TheAuldGrump wrote:
Believe it or not - there are a large number of people that can tell that they will not like a game, just by reading the rules.

It impresses me how people don't understand this. I appreciate how things are always more fun when you actually do them rather than when you read about them, and there are going to be nuances you maybe don't understand at first read but do after a few games... BUT many of us have sufficient experience and judgement to figure out from a read of the rules whether or not we'll like something.

I know the old saying you can't judge a book by it's cover, but on the flip side it's an important life skill to have a level of discernment without having to actually experience something 10 times over.

Yeah, you can definitely judge a book by its words. That the community thought the rules were a prank on launch says it all.

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah, you can definitely judge a book by its words. That the community thought the rules were a prank on launch says it all.

As if 40k or Fantasy didn't have "silly/joke" elements on their launches. I always bring Obi Wan Sherlock Closeau or some element of the original fantasy when the issue comes at hand.

Yeah but he doesnt ask you to do a crazy dance in front of your opponent to get an ingame advantage...

And they only did those silly rules on legacy stuff, it was pretty blatant the message they were conveying those that stuck with the old stuff would be fools and forced to buy new stuff or quit.

hobojebus wrote:
And they only did those silly rules on legacy stuff, it was pretty blatant the message they were conveying those that stuck with the old stuff would be fools and forced to buy new stuff or quit.

That or they just said: hey, let's just make a joke! Did anyone at a GW store point a gun at you and tell you to drink from the goddam chalice he handed you? No. it was just: guys have fun, do silly things, and enjoy.

Like oh god the butthurt that seems to be around, so much obsession and desire to be offended. The fact that you can play your legacy stuff in GHBs matched play just goes all the way to discredit your point: you can play with your old stuff, just that they have moved to do different things.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah, you can definitely judge a book by its words. That the community thought the rules were a prank on launch says it all.

As if 40k or Fantasy didn't have "silly/joke" elements on their launches. I always bring Obi Wan Sherlock Closeau or some element of the original fantasy when the issue comes at hand.

That is an in-joke, a reference present in the background material. The funny dances are actual rules of the game.

This is not an argument, I am sorry.

And is not a matter of being "offended" (truth to be told, people indeed get offended too easily nowadays) but to require standard from professional writers and designers. The standards are not there.

That stuff is garbage.

The joke rules were an intentional slap to the face of the veterans whom the writers/management may have felt slighted them by not keeping the old game alive. Some may say, "it was all in good fun" but the simple fact that the rules didn't exist for the newly released models should say something as to the veracity of such an argument.

Sure, gamers can just ignore the silliness but if you're aware of the obvious intent behind the existence of the rules, it will just make the whole thing distasteful, which is how I felt and so I went from about $1000/year spent on WHFB to $0 spent on AoS.

What were the jokes all about?

The were about established elements of the setting.

What did the new releases lack?

A previous establishment into the setting.


All jokes referenced to figures everyone knew, something that cannot be truly alleged to the new reviews (as in, more or less in depth lore).

Doesn't take much of a genius to figure things out. But hey, you're right, you are the center of the universe and GW was clearly out to get you, it clearly wasn't them saying. hey let's go for something different and try X

Lord Kragan wrote:
What were the jokes all about?

The were about established elements of the setting.

What did the new releases lack?

A previous establishment into the setting.


All jokes referenced to figures everyone knew, something that cannot be truly alleged to the new reviews (as in, more or less in depth lore).

Doesn't take much of a genius to figure things out. But hey, you're right, you are the center of the universe and GW was clearly out to get you, it clearly wasn't them saying. hey let's go for something different and try X

You could be right, but they were poor. They lacked any true wit or elegance. I was not offended (but I was already furious for the predictable downfall of WHFB).

I just realised how intellectually low is the staff. You cannot expect good rule writing because they have not the wit for that.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Believe it or not - there are a large number of people that can tell that they will not like a game, just by reading the rules.

I had a bad feeling about the rules, yet tried them anyway - and found myself wishing that I had gone with my initial impulse to ignore the game.

In short - I was right the first time, with the game untried.

The mistake was in trying the game anyway.

Conversely, it can work the other way - I have not tried 5e D&D, yet suspect that I will in fact enjoy the game, should I ever do so.

