were not buying because of price hikes all the time, AND newbies like me didn't start because the buy in was too high.

So who is at fault?

What is next you are going to say, it's the girls fault for being raped because she wore her dress a bit to high? You are clearly blaming the victim here.

No because of GW decisions people stopped buying. Stop blaming the people for lack of sales. People or I should say CONSUMERS don't buy when they don't support the practice of what is happening or not liking the product being delivered.

So it is peoples fault for not buying when the rules are not clear and concise?
It's the peoples fault when a product is too expensive?
It's the peoples fault when the buy in is too expensive.
It's the peoples fault for imbalance in the rules and codices and warbooks/scrolls what ever they were called in Fantasy.
It's the peoples fault when there is no support in the game.

Ok, so it's my fault Fantasy died. It was my fault that I saw just like in 40K how codices are imbalanced and don't get updated. I can buy an army and might have to wait over 10 years to get the rules updated. It is my fault the buy in I didn't want to pay just to have a few games. It's my fault that GW can't write and don't know how to proof read and edit their books.

Yes it's my fault that Fantasy died.

No it's not my fault, your fault or anyone else fault. Games-Workshop is to blame and blame alone for the DECISIONS they decided to make for Fantasy and 40K for the less sales they are getting.

RoperPG wrote:
2) Not doing market research is not incompetence. Apple under Steve Jobs were renowned for not using market research, except people WHO HAD ALREADY BOUGHT APPLE PRODUCTS. So yeah, not incompetence.

Kirby seemed to love to compare himself to Steve Jobs. There is a pretty big difference between them though, Apple was growing at the time while GW's fallen pretty far from what it was.

 jonolikespie wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
2) Not doing market research is not incompetence. Apple under Steve Jobs were renowned for not using market research, except people WHO HAD ALREADY BOUGHT APPLE PRODUCTS. So yeah, not incompetence.

Kirby seemed to love to compare himself to Steve Jobs. There is a pretty big difference between them though, Apple was growing at the time while GW's fallen pretty far from what it was.

Yeah, but that still doesn't support Hobo's false equivalence - which was the whole point of the example. I'm not going to derail into what I think of Apple!

Ok, not doing market research doesn't make GW incompetent, but under Kirby GW were incompetent and refusted to do market research.

Well GW Arnt Apple no matter how much they wish they were.

And I'm sure with t he recent 23% drop Apple's going to be doing market research to find out why.

Look I used to be a fanboy to I get it, but you can like something without having to declare everything is awesome.

GW is not a well run company it's a laughing stock across the net, roundtree got handed a sinking ship and has a damn hard time ahead of him to avoid the fast approaching cliff he faces.

hobojebus wrote:
Well GW Arnt Apple no matter how much they wish they were.

And I'm sure with t he recent 23% drop Apple's going to be doing market research to find out why.

Look I used to be a fanboy to I get it, but you can like something without having to declare everything is awesome.

GW is not a well run company it's a laughing stock across the net, roundtree got handed a sinking ship and has a damn hard time ahead of him to avoid the fast approaching cliff he faces.

Wait, are you a Poe's law bot or something?

hobojebus wrote:
Well GW Arnt Apple no matter how much they wish they were.

And I'm sure with t he recent 23% drop Apple's going to be doing market research to find out why.

Look I used to be a fanboy to I get it, but you can like something without having to declare everything is awesome.

GW is not a well run company it's a laughing stock across the net, roundtree got handed a sinking ship and has a damn hard time ahead of him to avoid the fast approaching cliff he faces.

I think Rountree is doing a jolly good job, and there is every sign he is turning the ship pretty well.

All GW have to do is stabilise the falling sales.

hobojebus wrote:


GW is not a well run company it's a laughing stock across the net, roundtree got handed a sinking ship and has a damn hard time ahead of him to avoid the fast approaching cliff he faces.

What cliff? The same cliff for the past 20 years that GW was supposedly going over? That said Mr Roundtree is doing a good job and it will take time for people to trust in GW again. We all make mistakes. We all deserve second chances. If GW doesn't deserve a second chance then why is that person in a GW forum?

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


GW is not a well run company it's a laughing stock across the net, roundtree got handed a sinking ship and has a damn hard time ahead of him to avoid the fast approaching cliff he faces.

What cliff? The same cliff for the past 20 years that GW was supposedly going over? That said Mr Roundtree is doing a good job and it will take time for people to trust in GW again. We all make mistakes. We all deserve second chances. If GW doesn't deserve a second chance then why is that person in a GW forum?

