Kilkrazy wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Does anyone else feel that AoS is different enough from Warhammer that GW would have been better served as selling it in tandem with WHFB?

If they were going to have the war scrolls anyway... then the cannibalized sales would simply have been... sales.

The Auld Grump - I felt the same way about D&D 4th edition... it would have been better run in tandem with 3.X.

I think there would have been huge potential for confusion between the two games.

The war scrolls look like stat lines from WHFB army books but a bit simplified. The new models look like the old ones but a bit larger, on different stands and with new (whacky) names. You would have two superficially similar games that actually are incompatible.

More of a shocker that they DIDN'T do that! Seems right up their alley.

Someone brought up the idea that GW has given the Large Fantasy battle share away to competitors. By itself, not huge, but combined with them giving away blood bowl, space battles, and their other specialty games away it is huge.
AOS competes with other skirmish games but now Mantic (and anything else that might arise) have no competition from GW.
Now 40k is the only thing they have without competition and if they make 40k go the way of AOS then they'll give that away as well.

They haven't given up the large fantasy battles though, their rules state armies are about 100 mini's a side. This is not intended to be a skirmish game.

What they have given up, though, is a ranked fantasy battle system, and a fantasy battle system with tactical depth.

Nope, big GW fan, hope they do well. I haven't heard much negative at all from folks who have played the new rules. Old armies included too. I'm in with my current armies, looking forward to playing AOS rules. Not into the new armies but I'm not into some of the old armies either.

 Talys wrote:

But, again, you're talking about the situation as it was a week ago, when GW produced a legitimate fantasy game. With AoS they've essentially conceded that niche in the market to other companies, and that's a priceless opportunity for those half-forgotten and poor-selling WHFB alternatives to stop being poor sellers. A year from now we'll probably be asking how many people know someone who plays AoS, and speculating about how to use AoS models in KoW/WHFB/whatever.

That's possible! And it's also possible GW will do an about face and produce 9e WHFB set in the Sigmar timeframe.

You are right. it is possible. It is also not the current reality. As it stands now, GW has abandoned their previous approach. If GW re-enters the niche that WH Fantasy once occupied, then we'll discuss that on its merits. What is beyond dispute is that Mantic has been positioning itself to siphon off disaffected former WH Fantasy players and their job has been made easier now that Age of Sigmar has redefined the scope of GW's fantasy offering.

TheAuldGrump wrote:Does anyone else feel that AoS is different enough from Warhammer that GW would have been better served as selling it in tandem with WHFB?

If they were going to have the war scrolls anyway... then the cannibalized sales would simply have been... sales.

The Auld Grump - I felt the same way about D&D 4th edition... it would have been better run in tandem with 3.X.

Aye, as Wayne said. If it was a skirmish set in the old blown-up world, a (relatively) cheap buy-in that could be expanded to big battles, I personally would have thought that one of the shrewdest moves. ('Course, I thought they could have also made big-battle Warhammer a proper mass battle game, like Warmaster 3.0, but daring to make WFB more streamlined might've caused more rage than blowing up the world. Ah well. If wishes were fishes...)

Herzlos wrote:They haven't given up the large fantasy battles though, their rules state armies are about 100 mini's a side. This is not intended to be a skirmish game.

And I don't call that one of the shrewdest moves.

Herzlos wrote:
They haven't given up the large fantasy battles though, their rules state armies are about 100 mini's a side. This is not intended to be a skirmish game.

What they have given up, though, is a ranked fantasy battle system, and a fantasy battle system with tactical depth.

No, they've given up on fantasy because AoS is not a playable game. So GW's current product lines are 40k, a barely-supported and probably soon to be OOP skirmish-scale LOTR/Hobbit game, and some miniatures for KoW. Once the LOTR/Hobbit license expires GW's only presence in the fantasy market will be producing alternate models to use with rules published by some other company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
And yet, there are people who play it and actually find it enjoyable.