The Auld Grump

I know that. I am not saying you are wrong. I agree with you 100%. I can do the same thing, knowing something I don't like without trying it. I said my point was, someone telling someone else they are wrong for something they like when they actually tired it. In other words how can you tell someone is wrong when they actually tried something and they like it?

Someone is telling someone who likes AoS they are wrong even though they tried playing it and like it. How can you defend that?

AOS is a specific type of game, you are either going to get behind it, or... Not. As of now, our local stores have the product, but there is not a backing or incentive for people to throw down 100+ dollars for 2-3 units, and double that for additional content when there are other games and systems that only cost a fraction with familiar content and a more stable upbringing.

AOS is what we call in the business a- Sunk Cost Fallacy. Employees opinions are frowned on even on a good day, so they have to suck it up and keep pushing forward, much the same way as a Crap General with a crap plan throws troops at it, to the point of failure dictating him to make a new plan. Eventually, this game is either going to develop into something a little more on par with what GW has always buttered their bread with, a fantasy game with a point, or they are going to start closing even more of those 1 man shops and "Realigning" their business plan.
I've seen it with weapons systems, I've seen it with pies, I've even seen it with Coke a Cola... the end result is always the same- Market dictates change, no matter what size the good idea fairy.

BTW- When you box yourself into a no win situation, where do you go forward when you destroy the world that you are working with? You destroyed the left and right limits of the material, so what is the way forward...???

GW went so far as to even unveil a Sigmarine as their new figure-heard, to this end, I even put money that that one will be replaced within the year under no discussion what so ever, and the old Space marine will be back in form, or even as a 30K marine.

BTW, I'm calling it- Sigmarine's going to disappear in the middle of the night sometime soon, let me know what replaces it. 30K marine, or a Demon, or a golden calf.

Reading the market, look at the pick up of 30K based to the AOS, and you will see how the road looks ahead. 2-3 boxed games for 30K so far.... How many for AOS? Silver tower/ dungeon crawl, now what? How do they go forward? What can you add?

Actually they've released 2 games of Age of Sigmar: gorechosen is an additional game that let's you fight gladiatorial battles and special scenarios for khorne champions (and there's quite a few of them, with even the different weapon configurations getting rules of their own). There's the difference of the game styles: the 30k games are, tbh, excuses to grab models to build your army. Silver tower and gore-chosen? They give very solid incentives to just go and buy OTHER heroes and use them to play. If anything Silver tower and gorechosen are more easy to continuate than anything else: just add the rules for more heroes/modes of play. Want to have parties competing? We just need to update the app with a dlc? Want more content? Well, guess we will add rules for more heroes/minions from other boxed sets. It's that easy to update.

It was said that they'd drop AoS within the year when it came. Guess not entirely.

The game is literally a year old, the writers themselves recognizing that they have all but scrapped the surface of it, only laying the setting, so I'm not going to go on the add-on games.

Lord Kragan wrote:
What were the jokes all about?

The were about established elements of the setting.

What did the new releases lack?

A previous establishment into the setting.


All jokes referenced to figures everyone knew, something that cannot be truly alleged to the new reviews (as in, more or less in depth lore).

Doesn't take much of a genius to figure things out. But hey, you're right, you are the center of the universe and GW was clearly out to get you, it clearly wasn't them saying. hey let's go for something different and try X

Yes, I'm the center of the universe. Really? How childish are you going to be? You went from a nonsensical defense of why no silly rules were created for new units/characters to "he doesn't like what I do, I have to say something to the meanie."

They could have made silly rules for literally all of the units/characters since they were working from a blank slate. The simple fact that they didn't makes it painfully obvious that they were tweaking the collective noses of "legacy" players. It's kind of like what you just did; you could have just addressed what I said without the angst but you just had to throw some inference that I believe myself to be somehow the center of the universe (which I am when I'm spending, or potentially spending my money on a product). You could have just disagreed, recognized that I have the same right to an opinion as you do just like they could have just left the silliness out OR applied it evenly.

the game is turning one and a half in December, isn't it???
story-lines and models are constantly being worked on...
that Stormcast Eternal statue is still in front of HQ, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere
all the doom-saying hasn't come to anything...

i do hear that there may be rules for blocks of troops coming, so that might be something for the disenfranchised...

cheers
jah

Davor wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Believe it or not - there are a large number of people that can tell that they will not like a game, just by reading the rules.

I had a bad feeling about the rules, yet tried them anyway - and found myself wishing that I had gone with my initial impulse to ignore the game.