This common argument conveniently ignores their sales figures. From the late 90s to the mid 00s, it was hard to say GW was approaching a cliff. Their revenue and profit were climbing every year and they dominated the market. However, the past 5 years have basically been the opposite. Falling revenue, profit and market share while making new excuses for it every year and doing nothing to find out why. Just because people who don't know anything about economics said GW was failing in 1996 doesn't somehow make them immune to bankruptcy in 2016 and beyond. In fact, what people have been saying for the last 20 years is irrelevant, financial statements are the only things that matter. Why don't you go take a look at those for the last 5 years and then tell me how there's no cliff in sight.

Gdub is producing some beautiful models for the AoS line.

The Orruks and now the Sylvanth are beautiful. I would love to get these models, but the price! One model in the Sylvanth of a person riding some beast is $265US. Seven models for $733? I almost think the three models for $115 almost sounds reasonable.

There's no way I can justify spending that much money.

 Phydox wrote:
Gdub is producing some beautiful models for the AoS line.

The O One model in the Sylvanth of a person riding some beast is $265US. .

It's $130US, since I have to pay $160 Canadian. You sure you were not on the Aussie site?

It's $130 US, maybe. In NZ/Aus? They get regularly boned. So with FLGS or online retailer sale cost $104 US.

 Toofast wrote:

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


GW is not a well run company it's a laughing stock across the net, roundtree got handed a sinking ship and has a damn hard time ahead of him to avoid the fast approaching cliff he faces.

What cliff? The same cliff for the past 20 years that GW was supposedly going over? That said Mr Roundtree is doing a good job and it will take time for people to trust in GW again. We all make mistakes. We all deserve second chances. If GW doesn't deserve a second chance then why is that person in a GW forum?

This common argument conveniently ignores their sales figures. From the late 90s to the mid 00s, it was hard to say GW was approaching a cliff. Their revenue and profit were climbing every year and they dominated the market. However, the past 5 years have basically been the opposite. Falling revenue, profit and market share while making new excuses for it every year and doing nothing to find out why. Just because people who don't know anything about economics said GW was failing in 1996 doesn't somehow make them immune to bankruptcy in 2016 and beyond. In fact, what people have been saying for the last 20 years is irrelevant, financial statements are the only things that matter. Why don't you go take a look at those for the last 5 years and then tell me how there's no cliff in sight.

People also ignore the fact they put out a profit warning this year.

Total war saved their bacon but they can't rely on licence fees and royalties forever.

GW not only needs to get back the 14% drop in model sales they need to expand and that's a tall order as prices continue to go up making their competition all the more appealing.

Davor wrote:

 Phydox wrote:
Gdub is producing some beautiful models for the AoS line.

The O One model in the Sylvanth of a person riding some beast is $265US. .

It's $130US, since I have to pay $160 Canadian. You sure you were not on the Aussie site?

It's $225 here, he's on the NZ site.

hobojebus wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

Davor wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


GW is not a well run company it's a laughing stock across the net, roundtree got handed a sinking ship and has a damn hard time ahead of him to avoid the fast approaching cliff he faces.

What cliff? The same cliff for the past 20 years that GW was supposedly going over? That said Mr Roundtree is doing a good job and it will take time for people to trust in GW again. We all make mistakes. We all deserve second chances. If GW doesn't deserve a second chance then why is that person in a GW forum?

This common argument conveniently ignores their sales figures. From the late 90s to the mid 00s, it was hard to say GW was approaching a cliff. Their revenue and profit were climbing every year and they dominated the market. However, the past 5 years have basically been the opposite. Falling revenue, profit and market share while making new excuses for it every year and doing nothing to find out why. Just because people who don't know anything about economics said GW was failing in 1996 doesn't somehow make them immune to bankruptcy in 2016 and beyond. In fact, what people have been saying for the last 20 years is irrelevant, financial statements are the only things that matter. Why don't you go take a look at those for the last 5 years and then tell me how there's no cliff in sight.

People also ignore the fact they put out a profit warning this year.

Total war saved their bacon but they can't rely on licence fees and royalties forever.

GW not only needs to get back the 14% drop in model sales they need to expand and that's a tall order as prices continue to go up making their competition all the more appealing.

What part of they are still making a profit and not close to bankruptcy at all? They are in the black. Yes sales are down from each year, yes they are not growing, but still no where near the cliff at all. Even if they only made one penny profit, it is no where near the cliff at all. Companies go bankrupt when they are in the red. GW is no where close to this. Are they in the middle of the fields raking in dough? Not like they use to. There are still nowhere near this cliff either. Even without these royalties, GW wouldn't have met their profits for share holders and it still wouldn't be a big deal. By that I mean it's not a big deal that they are close to the cliff. Once GW is in the red, then yes they are close to the cliff.