Some people will white knight for GW no matter what they do. But I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be playing AoS a year from now. And if they are they certainly won't be playing it "out of the box", they'll be playing a heavily-modified version of AoS that fixes its worst problems.

That's possible! And it's also possible GW will do an about face and produce 9e WHFB set in the Sigmar timeframe.

It's incredibly unlikely that they would do that, and if they did it would almost certainly only happen once AoS has been a complete failure and destroyed GW's market share in the fantasy genre. All of the speculation about a new WHFB to replace AoS appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking. On the other hand, it's very plausible to have the former WHFB community move to KoW and make those products more appealing to store owners, especially as GW allows the current WHFB models to go OOP.

I think that AoS opens a legitmate demographic for Games Workshop, though it loses an unprofitable one concurrently.

What demographic is that? People who hate having money in their wallets but are morally opposed to drugs? The very young children of billionaires?

I appreciate that you hate a game structured like AoS, but you should see that there are some people who like scenario-based play a lot more than "my points your points, fight!", and you must concede that if two players play a scenario, the likelihood that they'll have a bad matchup is virtually zero.

AoS is terrible for scenario gaming.

it was for this guy who despite the fact people told him he could still play 8th ed. or simply sold all his models he does this...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141508-Hothead-Gamer-Burns-Warhammer-Fantasy-Army-Over-New-Age-of-Sigmar-Rules

That guy gave his army a "Viking Funeral". Their souls have gone to be reincarnated as Sigmarines.

I remember hearing a guy brag about burning all his old dice after buying 'super-randomised casino dice' or somesuch. IIRC he posted pics too.

As with this, you sort of wonder if the fumes from all that burning plastic caused a bit of brain damage, but they can't have been all that bright to consider it in the first place.

Well that guy or anyone that destroys their miniatures over this is a petty pos. (I remember an idiot that melted a finecast model and posted it here on Dakka.) Hell there is people who would LOVE to have that stuff but will never have the funds, to get it. It makes me sick.

I saw a video of a guy smashing Forge World DKOK minis, set to random music.

To the title of the thread, I think hoping AoS is the final nail for GW is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. I still have fun with GW games (more specifically WH40K) so if AoS is the end of GW I would probably end up cut off from somethign I have fun with and have invested in playing. I have played games in the past that went belly up and in my experience, not having something at all is a worse fate than having something that is less than optimal. If GW still exists you can always hope things get better, if they are GONE, then you have to find something to fill the gap.

Of courser if you are already in the anti-GW camp perhaps you have a different outlook.

The majority of the people that are in the "anti-GW camp" aren't doing it because they hate warhammer or doing it out of malice. They're just fed up with GW in general and see a crash necessary before things get better.

I agree with that camp. Like TSR, GW is beyond redemption and I'd rather the company crash and the IP get sold rather than me spend money on sub-par drivel.

 Absolutionis wrote:
I'd rather the company crash and the IP get sold.

As long as the IP gets sold that plan works, however that might not occur. Or it does get sold and still gets folded away (That happened to one of the games I used to play.)

I actually work at a company that sometimes buys IP/companies just to squash it as competition, or buys it for the human resources that comes with the company so I know it happens, I have seen it first hand.

 Peregrine wrote:
But I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be playing AoS a year from now. And if they are they certainly won't be playing it "out of the box", they'll be playing a heavily-modified version of AoS that fixes its worst problems.

Which, in turn, means that the fracturing of "GW-based" wargaming communities will only continue to increase, making it harder and harder to play (GW) games outside of people's existing "garage-gaming" group and/or specific FLGS.

It's bad enough in 40k having to learn everyone's different idea of what a "non-TFG" list is, but having to learn everyone's different houserules for balancing sides in AoS, not to mention all the silly rules, is an enormous turn off.

 Commissar41.0 wrote:
it was for this guy who despite the fact people told him he could still play 8th ed. or simply sold all his models he does this...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141508-Hothead-Gamer-Burns-Warhammer-Fantasy-Army-Over-New-Age-of-Sigmar-Rules

Anyone that sets miniatures on fire because they don't like a story or rules changes has disturbing anger issues, lol. That's like having a book burning because you didn't like the sequel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine,

There are at least 2 demographics that AoS appeal to.