In short - I was right the first time, with the game untried.

The mistake was in trying the game anyway.

Conversely, it can work the other way - I have not tried 5e D&D, yet suspect that I will in fact enjoy the game, should I ever do so.

The Auld Grump

I know that. I am not saying you are wrong. I agree with you 100%. I can do the same thing, knowing something I don't like without trying it. I said my point was, someone telling someone else they are wrong for something they like when they actually tired it. In other words how can you tell someone is wrong when they actually tried something and they like it?

Someone is telling someone who likes AoS they are wrong even though they tried playing it and like it. How can you defend that?

Who says that I would even try to defend that?

I am not attacking anyone for liking the game - though I do reserve the right to mock their tastes - I am attacking the folks that try to claim that the reason anyone does not like X game is because they have not tried it.

Because it starts from the assumption that would be the only possible reason - when, more often than not, the rules themselves are the primary reason that people do not like the game.

I have gone so far as to remind people that if they want to see what the rules for AoS are like, well, GW has them up for free. I have done the exact same thing for other games - free rules allow people to at least sample the game and reach an informed opinion. I am perfectly willing to remind folks that if they do not like AoS then the KoW rules are free, and for folks that do not enjoy the play of KoW I am willing to remind them that the AoS rules are likewise free. (Though I will also add the caveat that I do not much like them.)

But my own informed opinion of AoS is still very much that I do not like the game, and that I can point out where and why I do not like them.

Some were pretty egregious - points really should have been in the game from the very beginning.

And I will let you in on a not very well guarded secret - many of us would have had much quieter growls about the rules had they had the points at the beginning, even if they had charged money as they do for the GHB.

The game needed a balancing mechanism from the beginning, instead we got rules for drinking imaginary beer and twirling an imaginary mustache.

But on top of that, having a paid supplement that provides something vitally needed for a free game is going to stick in people's craws. Even if they would have been willing to pay for those very same rules when the free game was first released. People are viewing it as GW charging for errata on a free game.

As for putting the 'funny' rules on the older miniatures from the setting that they had blown up! It felt all too much like the commercials produced for 4e D&D that mocked the fans of older editions. (Hey, look! Fans of the older versions of D&D are trolls! Let's have a dragon poop on them! It will be a kneeslapper!*)

The Auld Grump

* Then Pathfinder, using an updated version of those same older rules pulled ahead of 4e, and it wasn't knees that were being slapped....

The Fyreslayers also had a joke rule on one of their units, so it wasn't only for the old stuff.

I'm glad they have now been largely phased out as I too didn't like the joke rules.

 Bottle wrote:
The Fyreslayers also had a joke rule on one of their units, so it wasn't only for the old stuff.

I'm glad they have now been largely phased out as I too didn't like the joke rules.

Thank you for the correction; I wasn't aware of that since they came along long after I stopped paying attention.

 jah-joshua wrote:
the game is turning one and a half in December, isn't it???
story-lines and models are constantly being worked on...
that Stormcast Eternal statue is still in front of HQ, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere
all the doom-saying hasn't come to anything...

i do hear that there may be rules for blocks of troops coming, so that might be something for the disenfranchised...

cheers
jah

If there is any validity to the claims of a 2nd Ed. of AOS, then that would strike me as a massive negative for the game, especially with only 5(?) factions getting released properly in the current edition.

Davor wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Believe it or not - there are a large number of people that can tell that they will not like a game, just by reading the rules.

I had a bad feeling about the rules, yet tried them anyway - and found myself wishing that I had gone with my initial impulse to ignore the game.

In short - I was right the first time, with the game untried.

The mistake was in trying the game anyway.

Conversely, it can work the other way - I have not tried 5e D&D, yet suspect that I will in fact enjoy the game, should I ever do so.

The Auld Grump

I know that. I am not saying you are wrong. I agree with you 100%. I can do the same thing, knowing something I don't like without trying it. I said my point was, someone telling someone else they are wrong for something they like when they actually tired it. In other words how can you tell someone is wrong when they actually tried something and they like it?

Someone is telling someone who likes AoS they are wrong even though they tried playing it and like it. How can you defend that?