So no, GW is nowhere near the cliff at all. They have just made changes hopefully for the better, but that will take time. Just like how it took time when GW made changes for the worse, now it will take time to see the changes that GW made for the better now. GW is not going anywhere anytime soon.

So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

Yes, even if it was one dollar profit they are not near the cliff. What has to happen for a company to go over? Be in dept correct? Hey I could be wrong so anyone please correct me. I am no major in business but I thought for a company to go bankrupt it is because they are in the red usually and OWE MONEY to others. Right now GW doesn't owe money to anyone and yes their profits are shrinking each year, but no where close to being bankrupt. So that is why I say they are not close to the edge. After all this talk we are having was happening over 16 years ago. It didn't apply back then anymore than it applies today. Back then sales were getting less and less as well.

What was the profit 10 million for the year or 1/2 year? Not sure if that is in pounds or dollars, but still that is a lot of coin. So while profits are not as big as before or how the shareholders would like, PP and other companies would love to have these profits that GW has now. So if it's good enough for PP and other companies, then that would mean GW is no where near the cliff. I

jonolikespie wrote:So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

In the scenario you've imagined (revenue drop of 50% for 10 consecutive years), a company earning $1 million a year would drop to less than $1,000 a year (or $500m drop to $500k). So yes, if a company shrinks to one thousandths of its size, that's a pretty big cliff, because everything about the company including its ability to continue as a going concern would be unrecognizable.

If this happened to GW, they'd probably be unable to pay for the CEO's salary, even if they fired every other person in the company

hobojebus wrote:GW not only needs to get back the 14% drop in model sales they need to expand and that's a tall order as prices continue to go up making their competition all the more appealing.

The flip side of this is that GW's most significant competitor in mindshare and dollars spent (Privateer Press) is becoming more and more like GW, especially in terms of pricing. In a lot of cases, the prices are actually higher for PP, for arguably inferior models. You could talk about Mantic, but it's so small that it's barely a rounding error compared to GW's revenues (and from there, the tabletop wargame environments fall off a cliff in terms of revenues). You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

 Talys wrote:
You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

Yes it's a different game where you don't have to paint and model, BUT allot of people still convert and repaint their minis anyways. So it's the same there.

Also while Xwing is oranges, and 40K is apples (no pun intended) they are both fruit (the same gaming hobby, playing with miniatures) and I am sure a lot of people left 40K/GW to Xwing for a clear concise ruleset they can play with little fuss setting up a game. So yes they can be compared. Money going to Xwing is not going to GW.

People pay the PP price because PP is designed explicitly for tournament play.

Those same people won't pay GW prices for GW games because GW games are not designed for tournament play.

The culture is what it is. The culture is fixated on competition.

If GW were to create a world esport league for AOS and 40k with a world championship and prizes like magic does, people would be paying GW prices in a heartbeat, just like games like Magic have shown us.

I also know the competitive xwing players drop more on xwing to get all the cards they need than many gw armies and they do so happily because again... its to compete in world championship xwing.

For many competitive players, the quality of the models doesn't matter. The quality of the game and the rules and how well the company supports world wide rankings matters most.

IMO if GW made a competition-centric ruleset based around world championship miniature wargames battles, they would be completely dominating the market right now because on top of that their models are the best.

 auticus wrote:

The culture is what it is. The culture is fixated on competition.

IMO if GW made a competition-centric ruleset based around world championship miniature wargames battles, they would be completely dominating the market right now because on top of that their models are the best.

You know, GW is making more and more sense now. GW wants to have fun, there is no need to prove who's metophorical nerd weiner is bigger. Hell look at PP, their page 5, Play like you got a pair. Like really? Not sure if that is in v3, but one of the reasons why I never got into Warmahordes. I just want to play for fun, don't need to prove anything. I guess that is why I am trying to get back into 40K now, just want to play for fun, not play a make believe sport competition. I think I partially understand GW now.

Now back to your quote, I don't think having wold championships (which is a great idea though) would make GW dominate the market. I don't think it's competition that culture is fixated on, but just a lack of structure and fairness. People are just tired of GW not having clear concise rules and balance books in the game, people left for others to have it. PP has the balance and fairness, Xwing has the balance and fairness. With having balance and fairness people are on a level field and that is what a lot of want in pick up games with strangers. An easier time to game and have more games.

The thing is; you can still have fun with a competitive game. There's literally no reason not to make a game that works competitively.