The first are people who enjoy 40k and like the aesthetic. This is another, easy to learn, light, small model count secondary time-filler game with minis that will appeal to anyone that loves 40k minis.

The second are players who enjoy campaign narratives and don't enjoy competitive play. Even if you have a disdain for this kind of play, you can't deny that such players exist. My wife falls squarely in this category. She can't stand list building, and would far prefer to play a game that said 'play with these models'.

As to your children of billionaires comment, strip away your inflammatory style, and on the substance of it, AoS and 40k are both affordable to anyone with an average wage in a first world nation with a bit of disposable income. If you can't afford AoS, you also can't afford any other miniature war game, or, really, much else in the form of luxury entertainment.

Edit: A third demographic is the people who just love the models and don't care about the game.

I am beginning to think that the last, best hope, for GW and fantasy is that Forgeworld does a Heritage Edition, or the like.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* The entirety of the rules for 2nd edition Age of Sigmar:
Each player alternates placing their miniatures on the table until they have no more miniatures to place.
Each player rolls 1d6 and adds the total cost of their armies in either US dollars or GB pounds.
High result wins.

Not been through all 20 odd pages but to answer the question. No, far from it. AoS wont kill GW. It`ll likely be just another small blip that they will ignore

 Talys wrote:
The first are people who enjoy 40k and like the aesthetic. This is another, easy to learn, light, small model count secondary time-filler game with minis that will appeal to anyone that loves 40k minis.

People who like 40k are not going to be interested in a "game" that has few, if any, of 40k's defining elements. Did you mean to say that AoS is supposed to appeal to fans of WHFB?

The second are players who enjoy campaign narratives and don't enjoy competitive play. Even if you have a disdain for this kind of play, you can't deny that such players exist. My wife falls squarely in this category. She can't stand list building, and would far prefer to play a game that said 'play with these models'.

AoS is terrible for narrative play. If narrative players are supposed to save GW then GW is screwed.

As to your children of billionaires comment, strip away your inflammatory style, and on the substance of it, AoS and 40k are both affordable to anyone with an average wage in a first world nation with a bit of disposable income. If you can't afford AoS, you also can't afford any other miniature war game, or, really, much else in the form of luxury entertainment.

I think you're missing the point here. Yes, most people with a decent income can afford miniatures games if they really want those games, but there's one key difference between the two products: 40k/WHFB/etc are serious hobby games while AoS is a joke of a "game" that most people will play once or twice and then throw in the garbage (where it belongs). I am willing to invest huge amounts of money into serious hobbies because those hobbies give me an appropriate return on my investment. $300 for a new 40k model is worth it because that model will give me many hours of enjoyment on its own, and it is part of my membership in a larger community that I want to make a significant part of my free time. AoS, on the other hand, offers no such return on my investment. I wouldn't pay more than $20 for it because the absolute most I could possibly get out of it is an hour or two of screwing around. It has no long-term potential and will never be a significant part of my life. But GW is still charging full "serious hobby" prices for AoS!

So what I mean by "children of billionaires" is that the target market seems to be immature children who find shallow rules and awkward "humor" appealing, and who have parents with an unlimited budget that allows them to throw away hundreds of dollars on a silly "screw around for a few minutes" game. That time vs. investment calculation only favors GW if you're so rich that $500 is a rounding error in your daily budget.

Edit: A third demographic is the people who just love the models and don't care about the game.

You mean the people who buy AoS models to play KoW? That's profit for GW, but it still means they're losing their "default fantasy game" status and GW products will no longer be at the top of the recommendation list for new customers.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talys wrote:
The first are people who enjoy 40k and like the aesthetic. This is another, easy to learn, light, small model count secondary time-filler game with minis that will appeal to anyone that loves 40k minis.