Nobody said this on this thread. You should read more carefully before making accusations


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Was thinking about it. The fact that the Tzaangors conversion to 40k seems to have been rushed, and that it's not written on the box that you can use this kit for AOS, probably is an indication that AOS is in fact selling very poorly

 Just Tony wrote:
If there is any validity to the claims of a 2nd Ed. of AOS, then that would strike me as a massive negative for the game, especially with only 5(?) factions getting released properly in the current edition.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709106.page

 streetsamurai wrote:


Nobody said this on this thread. You should read more carefully before making accusations


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Was thinking about it. The fact that the Tzaangors conversion to 40k seems to have been rushed, and that it's not written on the box that you can use this kit for AOS, probably is an indication that AOS is in fact selling very poorly

Lolwut, talk about making accusations (very wild ones at that): they are selling a (ONE) box for the two games, X is not selling well!

Nevermind that the other information we've had up to date was that AoS was growing in sales, and that the Tzaangors are playable in AoS (counts-as beastmen, they released that memo a few months ago already) You want to hear the most probable truth: they wanted to release the tzaangor box, saw that their TS had no cheap (pointswise) unit, they had too little for unit selection, and thus they asked a sprue of chainswords/pistols for addind the troop to 40k.

There is some nuance in the english language. That's not an accusation, it's an hypothesis

And no, not all indicators points toward being AOS being on the rise. In fact, most indicators point toward it being in a bad state.

And personally, I think that your deduction is flawed cause there is already a troop type that fit the cannonfeeder role. Cultist. And no again, TS have a huge range of troop, cause they can use pretty much every units in codex CSM bar the other cults troops

 streetsamurai wrote:
There is some nuance in the english language. That's not an accusation, it's an hypothesis

And no, not all indicators points toward being AOS being on the rise. In fact, most indicators point toward it being in a bad state.

Certainly there's nuance to english language: there's the flagrant petulance of the native speaker towards the non-native (like you're showing) and some mystical thing called: appeal to ridicule (towards hypothesis). Granted that's a logical phallacy I used there (gotta admit it) but last time I checked it was still typeable in english, you clearly could use a good re-read.

Yeah, most indicators... at the beginning of the game's cycle (to the surprise of no one). I've seen the sales of the Spanish branch, not Overselling 40k mind you but better than "bad state".


EDIT: thematic unit. That addendum of restrictions they added was, for all intents and purposes to allow existing chaos players the chance to play TS. Also it clearly fits the current release model, at least AoS: 2 troop kits, at least one elite kit, then sprinkle heroes. Seeing as they couldn't split more straws (they have alread the rubricae, so they cannot have more power armor) they have to tap into another source... like a kit that has yet to be "released" proper.

I'm not a native english speaker. Just pointed to you, that what I wrote wasn't an accusation, since I clearly wrote that it PROBABLY is an indication. And even if i had said that it definitively was an indication, I don't even think we could call that an accusation. You wanted to do a little passive agressive post (which you also did to another poster in this thread), and it backfired on you

And no offense, but I tend to not believe people who are saying they have inside information, unless they have an already excellent and lengthy track record (which I don't think you have)

 streetsamurai wrote:
I'm not a native english speaker. Just pointed to you, that what I wrote wasn't an accusation, since I clearly wrot that it might be an indication

And no offense, but I tend to not believe people who are saying they have inside information, unless they have an already excellent and lenghty track record (which I don't think you have)

And in no moment I wrote that was an... nevermind me, mixing words, again me mixing up syntaxis and sentences between laguages... I made an appeal to ridicule to your theory as it was very far stretching.

Ok, nevermind me then, guess we ain't reaching an agreement.

I like when people call the older miniatures legacy. since most is still used in the game and stocked at about every Games Workshop store. the fact is if any game company erased everything except the miniatures,
How would you feel it would turn out.?? In the final days of the old management. I heard often they are strictly a model making company and they make the best models in the industry, so people would buy it.
Look where that got them.

As for the rules. it doesn’t seem like many are working on it. Because there is always "what does the community want??" Now starting version three of the game rules in less than two years since its release,
I fear the sales are not meeting the expectations of previous versions of the game. The sigmarites were to be the new faction to bring in players and I see more people buying them for marine conversions than for playing AoS.