X-wing is great fun, and can be played entirely casually.

Davor wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

Yes, even if it was one dollar profit they are not near the cliff.

No, that's not how it works at all. You and RoperRG should stop making business-based arguments, for the sake of the children.

 Baragash wrote:

Davor wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

Yes, even if it was one dollar profit they are not near the cliff.

No, that's not how it works at all. You and RoperRG should stop making business-based arguments, for the sake of the children.

If you'd like to point out where I've indicated GW is thriving, I'd be happy to. All I've stated is that they're not defunct yet, and pointed out some pretty obvious non-sequiteurs.
For example, using similar logic to others here, I could claim that the new Sylvaneth stuff being sold out on pre-orders is proof that AoS is really popular and GW must be doing well. But I couldn't do it with a straight face.

Davor wrote:

 Talys wrote:
You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

Yes it's a different game where you don't have to paint and model, BUT allot of people still convert and repaint their minis anyways. So it's the same there.

Also while Xwing is oranges, and 40K is apples (no pun intended) they are both fruit (the same gaming hobby, playing with miniatures) and I am sure a lot of people left 40K/GW to Xwing for a clear concise ruleset they can play with little fuss setting up a game. So yes they can be compared. Money going to Xwing is not going to GW.

Come to the ffg x-wing and armada forums and most will tell you how they've switched from 40k, some because they no longer have to paint but most because it's a better game from a company that actively listens to its players and tries to fix problems in months not years.

It's also cheaper for the £750 it'd cost to make a 2k force you can buy three factions in xwing.

And we have an active conversion and painting sub forum.

When 7th came out a good portion of those that left started playing x-wing.

RoperPG wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

Davor wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

Yes, even if it was one dollar profit they are not near the cliff.

No, that's not how it works at all. You and RoperRG should stop making business-based arguments, for the sake of the children.

If you'd like to point out where I've indicated GW is thriving, I'd be happy to. All I've stated is that they're not defunct yet, and pointed out some pretty obvious non-sequiteurs.
For example, using similar logic to others here, I could claim that the new Sylvaneth stuff being sold out on pre-orders is proof that AoS is really popular and GW must be doing well. But I couldn't do it with a straight face.

Well said. Who says we are defending GW.

hobojebus wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Talys wrote:
You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

Yes it's a different game where you don't have to paint and model, BUT allot of people still convert and repaint their minis anyways. So it's the same there.

Also while Xwing is oranges, and 40K is apples (no pun intended) they are both fruit (the same gaming hobby, playing with miniatures) and I am sure a lot of people left 40K/GW to Xwing for a clear concise ruleset they can play with little fuss setting up a game. So yes they can be compared. Money going to Xwing is not going to GW.

Come to the ffg x-wing and armada forums and most will tell you how they've switched from 40k, some because they no longer have to paint but most because it's a better game from a company that actively listens to its players and tries to fix problems in months not years.

It's also cheaper for the £750 it'd cost to make a 2k force you can buy three factions in xwing.

And we have an active conversion and painting sub forum.

When 7th came out a good portion of those that left started playing x-wing.

There is many reasons why people have left 40K/GW. I would love to discuss this, but that will be off topic.

All I am saying is GW is not going anywhere any time soon. Yes they eventually can be gone but that is not now or in 5 years from now.

A few comments say I am wrong. Great, I don't mind being wrong, but please prove me wrong. Just saying I am wrong doesn't mean I am. Again, I have said, GW is in the black, no where near bankruptcy and don't owe any money to anyone. So how is GW going off the cliff?

Yes they are heading towards the cliff, but being 100 km away when before they were 200 km away doesn't mean they are still anywhere close to the cliff. Are they heading in that direction? Yes I agree, but still no where near of falling off.

I think AOS's future is much more bright with the General's Handbook in place, it should greatly help make the game sustainable. I also appreciate that the rules are cheap-to-free. If GW isn't going to put premium effort into the rules then I don't want to pay premium prices- that's perfectly fine! Really, the way AOS is being handled rules-wise is quite optimal, especially compared to 40k.

hobojebus wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Talys wrote:
You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

Yes it's a different game where you don't have to paint and model, BUT allot of people still convert and repaint their minis anyways. So it's the same there.

Also while Xwing is oranges, and 40K is apples (no pun intended) they are both fruit (the same gaming hobby, playing with miniatures) and I am sure a lot of people left 40K/GW to Xwing for a clear concise ruleset they can play with little fuss setting up a game. So yes they can be compared. Money going to Xwing is not going to GW.