People who like 40k are not going to be interested in a "game" that has few, if any, of 40k's defining elements. Did you mean to say that AoS is supposed to appeal to fans of WHFB?

No, not at all. I am squarely a 40k fan (superfan, by most definitions, except my low forgeworld consumption), but I would never have considered playing WHFB. I buy very occasional models, but my biggest problem with FB is that I don't like the high fantasy genre enough to paint another giant army. I'm not sure I have it in me to paint giant armies for any 2 games at the same time, and I think I paint more than most.

However, I do play WMH occasionally, as well as X-Wing, and very rarely Infinity, because these games don't take a lot to of time to get started. So even though I'm not a huge Menoth or Cyngar fan, a couple of weeks, I have a decently painted battleforce that I can play for kicks. I don't want a replacement for a game I like; I'm looking for low-requirement simple secondary games.

AoS is much the same. I'll give it a few occasional games, because I like the models, the rules were fun enough, and it will take me a couple of weeks to paint up the starter Sigmarites and maybe a box or of next week's drop.

AoS is terrible for narrative play. If narrative players are supposed to save GW then GW is screwed.

I dunno what you are looking for, and I haven't seen the campaigns that aren't out yet. I LOVE building armies, but I know some people that hate it (they are the furthest thing from hardcore gamers). For these people, it's nice that if you played a preplanned scenario where everything down to terrain, table size, and models are predetermined, any possibility of cheese should be greatly reduced.

I think you're missing the point here. Yes, most people with a decent income can afford miniatures games if they really want those games, but there's one key difference between the two products: 40k/WHFB/etc are serious hobby games while AoS is a joke of a "game" that most people will play once or twice and then throw in the garbage (where it belongs). I am willing to invest huge amounts of money into serious hobbies because those hobbies give me an appropriate return on my investment. $300 for a new 40k model is worth it because that model will give me many hours of enjoyment on its own, and it is part of my membership in a larger community that I want to make a significant part of my free time. AoS, on the other hand, offers no such return on my investment. I wouldn't pay more than $20 for it because the absolute most I could possibly get out of it is an hour or two of screwing around. It has no long-term potential and will never be a significant part of my life. But GW is still charging full "serious hobby" prices for AoS!

So what I mean by "children of billionaires" is that the target market seems to be immature children who find shallow rules and awkward "humor" appealing, and who have parents with an unlimited budget that allows them to throw away hundreds of dollars on a silly "screw around for a few minutes" game. That time vs. investment calculation only favors GW if you're so rich that $500 is a rounding error in your daily budget.

What you say makes perfect sense except that AoS *is* fun to some people, and it doesn't cost much. So for this demographic, it's not 'garbage'. Plus, I buy and paint a lot of models that I don't play with (showcase > garbage )

Edit: A third demographic is the people who just love the models and don't care about the game.

You mean the people who buy AoS models to play KoW? That's profit for GW, but it still means they're losing their "default fantasy game" status and GW products will no longer be at the top of the recommendation list for new customers.

 Kelly502 wrote:
Nope, big GW fan, hope they do well. I haven't heard much negative at all from folks who have played the new rules. Old armies included too. I'm in with my current armies, looking forward to playing AOS rules. Not into the new armies but I'm not into some of the old armies either.

Can i have some of what ever it is that you are smoking? AOS is the biggest pile of dog gak ive ever had the misfortune of reading. I hope this cripples GW and forces them to sell to a competent company that will restore warhammer to what it should be.

 Talys wrote:
No, not at all. I am squarely a 40k fan (superfan, by most definitions, except my low forgeworld consumption), but I would never have considered playing WHFB. I buy very occasional models, but my biggest problem with FB is that I don't like the high fantasy genre enough to paint another giant army. I'm not sure I have it in me to paint giant armies for any 2 games at the same time, and I think I paint more than most.