If GW did the same to 40k next year. Completely erase the rules,the background and only keep the miniatures. it would sound like a hurricane from all the gamers leaving for other systems. I also don't care for the rules
and have tried enough games to make that decision. I also don't play Warmachine or X-Wing, not because of the rules, the support, or the background. it is because I cannot afford to play every game.

delete

 Genoside07 wrote:
I like when people call the older miniatures legacy. since most is still used in the game and stocked at about every Games Workshop store. the fact is if any game company erased everything except the miniatures,
How would you feel it would turn out.?? In the final days of the old management. I heard often they are strictly a model making company and they make the best models in the industry, so people would buy it.
Look where that got them.

As for the rules. it doesn’t seem like many are working on it. Because there is always "what does the community want??" Now starting version three of the game rules in less than two years since its release,
I fear the sales are not meeting the expectations of previous versions of the game. The sigmarites were to be the new faction to bring in players and I see more people buying them for marine conversions than for playing AoS.

If GW did the same to 40k next year. Completely erase the rules,the background and only keep the miniatures. it would sound like a hurricane from all the gamers leaving for other systems. I also don't care for the rules
and have tried enough games to make that decision. I also don't play Warmachine or X-Wing, not because of the rules, the support, or the background. it is because I cannot afford to play every game.

Funny thing is that, going to six Game Stores I've only seen one guy making stormcast to marines (on a semisizeable scale, there's been a few more cases but mainly only a miniature or two). I guess it's the thing previously with it: hate or love. In the metropolitan area of Barcelona the local tournament featured a boatload of stormcast armies back in june.

This one goes to Lord Kragan. Yet again, you are using anecdotal evidence of your own meta as evidence of worldwide meta. Example: try to sell someone boiled peanuts north of the Mason/Dixon line in the US and you'll get a sea of disgusted faces, but do the same south of that line and it's like a regional delicacy. I can't even imagine all of Spain is as whole hog as you claim Barcelona is, and nobody anywhere is going to buy into unless you have some actual data other than HE TELL ME.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
If there is any validity to the claims of a 2nd Ed. of AOS, then that would strike me as a massive negative for the game, especially with only 5(?) factions getting released properly in the current edition.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709106.page

So AOS Chronicles basically? Hardly another edition. I see it was a touch of hyperbole in the other thread where I "heard" the rumor.

 agnosto wrote:
The joke rules were an intentional slap to the face of the veterans whom the writers/management may have felt slighted them by not keeping the old game alive. Some may say, "it was all in good fun" but the simple fact that the rules didn't exist for the newly released models should say something as to the veracity of such an argument.

Sure, gamers can just ignore the silliness but if you're aware of the obvious intent behind the existence of the rules, it will just make the whole thing distasteful, which is how I felt and so I went from about $1000/year spent on WHFB to $0 spent on AoS.

I agree with you that they were stupid to the point of STOOPID, but you cannot personally ascribe their intent when writing them with any authority any more than I can. And I disagree with your assertion of their intent.

 Just Tony wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
the game is turning one and a half in December, isn't it???
story-lines and models are constantly being worked on...
that Stormcast Eternal statue is still in front of HQ, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere
all the doom-saying hasn't come to anything...

i do hear that there may be rules for blocks of troops coming, so that might be something for the disenfranchised...

cheers
jah

If there is any validity to the claims of a 2nd Ed. of AOS, then that would strike me as a massive negative for the game, especially with only 5(?) factions getting released properly in the current edition.

2nd edition of the General's Handbook, not AoS...
the community is being asked to contribute suggestions of what they would like to see incorporated into the game...
i don't know how it will all be taken on board, or if the book will indeed have a new edition every year, but it does look like things are not as set in stone as WFB editions were...
we'll see how it all shakes out...

cheers
jah

 Just Tony wrote:
This one goes to Lord Kragan. Yet again, you are using anecdotal evidence of your own meta as evidence of worldwide meta. Example: try to sell someone boiled peanuts north of the Mason/Dixon line in the US and you'll get a sea of disgusted faces, but do the same south of that line and it's like a regional delicacy. I can't even imagine all of Spain is as whole hog as you claim Barcelona is, and nobody anywhere is going to buy into unless you have some actual data other than HE TELL ME.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
If there is any validity to the claims of a 2nd Ed. of AOS, then that would strike me as a massive negative for the game, especially with only 5(?) factions getting released properly in the current edition.

http://www..com/dakkaforum/posts/list/709106.page

So AOS Chronicles basically? Hardly another edition. I see it was a touch of hyperbole in the other thread where I "heard" the rumor.

delete.

 jah-joshua wrote:
the game is turning one and a half in December, isn't it???
story-lines and models are constantly being worked on...
that Stormcast Eternal statue is still in front of HQ, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere
all the doom-saying hasn't come to anything...

i do hear that there may be rules for blocks of troops coming, so that might be something for the disenfranchised...

cheers
jah

Just saying... what if GW released an actual game from day one instead of a parody? Also, the setting is still garbage, and the models an overdesigned mess (worse, that style is creeping into 40k, see Magnus). I seriously hope you people are into the system for money (FLGS or GW shops) because the shilling I witness in this thread is disconcerting.