Come to the ffg x-wing and armada forums and most will tell you how they've switched from 40k, some because they no longer have to paint but most because it's a better game from a company that actively listens to its players and tries to fix problems in months not years.

It's also cheaper for the £750 it'd cost to make a 2k force you can buy three factions in xwing.

And we have an active conversion and painting sub forum.

When 7th came out a good portion of those that left started playing x-wing.

Xwing may be a great game, but if you dont have any interest in either star wars or dogfighting games then it really will not "scratch the itch" at all. I would never go to xwing because I dont like dogfighting and spaceships, it does not matter if it is the best game ever made, its not a fantasy game.

Davor wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

Davor wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

Yes, even if it was one dollar profit they are not near the cliff.

No, that's not how it works at all. You and RoperRG should stop making business-based arguments, for the sake of the children.

If you'd like to point out where I've indicated GW is thriving, I'd be happy to. All I've stated is that they're not defunct yet, and pointed out some pretty obvious non-sequiteurs.
For example, using similar logic to others here, I could claim that the new Sylvaneth stuff being sold out on pre-orders is proof that AoS is really popular and GW must be doing well. But I couldn't do it with a straight face.

Well said. Who says we are defending GW.

hobojebus wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Talys wrote:
You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

Yes it's a different game where you don't have to paint and model, BUT allot of people still convert and repaint their minis anyways. So it's the same there.

Also while Xwing is oranges, and 40K is apples (no pun intended) they are both fruit (the same gaming hobby, playing with miniatures) and I am sure a lot of people left 40K/GW to Xwing for a clear concise ruleset they can play with little fuss setting up a game. So yes they can be compared. Money going to Xwing is not going to GW.

Come to the ffg x-wing and armada forums and most will tell you how they've switched from 40k, some because they no longer have to paint but most because it's a better game from a company that actively listens to its players and tries to fix problems in months not years.

It's also cheaper for the £750 it'd cost to make a 2k force you can buy three factions in xwing.

And we have an active conversion and painting sub forum.

When 7th came out a good portion of those that left started playing x-wing.

There is many reasons why people have left 40K/GW. I would love to discuss this, but that will be off topic.

All I am saying is GW is not going anywhere any time soon. Yes they eventually can be gone but that is not now or in 5 years from now.

A few comments say I am wrong. Great, I don't mind being wrong, but please prove me wrong. Just saying I am wrong doesn't mean I am. Again, I have said, GW is in the black, no where near bankruptcy and don't owe any money to anyone. So how is GW going off the cliff?

Yes they are heading towards the cliff, but being 100 km away when before they were 200 km away doesn't mean they are still anywhere close to the cliff. Are they heading in that direction? Yes I agree, but still no where near of falling off.

You have to remember they are a public company making profits isn't enough they have to keep the share price high or people will sell their shares and move on.

GW has kept shareholders by paying stupid high dividends the last few years but they had to borrow money to do that, that's not sustainable when your free capital is shrinking year on year.

There is a point of no return and each year with lower profits gets them closer.

If a private company just makes a profit of a dollar that's bad but they've paid everyone, if a public company does the same then people sell their shares and the company folds because it's now worth pennies on the pound and the sharks will come in buy it cheap and asset strip it.

GW's efforts so far have been half hearted the social media attempt is a joke, the army starters were a good idea but implementation is again poor not all the boxes are of the same value so ad mech gets a great deal but sw don't, again half hearted.

The two big issues are price and bad rules balance, while rules take a while to fix price is something that could be addressed near instantly yet every week we still get the same insane prices for toy soldiers.

Confidence in the financial sector is already low regarding gw, newspapers financial sections are blasting them for their performance and when that happens it's bad.

Not to mention actual shareholders have been writing about how worried they are.

There's literally no reason to have a positive outlook on the state of the company.

hobojebus wrote:

Davor wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

Davor wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.... if a company were to lose 50% of their revenue year on year for a decade and show no signs of stopping this, but made one dollar profit this year, they would still be 'nowhere near the cliff' because they are in the black, even though the trend continuing would mean next year they would be unable to cover an entire 50% of their costs?

Yes, even if it was one dollar profit they are not near the cliff.

No, that's not how it works at all. You and RoperRG should stop making business-based arguments, for the sake of the children.

If you'd like to point out where I've indicated GW is thriving, I'd be happy to. All I've stated is that they're not defunct yet, and pointed out some pretty obvious non-sequiteurs.
For example, using similar logic to others here, I could claim that the new Sylvaneth stuff being sold out on pre-orders is proof that AoS is really popular and GW must be doing well. But I couldn't do it with a straight face.