However, I do play WMH occasionally, as well as X-Wing, and very rarely Infinity, because these games don't take a lot to of time to get started. So even though I'm not a huge Menoth or Cyngar fan, a couple of weeks, I have a decently painted battleforce that I can play for kicks. I don't want a replacement for a game I like; I'm looking for low-requirement simple secondary games.

AoS is much the same. I'll give it a few occasional games, because I like the models, the rules were fun enough, and it will take me a couple of weeks to paint up the starter Sigmarites and maybe a box or of next week's drop.

The market you're describing here is "people who are open to trying new games if the cost is low enough", not "people who enjoy 40k". If you enjoy 40k then AoS offers you nothing special in that area. Sure, you might play it for other reasons, but your love of 40k isn't going to make you love AoS.

I dunno what you are looking for, and I haven't seen the campaigns that aren't out yet. I LOVE building armies, but I know some people that hate it (they are the furthest thing from hardcore gamers). For these people, it's nice that if you played a preplanned scenario where everything down to terrain, table size, and models are predetermined, any possibility of cheese should be greatly reduced.

What I'm looking for in a narrative/scenario game is a balanced and well-functioning foundation to build my stories on. AoS does not provide that, so you're limited to (at most) playing GW's stories with GW's chosen armies. If you try to do your own stuff you run straight into the problems of nonexistent balance and broken rules.

What you say makes perfect sense except that AoS *is* fun to some people

Those people are a minority. And I'll find this claim a lot more persuasive if people are still having fun with AoS once the "shiny new thing" effect has worn off and they're faced to confront its crippling problems.

and it doesn't cost much.

Have you seen GW's model prices lately? The rules are free but buying even a small army is well beyond the cost of a "screw around for an evening" game. And if you want to paint those models and/or build a normal-size army then the price is much higher.

There are people who buy models just to model and paint, and not to play.

And how common are these people? When you answer, consider two things:

1) GW's claims of "we sell to collectors" are skewed by the vast number of people who buy GW products with the intent to play the game but give up before they can. A new customer who buys a 40k starter set, realizes they don't like the game, and throws everything in the trash is a failure by GW, not a dedicated collector who appreciates great models for their own sake.

2) Collectors have no loyalty to GW. If you just want to paint 28mm fantasy miniatures there are lots of options available, many of them better than GW. So really the group you're talking about isn't collectors and painters in general, it's obsessive GW fans who only buy from GW and therefore have a chance of buying on the same scale as the gamers.

@Peregrine: i am one of those painters (i've never been interested in gaming) who has loyalty to GW for the minis...
from 1984 to 2000, i never bought a mini that wasn't Citadel or Marauder...
after 2000, Rackham opened my eyes to other Fantasy minis, but my buying was, and still is, skewed to about 75% GW minis, because they are the style i like, in the setting i enjoy the most...
while i enjoy Fantasy minis for Helldorado, Warmachine/Hordes, Crocodile Games, Reaper, Darksword, CMoN, Ilyad and Confrontation (it was sad to see them go), 99% of those minis sit in shoeboxes gathering dust while i continue painting GW minis, because those are the ones that really get me fired up to paint...
there are plenty of 28mm Fantasy minis on the market that equal GW's quality, there aren't any that i would say are better quality plastics...
the only real difference is in which setting a painter is more inspired by, and which aesthetic they prefer...
for example, of all the companies listed above, i have never been inspired enough by a Reaper mini to actually paint one, even though i have bought so many thinking i might get the itch, but it never happens, while an Ilyad or Rackham mini calls out to be painted...
GW is in the Rackham column for me, while Reaper and Darksword just aren't, no matter how much i wish they were...

personally, i am liking a good deal of what i see in the AoS previews, and look forward to seeing where they go with the next version of the classic WFB races...

cheers
jah


Edit: whoops, had the wrong poster name there for a few...

 Peregrine wrote:

The market you're describing here is "people who are open to trying new games if the cost is low enough", not "people who enjoy 40k". If you enjoy 40k then AoS offers you nothing special in that area. Sure, you might play it for other reasons, but your love of 40k isn't going to make you love AoS.