Also: GW spent a good effort in WHFB before ditching it, they put out a lot of new, and often big, models. They are just too dumb to understand what people did not like of their system (People did not necessarily want new models, and new models per army are not needed to have people keep buying, if the system is good and considered a good investment, people will buy 3-4 armies, in 6th it happened).
GW keeping pumping new stuff is not a sign of better health of the game. Also, their vagueness in their reports to investors is borderline lying.

I am still here in trepidation, I think I will have a good laugh soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The joke rules were an intentional slap to the face of the veterans whom the writers/management may have felt slighted them by not keeping the old game alive. Some may say, "it was all in good fun" but the simple fact that the rules didn't exist for the newly released models should say something as to the veracity of such an argument.

Sure, gamers can just ignore the silliness but if you're aware of the obvious intent behind the existence of the rules, it will just make the whole thing distasteful, which is how I felt and so I went from about $1000/year spent on WHFB to $0 spent on AoS.

I agree with you that they were stupid to the point of STOOPID, but you cannot personally ascribe their intent when writing them with any authority any more than I can. And I disagree with your assertion of their intent.

They were well meaning, is just the people writing them are below-average. But I did see no bad ill. I am convinced that they genuinely thought it was the funniest thing ever.

Now just think what a GW designer could be in a social situation, like a dinner. EEEEEEWWWW

Lord Kragan wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah, you can definitely judge a book by its words. That the community thought the rules were a prank on launch says it all.

As if 40k or Fantasy didn't have "silly/joke" elements on their launches. I always bring Obi Wan Sherlock Closeau or some element of the original fantasy when the issue comes at hand.

I wasn't even talking about the "joke" rules, like the beard or horse things. I meant the whole thing; when they went live, the theme across the community was that they were being trolled, hard. "This isn't really the new Warhammer game, right?"

 Bottle wrote:
The Fyreslayers also had a joke rule on one of their units, so it wasn't only for the old stuff.

I'm glad they have now been largely phased out as I too didn't like the joke rules.

You'll note they are absent on his rules on the GW site (I believe it was the Auric Runemaster).

 Azazelx wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The joke rules were an intentional slap to the face of the veterans whom the writers/management may have felt slighted them by not keeping the old game alive. Some may say, "it was all in good fun" but the simple fact that the rules didn't exist for the newly released models should say something as to the veracity of such an argument.

Sure, gamers can just ignore the silliness but if you're aware of the obvious intent behind the existence of the rules, it will just make the whole thing distasteful, which is how I felt and so I went from about $1000/year spent on WHFB to $0 spent on AoS.

I agree with you that they were stupid to the point of STOOPID, but you cannot personally ascribe their intent when writing them with any authority any more than I can. And I disagree with your assertion of their intent.

Certainly, without just stating it, I'm simply expressing my opinion based upon my own observations; if I had asserted some authority, I would have provided quotes or other related facts/figures. In the battle of opinions, ours are both equally valid.

But there is some similarities to the death of Epic with Age of Sigmar; It is sad that Games Workshop can not learn from its past.

Epic was a flag ship game that was on the level of 40k and warhammer in sales. It was a smaller scale battles in the 40k universe.
Most of the current large models for 40k apocolypse comes from older ideas in epic.

In 1997 3rd edition was released and many felt the game was being ruined by a dumbed down version of a previous detailed game.
Once you had detailed little cards with your army listed on them, with multiple units types allow for a lot of flexibility in list making.
When the new epic came out instead of having 5-6 type of imperial guard artillery units (Basilisk, Manicore, Bombard..etc) the new
version had "artillery" as the only unit choice. Many people quit playing the game to the point it died.. Years later they tried again to
bring it back with minor success.. but many were already scared off by the death of the previous game.