Well said. Who says we are defending GW.

hobojebus wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Talys wrote:
You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

Yes it's a different game where you don't have to paint and model, BUT allot of people still convert and repaint their minis anyways. So it's the same there.

Also while Xwing is oranges, and 40K is apples (no pun intended) they are both fruit (the same gaming hobby, playing with miniatures) and I am sure a lot of people left 40K/GW to Xwing for a clear concise ruleset they can play with little fuss setting up a game. So yes they can be compared. Money going to Xwing is not going to GW.

Come to the ffg x-wing and armada forums and most will tell you how they've switched from 40k, some because they no longer have to paint but most because it's a better game from a company that actively listens to its players and tries to fix problems in months not years.

It's also cheaper for the £750 it'd cost to make a 2k force you can buy three factions in xwing.

And we have an active conversion and painting sub forum.

When 7th came out a good portion of those that left started playing x-wing.

There is many reasons why people have left 40K/GW. I would love to discuss this, but that will be off topic.

All I am saying is GW is not going anywhere any time soon. Yes they eventually can be gone but that is not now or in 5 years from now.

A few comments say I am wrong. Great, I don't mind being wrong, but please prove me wrong. Just saying I am wrong doesn't mean I am. Again, I have said, GW is in the black, no where near bankruptcy and don't owe any money to anyone. So how is GW going off the cliff?

Yes they are heading towards the cliff, but being 100 km away when before they were 200 km away doesn't mean they are still anywhere close to the cliff. Are they heading in that direction? Yes I agree, but still no where near of falling off.

You have to remember they are a public company making profits isn't enough they have to keep the share price high or people will sell their shares and move on.

GW has kept shareholders by paying stupid high dividends the last few years but they had to borrow money to do that, that's not sustainable when your free capital is shrinking year on year.

There is a point of no return and each year with lower profits gets them closer.

If a private company just makes a profit of a dollar that's bad but they've paid everyone, if a public company does the same then people sell their shares and the company folds because it's now worth pennies on the pound and the sharks will come in buy it cheap and asset strip it.

GW's efforts so far have been half hearted the social media attempt is a joke, the army starters were a good idea but implementation is again poor not all the boxes are of the same value so ad mech gets a great deal but sw don't, again half hearted.

The two big issues are price and bad rules balance, while rules take a while to fix price is something that could be addressed near instantly yet every week we still get the same insane prices for toy soldiers.

Confidence in the financial sector is already low regarding gw, newspapers financial sections are blasting them for their performance and when that happens it's bad.

Not to mention actual shareholders have been writing about how worried they are.

There's literally no reason to have a positive outlook on the state of the company.

Evidence? Links? I'd be genuinely interested in reading about where their shareholders rubbish the company they are invested in and actually run the real possibility of pushing their own share prices down..

I imagine this is the one he is referring to: http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/games-workshop-agm%3A-relentless-profit-machine


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, there was also this: http://masterminis.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-future-of-games-days-games.html

IIRC that 24% stock price drop came the day after a finacial report came out in which GW said the were not paying out a dividend. I think that was the first time in like a decade they did not so a lot of the investors simply dropped the stock.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I imagine this is the one he is referring to: http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/games-workshop-agm%3A-relentless-profit-machine


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, there was also this: http://masterminis.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-future-of-games-days-games.html

IIRC that 24% stock price drop came the day after a finacial report came out in which GW said the were not paying out a dividend. I think that was the first time in like a decade they did not so a lot of the investors simply dropped the stock.

Ok.. but why are we referencing a two year and nearly one year old article? These are well out of date now and the III article has shown a significant rise in their stock price? Is there anything more recent and not quite so out of date to reference against?

By any margin a company that has persistently returned 10%+ profits for a decade while maintaining it's turnover during a rather rocky trading period would be considered a success. All of that in spite of some rather bad PR.

So positives to look at:

- New CEO has started to reverse previous bad PR
- Trading has produced higher than expected margins
- Shares continue to pay dividend
- GW remains a cash rich business
- Customers seem (from usually quite hostile Dakka) to be upbeat up new GW releases

So yeah, I don't think Hobbojebus really has much of an idea of what he's talking about.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-16-Press-Statement.pdf
Their most recent financial report. Operating profit is level, but only because royalties are up.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/693116.page
There was a comment about profits for the last year to be above expectations, which is good for them but after what, half a decade of falling sales being hidden by cost cutting people are understandably a little skeptical about what the 'expectations' were.

 jonolikespie wrote:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-16-Press-Statement.pdf
Their most recent financial report. Operating profit is level, but only because royalties are up.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/693116.page
There was a comment about profits for the last year to be above expectations, which is good for them but after what, half a decade of falling sales being hidden by cost cutting people are understandably a little skeptical about what the 'expectations' were.