No, you're wrong. There's 40k players who are looking for lower model count secondary games.

AoS is attractive because the rules are quite simple to learn AND the Sigmarites and Chaos have similar aesthetic to popular 40k themes. All GW has to do is make a High Elves unit that looks like Wraithguard and Aspect Warriors, and they'll capture 75% of the 40k playerbase.

What's the first answer to someone's question, "what faction should I play in 40k?" -- it's, "the faction you identify with". That's what Sigmarites do. People like the Paladin/Grey Knight look. They like the angelic wings, the big cats -- these are all crowd pleasers.

What I'm looking for in a narrative/scenario game is a balanced and well-functioning foundation to build my stories on. AoS does not provide that, so you're limited to (at most) playing GW's stories with GW's chosen armies. If you try to do your own stuff you run straight into the problems of nonexistent balance and broken rules.

You can build your stories on AoS no differently than you could in D&D.

No matter how many times you say it, the rules aren't broken. You just don't like them.

[quoteThose people are a minority. And I'll find this claim a lot more persuasive if people are still having fun with AoS once the "shiny new thing" effect has worn off and they're faced to confront its crippling problems.

I have to hand it to GW. They really sold 'Forge the Narrative', even though what you do in AoS isn't narrative gaming.

If anything, narrative gaming should have stronger list building than competitive play. Because they're telling a story, and stories have a structure - locations, set participants, aims. When an author tells a story, he plans it out, then writes it. When a game master tells a story in an RPG, he sets up the characters, opponents and tells the story. When you tell a story in a wargame, look to historicals for how it's done.

What you're doing in AoS isn't narrative. It's simply throwing whatever on the table and having at it. This is fine, if it's what you want to do. But it's not, and never will be, narrative gaming any more than what you get out of a competitive game - both opponents are throwing stuff on the table and playing a scenario. The only difference in AoS is they removed the point system.

Yeah, all the best fun is organised fun.

That sounds constrained rather than narrative.

Narrative can be as simple as making up a story base along one die roll. I had a sentinel take a Greater Deamon's last wound in a tournament game once when it blew up, within two minutes my opponent and me had decided the pilot had slotted the beast with his las pistol as he leapt out of the cockpit as the machine went critical.

The pilots name; Arnold J. Rimmer. What a guy!

Anyhoo, narrative is whatever you want it to be, so I'm not saying your wrong.

Ps just cracked open my AoS. Very nice boxset, just need some ideas of what to do with the Skull Daemon, nasty bugger!

I have to agree with Loki. The idea that AoS is in anyway narrative 'gaming' is something I can't believe.

I'm currently in an Empire of the Dead (Victorian Gothic Steampunk Horror) game, running a gang of Lycaon (werewolves that are anti-civilization). My opponents for the first game were Holy Order, and we were playing a scenario where the defender had to protect a civilian model while the attacker had to reach them. We figured that the civilian was a high-ranking Parliament member that wanted to further Britain's de-forestation for the sake of industry.

During the game, one of my gang members got shot with a hunting rifle, and crawled back into cover before passing out (and being removed from the table). My werewolves assaulted the church ruins where they were defending the politicians (where one of the Holy Order models descended from the second floor on wings of light, only to be torn apart by my Beastlord), while the humans in my gang skirmished outside, using only bows and crossbows against the Order's guns.

I managed to win the scenario, and thanks to some incredible rolling, all of my casualties were just flesh wounds. My opponent was less fortunate. One of his models became unhinged, meaning that in further games there would be a chance he would run at the first sight of an enemy. Another of his models was captured by the police and, because he didn't have enough winnings at the end of the game, the model was deported out of the country (back to Rome, we figured). Lastly, another of his models was captured by my gang. Because she was a lowly grunt, he elected not to try a rescure mission, so the grunt was converted to my cause. Now, some 6-7 games later, she's still running around in my gang.