Look at the wiki page, sound familiar..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_(game)

Now.. with that said.. the new Games Workshop. Social, lower prices.. Are asking how to fix the game.. I dislike the fact they are working
so hard to try to be able to copyright something.. No longer empire..no elves.. Don't try to be the best at something.. just be different enough
that you can sue someone for having ideas close to it.. I hated they killed the background.. Changed bases.. over simplified game play..
there was no point values (since been fixed) but they still don't have details where you could customize your list and add or drop to get the most
into your army. Yes they previous edition had issues.. I just saw AoS as a lazy way to get around problems.. Need to write new background??
but previous work says this.. *magic its gone* now you can write what ever you want.. Need people to buy super hard new models but don't know what level to put it at??..
*magic no points* so no difficult math to try to figure out what would be a fair game. Sculptors complaining the hard work on making units fit closely together..
*magic change bases* now you can have gigantic model that a section of the board.
So today at your work.. don't work hard to fix the problem correctly take the lazy way out.

Many people feel the same.. this is why I feel the sales are down..because the way Age of Sigmar was handled when it was released and since..
We are reaching the 18 months window that was a make or break time frame for a game at the Old GW.. we will see what is next..

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
People did not necessarily want new models, and new models per army are not needed to have people keep buying, if the system is good and considered a good investment, people will buy 3-4 armies, in 6th it happened).

Locally, it is happening with Kings of War - with only one or two exceptions, everybody in my group of two dozen has two armies.

I have three armies, as does my good lady wife - and only one of those armies is held in common. (Dwarfs were the army that we played together while a courting-do.)

Many, likely most, of those armies are GW armies repurposed - though none from AoS. I saw more boxes of Island of Blood bought for Kings of War than I did for WHFB 8th.

GW had badly underestimated how much of an impact a good set of rules can have on driving sales. Even to the point of making expensive models palatable.

But expensive models for a poor set of rules was very much unpalatable.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
People did not necessarily want new models, and new models per army are not needed to have people keep buying, if the system is good and considered a good investment, people will buy 3-4 armies, in 6th it happened).

Locally, it is happening with Kings of War - with only one or two exceptions, everybody in my group of two dozen has two armies.

I have three armies, as does my good lady wife - and only one of those armies is held in common. (Dwarfs were the army that we played together while a courting-do.)

Many, likely most, of those armies are GW armies repurposed - though none from AoS. I saw more boxes of Island of Blood bought for Kings of War than I did for WHFB 8th.

GW had badly underestimated how much of an impact a good set of rules can have on driving sales. Even to the point of making expensive models palatable.

But expensive models for a poor set of rules was very much unpalatable.

The Auld Grump

I used to buy multiple armies for 40k and WFB. Later I bought multiple armies for Epic.

Now I buy multiple armies for many different systems and rule-sets proxying where I get the chance.

Gamers will always buy multiple armies for a system if the price is OK. They've been doing it for decades. Hell it's my main way of introducing new players to games for nearly forty years. I simply provide both sides while hooking new fish. I'll even provide such a service indefinitely if necessary to retain gamers in a system that interests me.

40k is the only game I own that i don't have multiple armies for

Ruin wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The Fyreslayers also had a joke rule on one of their units, so it wasn't only for the old stuff.

I'm glad they have now been largely phased out as I too didn't like the joke rules.

You'll note they are absent on his rules on the GW site (I believe it was the Auric Runemaster).

Actually it was for the Runeson on Magmadroth. :-)

I tought the worst were the special rules for the first official AOS tournament. You were getting bonus if, when fighting in the realm of beast, you showed to your opponent the pic of your animal (with your phone). Really tells a lot about the mentality of AOS game designers

 streetsamurai wrote:
I tought the worst were the special rules for the first official AOS tournament. You were getting bonus if, when fighting in the realm of beast, you showed to your opponent the pic of your animal (with your phone). Really tells a lot about the mentality of AOS game designers

Encouraging people to take care of animals, thus increasing the ratio of well kempt mascots (are you going to show a mistrated animal? That will earn some serious scorn) and empty our stocks of ownerless animals, bringing them better life expetancies? That's something I can get behind*



*Joke, just in case, found today someone quite literal IRL, don't wanna risk. Still a pretty silly thing by the standard of the game, one of the few rules that DID bother me.