So all I'm really seeing here is their profits are up and above expectations, even with cost cutting and actually being intelligent enough to licence out their IP. Hobo's the sky is falling and his laughing with glee about their imminent demise are quite.. how should I put this.. stupid?

 notprop wrote:
By any margin a company that has persistently returned 10%+ profits for a decade while maintaining it's turnover during a rather rocky trading period would be considered a success. All of that in spite of some rather bad PR.

The problem is that they weren't maintaining turnover, revenue from last year was £123.1m http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/May-15-stats-final-27-July-15-with-cover.pdf

Revenue from 2006 was £115.2m http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gw_year_end_07.pdf

Which is between £138.30 to £152.40 million with inflation.
https://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/relativevalue.php?use%5B%5D=CPI&use%5B%5D=NOMINALEARN&year_late=2006&typeamount=115&amount=115&year_source=2006&year_result=2015

Over the past 10 years revenue appears to have declined between 15 and 29 million pounds (between ten and twenty percent from the looks of it) adjusted for inflation.

Now those were Kirby years, and it is entirely possible this 'beating expectations' will be a nice bump in revenue and Roundtree will right the ship and help GW grow again. It would be nice if he did. But they certainly were warning signs in the past decade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

So all I'm really seeing here is their profits are up and above expectations, even with cost cutting and actually being intelligent enough to licence out their IP. Hobo's the sky is falling and his laughing with glee about their imminent demise are quite.. how should I put this.. stupid?

Maybe it is. I certainly think they are getting better. But so is the idea that there was never a problem.

 thekingofkings wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Talys wrote:
You could argue for X-Wing, but it's a very different sort of hobby -- it focuses on a game with prepainted gamepieces, rather than collections of miniatures that you model and paint.

Yes it's a different game where you don't have to paint and model, BUT allot of people still convert and repaint their minis anyways. So it's the same there.

Also while Xwing is oranges, and 40K is apples (no pun intended) they are both fruit (the same gaming hobby, playing with miniatures) and I am sure a lot of people left 40K/GW to Xwing for a clear concise ruleset they can play with little fuss setting up a game. So yes they can be compared. Money going to Xwing is not going to GW.

Come to the ffg x-wing and armada forums and most will tell you how they've switched from 40k, some because they no longer have to paint but most because it's a better game from a company that actively listens to its players and tries to fix problems in months not years.

It's also cheaper for the £750 it'd cost to make a 2k force you can buy three factions in xwing.

And we have an active conversion and painting sub forum.

When 7th came out a good portion of those that left started playing x-wing.

Xwing may be a great game, but if you dont have any interest in either star wars or dogfighting games then it really will not "scratch the itch" at all. I would never go to xwing because I dont like dogfighting and spaceships, it does not matter if it is the best game ever made, its not a fantasy game.

This. Even if you do like Star Wars (like me), X-wing and 40k are two completely different game. If they made Imperial Assault into a full-scale wargame, I'd look into it. I prefer infantry battles to dogfighting.

 notprop wrote:
By any margin a company that has persistently returned 10%+ profits for a decade while maintaining it's turnover during a rather rocky trading period would be considered a success. All of that in spite of some rather bad PR.

So positives to look at:

- New CEO has started to reverse previous bad PR
- Trading has produced higher than expected margins
- Shares continue to pay dividend
- GW remains a cash rich business
- Customers seem (from usually quite hostile Dakka) to be upbeat up new GW releases

So yeah, I don't think Hobbojebus really has much of an idea of what he's talking about.

I've got to agree with all of this.

Most of what I thought was wrong with GW is being quite rapidly turned around by Rountree.

Kirby left them with a disgruntled userbase, falling sales but a much more efficient cost of goods. GW have been profitable for years, at the expense of falling sales.

All Rountree has to do is preserve the cost of goods ratio while finding ways to sell more stuff.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 notprop wrote:
By any margin a company that has persistently returned 10%+ profits for a decade while maintaining it's turnover during a rather rocky trading period would be considered a success. All of that in spite of some rather bad PR.

So positives to look at:

- New CEO has started to reverse previous bad PR
- Trading has produced higher than expected margins
- Shares continue to pay dividend
- GW remains a cash rich business
- Customers seem (from usually quite hostile Dakka) to be upbeat up new GW releases

So yeah, I don't think Hobbojebus really has much of an idea of what he's talking about.