That's narrative gaming, to me. There's an actual story there, and the consequences from earlier games can have far-ranging consequences, much more so than anything AoS has demonstrated. Can AoS models develop skills, or change sides? Do they become injured, and have to wait for players to earn enough to take them to the doctors (either high end or back alley) to be cured? Can they be captured, meaning a player has to decide if its worth risking the injury or death of his other models/units to rescue the captured model?

 notprop wrote:
Ps just cracked open my AoS. Very nice boxset, just need some ideas of what to do with the Skull Daemon, nasty bugger!

Get him some lotion - he really needs to do something about his condition....

The Auld Grump - I really don't like that model, but I can see why others might.

Lotion? I was thinking Eau da Scalpel and some skull toupée's at a minimum!

The other day, I read an addendum to Tom Meier's bio, where he talked about the early days of gaming in the 1970s, when the decision was made by Minifies and Hinchliffe to produce 25mm figures, rather than the more traditional 30mm (1/48 scale), or the smaller HO scale 20mm figures.

The Sculptor for minifies said something along the lines, when asked about Tom WHY he had chosen this backward-assed scale/size when there was so much made in these other sizes/scales (especially for Napoleonics, AWI, and the Civil War, not to mention a few Medieval Castles and terrain), to the effect of:

"Ah! See, that's where we're smart! People have to come to us to buy everything!"

It is exactly this sort of clever-stoopid that has afflicted GW since its founding days (and, as much as I like him, Bryan Ansell was just as much afflicted by it).

Because as smart as that is, no one company, unless they have unlimited funding, can produce everything needed for gaming.

And it restricts people's abilities to finish out forces, and to accomplish their goals, being instead limited to Someone else's goals/ideals!.

Until GW gets this, whether we wish failure, or whether we wish them success, will continue their slow slide into oblivion.

MB

 Talys wrote:


No, you're wrong. There's 40k players who are looking for lower model count secondary games.

But AoS isn't a low model count secondary game; it could have more models than a 40K army. Low model count secondary games are the likes of X-Wing, Mordheim or Blood Bowl.

No matter how many times you say it, the rules aren't broken. You just don't like them.

They contain a lot of serious flaws - like the measuring to the mini, no points, gaining a cover save from standing on a wall, but not behind it. The error:word count ratio is pretty high.

As long as the number of people exceed the number of people buying WHFB stuff, GW comes out ahead. I have one friend who is furious at the changes from Fantasy to AoS, because he loves fantasy. But in the last 5 years, he's spent like, $300 on Fantasy. Ironically, he's going to buy Sigmar for the models -- which exceeds the total he's spent in the last 2 years, lol.

And potentially all he'll spend for the next 2 years. Presumably he spent a lot getting into WHFB initially and then just tailed off?

A normal sized army in Sigmar is 20-40 models, the starter box comes with some great models, and you don't need a lot more to add on. If you're playing another faction, you really don't need a lot of models. In fact, the game plays poorly for large model count, IMO.

According to the rules, a normal sized army in AoS is around 100 models. My guard infantry detachment doesn't even run to 100 models at 2000pts.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Ps just cracked open my AoS. Very nice boxset, just need some ideas of what to do with the Skull Daemon, nasty bugger!

Get him some lotion - he really needs to do something about his condition....

The Auld Grump - I really don't like that model, but I can see why others might.

I cut off the lower jaw and popped a daemon Prince head on. He's now a Khorne prince on foot. Because the head was bloody stupid. I couldn't even tell what actually WAS the head!

Other than that, the models are fantastic. Absolutely love the Khorne Marauders. Unfortunately, their look is a DIRECT pull from a Reaper model from years ago. Just slightly larger.

Herzlos wrote:
But AoS isn't a low model count secondary game; it could have more models than a 40K army. Low model count secondary games are the likes of X-Wing, Mordheim or Blood Bowl.

I genuinely don't think so. A WHFB sized (100 - 200 model) army on AoS would not be fun to play, in my opinion. Aside from it taking a zillion years to finish, I think the game mechanics would actually be horrible.