But I don't remember that appearing in Warlords, which IS the first official tournament. That and you had to bring the real deal and was for casual play (also brining red clothing to aqshy)

 streetsamurai wrote:
I tought the worst were the special rules for the first official AOS tournament. You were getting bonus if, when fighting in the realm of beast, you showed to your opponent the pic of your animal (with your phone). Really tells a lot about the mentality of AOS game designers

Well, if what I've heard is true, the guy in charge of developing AoS also runs a Halfling Team in Bloodbowl - the equivalent of playing Dan in Street Fighter, or using a Tyranid army filled with Pyrovores, or playing tennis with one foot nailed to the court. Sure, it's silly fun, but he apparently brought that "It's just silly fun" mentality with him into an environment not suited for it. Shoehorning that mentality into a game that's been moving away from such things so suddenly? Yeah, no wonder people lost their minds.

disagreed. Halfling in blood bowl and Dan in SF were/are brilliant and fun. This 'show a picture of an animal to your opponent' crap is neither. It's the kind of thing that I would expect in a group therapy for autist or person with social deficiency

 Mangod wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
I tought the worst were the special rules for the first official AOS tournament. You were getting bonus if, when fighting in the realm of beast, you showed to your opponent the pic of your animal (with your phone). Really tells a lot about the mentality of AOS game designers

Well, if what I've heard is true, the guy in charge of developing AoS also runs a Halfling Team in Bloodbowl - the equivalent of playing Dan in Street Fighter, or using a Tyranid army filled with Pyrovores, or playing tennis with one foot nailed to the court. Sure, it's silly fun, but he apparently brought that "It's just silly fun" mentality with him into an environment not suited for it. Shoehorning that mentality into a game that's been moving away from such things so suddenly? Yeah, no wonder people lost their minds.

Jervis Johnson who is kinda like a Warhammer diety, like Gene Simmons is for Metal.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
the game is turning one and a half in December, isn't it???
story-lines and models are constantly being worked on...
that Stormcast Eternal statue is still in front of HQ, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere
all the doom-saying hasn't come to anything...

i do hear that there may be rules for blocks of troops coming, so that might be something for the disenfranchised...

cheers
jah

Just saying... what if GW released an actual game from day one instead of a parody? Also, the setting is still garbage, and the models an overdesigned mess (worse, that style is creeping into 40k, see Magnus). I seriously hope you people are into the system for money (FLGS or GW shops) because the shilling I witness in this thread is disconcerting.

Also: GW spent a good effort in WHFB before ditching it, they put out a lot of new, and often big, models. They are just too dumb to understand what people did not like of their system (People did not necessarily want new models, and new models per army are not needed to have people keep buying, if the system is good and considered a good investment, people will buy 3-4 armies, in 6th it happened).
GW keeping pumping new stuff is not a sign of better health of the game. Also, their vagueness in their reports to investors is borderline lying.

I am still here in trepidation, I think I will have a good laugh soon.

no, i'm not here as a shill, nor did i try to get anyone to buy anything, or change their opinion of a product...
i am a fan, and a guy who paints models for a living...

if you think the game on release day was a parody, or that the designers are dumb, or that the suits are borderline lying to investors, i'm not going to try and change your mind about that...
you do you
the point of my post was that the community is being asked what they want in a game, which is cool...

I don't think that the AoS setting is garbage, but i do prefer The Old World...
luckily, there are hundreds of books about it to read and enjoy...

i really don't agree with you about the models being an over-designed mess...
i am a huge fan of the new models
the new Orc Megaboss is the first Fantasy Orc that i brought home, and pretty much started working on right away...
that is rare for a Sci-Fi fan like myself...
hell, i still have tons of Citadel and Marauder Orcs and Goblins from the 80's and 90's that have not been painted yet, but they are pretty low down the list of priorities compared to 40K Orks...

Silver Tower was an instant-buy, for me...
the minis are amazing, and the setting looks like it will be a lot of fun to bring to life with paint...
i just imagine painting the cool designs of the tiles on my bases
plus, the fish familiar is a nice shout-out to the Mordheim art...

Magnus is a must-buy for me...
he looks awesome, and i'm a fan of Matt's sculpting, as well as Tom's painting...
Ahriman is on the list, too...
he is a great re-imagining of Jes' original sculpt, and now he gets a Disk

good job we don't all have to like the same things...

cheers
jah

text removed.

Reds8n

I think we're done here really anyway.