I've got to agree with all of this.

Most of what I thought was wrong with GW is being quite rapidly turned around by Rountree.

Kirby left them with a disgruntled userbase, falling sales but a much more efficient cost of goods. GW have been profitable for years, at the expense of falling sales.

All Rountree has to do is preserve the cost of goods ratio while finding ways to sell more stuff.

And judging by the sheer speed a lot of the new products are going out of stock (Orrucks, Sylvaneth etc), I'd say the sales are increasing. And a lot more quickly then I think anyone was expecting.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

And judging by the sheer speed a lot of the new products are going out of stock (Orrucks, Sylvaneth etc), I'd say the sales are increasing. And a lot more quickly then I think anyone was expecting.

Or they are just producing less of it to avoid warehousing costs and take advantage of cheaper molds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:


This. Even if you do like Star Wars (like me), X-wing and 40k are two completely different game. If they made Imperial Assault into a full-scale wargame, I'd look into it. I prefer infantry battles to dogfighting.

Imperial Assault has rules for a full-scale wargame in it (well, a skirmish game). I've never used them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

So all I'm really seeing here is their profits are up and above expectations, even with cost cutting and actually being intelligent enough to licence out their IP. Hobo's the sky is falling and his laughing with glee about their imminent demise are quite.. how should I put this.. stupid?

The thing is, are profits up because the business is growing, or because of a few one-time hits?

Total War must be bringing in a lot of cash, as did plastic Heresy, and the Warhammer Quest remake.

They can't do any of those again. Of course it seems this years one-time hit is going to be Blood Bowl, which I'm not sure about. People love it, but it's grown into it's own thing in the decade it's been ignored, there are dozens of companies making teams for it and there's a living ruleset with huge tournament attendance. Will those people jump back to GW's remake, or will they stick with what they've got?

I'd love for GW to actually turn things round; it is getting there (adding points to AOS for instance), but is it going to be too little too late if it hits that critical point?

hobojebus wrote:

There's literally no reason to have a positive outlook on the state of the company.

Who is saying we have a positive outlook on the state of GW? Never once did I or anyone else here said that. All we are saying is GW is not going bankrupt any time soon.

Herzlos wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

And judging by the sheer speed a lot of the new products are going out of stock (Orrucks, Sylvaneth etc), I'd say the sales are increasing. And a lot more quickly then I think anyone was expecting.

Or they are just producing less of it to avoid warehousing costs and take advantage of cheaper molds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:


This. Even if you do like Star Wars (like me), X-wing and 40k are two completely different game. If they made Imperial Assault into a full-scale wargame, I'd look into it. I prefer infantry battles to dogfighting.

Imperial Assault has rules for a full-scale wargame in it (well, a skirmish game). I've never used them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

So all I'm really seeing here is their profits are up and above expectations, even with cost cutting and actually being intelligent enough to licence out their IP. Hobo's the sky is falling and his laughing with glee about their imminent demise are quite.. how should I put this.. stupid?

The thing is, are profits up because the business is growing, or because of a few one-time hits?

Total War must be bringing in a lot of cash, as did plastic Heresy, and the Warhammer Quest remake.

They can't do any of those again. Of course it seems this years one-time hit is going to be Blood Bowl, which I'm not sure about. People love it, but it's grown into it's own thing in the decade it's been ignored, there are dozens of companies making teams for it and there's a living ruleset with huge tournament attendance. Will those people jump back to GW's remake, or will they stick with what they've got?

I'd love for GW to actually turn things round; it is getting there (adding points to AOS for instance), but is it going to be too little too late if it hits that critical point?

Well of course they can do those again. The Calth and Silver Tower sets got a great reception. Silver Tower especially i would expect to have a tonne of expansions to come. And if they keep the quality of Silver Tower, i would expect them to sell. Blood Bowl is a whole different animal and there is no point speculating until it's release. But they've done the important thing and started the hype building long before the actual release. But you've ignored what i said about the Orruks and the Sylvaneth's. Both of which have been immediate sell outs on the pre-orders. If it was only one hit wonders, then that wouldn't have happened. And that dicatates to me, some form of growth occuring.

Herzlos wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:


This. Even if you do like Star Wars (like me), X-wing and 40k are two completely different game. If they made Imperial Assault into a full-scale wargame, I'd look into it. I prefer infantry battles to dogfighting.

Imperial Assault has rules for a full-scale wargame in it (well, a skirmish game). I've never used them though.

May have to look into that. Are the pieces pre-painted like the X-wing stuff? Assembling/painting is half the fun to me.