Herzlos wrote:
They contain a lot of serious flaws - like the measuring to the mini, no points, gaining a cover save from standing on a wall, but not behind it. The error:word count ratio is pretty high.

I agree that measuring to the mini (not the base) is not a good rule, though I think it's one that everyone has naturally changed, even if it's subconsciously. Cover saves? Whatever, that's a game mechanic. You assume the model is in constant motion, not frozen in time.

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

It takes out any chance of cheese. The problem with people wanting balance is that for competitive players, and I am guilty of this they don't really want balance. They want people to FEEL that it's balanced, but they REALLY want the upper hand, through superior list building. The whole idea of list building is to have a better army than the opponent's, giving you an advantage before the game starts. The only difference is that some competitive gamers admit this, while others just want to feel smarter when they win, when in fact, 75% of their win was due to a better list, and the concept behind that list wasn't theirs, but rather someone else's on the Internet.

I'm telling you, optimized lists is a turn-off for the crowd that plays Magic games just for fun and don't want to face a competitive, razor-sharpened deck (read: 85% of the women I've played Magic with). By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately. This actually is NOT the game I want. In a war game, I want to start with an unfair advantage, not perfect balance, which is why I build army lists. But there are people that are not like me.

One more thing: A game doesn't HAVE to support competitive play in order to be a good game. In fact, if you want to target all the people who aren't interested in competitive gaming, keeping competitive players away from the game will have a positive effect for the people who DO play the game.

And potentially all he'll spend for the next 2 years. Presumably he spent a lot getting into WHFB initially and then just tailed off?

He's played for 20 years. As the years went by, he felt less and less a need to add to his High Elf army.

It's a different mentality than our 40k gang, where it seems like the Eldar guy in our group can never have enough Wraithknights or Crimson Hunters or Jetbikes, or War Walkers, or whatever. In the 40k world, it seems like players are more willing to build their armies to apocalyptic sizes (unplayably large), whereas in the Fantasy world, the armies may be larger, but at some point, players feel their armies are "finished".

In part, I think it's because there is a REALLY long gap between releases for a faction, and there aren't vehicle kits, which are a pretty big deal in 40k.

According to the rules, a normal sized army in AoS is around 100 models. My guard infantry detachment doesn't even run to 100 models at 2000pts.

Maybe I missed something, but where does it say that a normal-sized AoS army is 100 models? I think in White Dwarf or something it said that you can basically play with any number of models you want. But having played it, it scales badly (I don't think anyone who has played the game would disagree with me). Not only are the mechanics awkward, but the turns would take forever.

Even if you said you were willing to play a really long game, I think it will suck at 100 models per side unless you have an uncommonly massive table. Maybe I'm wrong. We tried 50 models and it was getting crowded, and bogged down. It was WAY more fun at roughly 30 models.

 Talys wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
]According to the rules, a normal sized army in AoS is around 100 models. My guard infantry detachment doesn't even run to 100 models at 2000pts.

Maybe I missed something, but where does it say that a normal-sized AoS army is 100 models? I think in White Dwarf or something it said that you can basically play with any number of models you want. But having played it, it scales badly (I don't think anyone who has played the game would disagree with me). Not only are the mechanics awkward, but the turns would take forever.

Even if you said you were willing to play a really long game, I think it will suck at 100 models per side unless you have an uncommonly massive table. Maybe I'm wrong. We tried 50 models and it was getting crowded, and bogged down. It was WAY more fun at roughly 30 models.

The first paragraph on the first page of the rules ends with, "Typically, a game with around a hundred miniatures per side will last for about an evening."

It's not explicitly stating that a hundred miniatures per side is a standard game size - although it does say 'typically' - but it sure doesn't say that a hundred minis per side is an extreme.

Probably already posted, but still...




Point though: what the hell's Forgeworld going to do about releasing those hardback supplements? If these rules are so bare bone they're a bit screwed unless they want to just say "use this force composition for fluff reasons", unless later on using x unit with y unit actually gives a bonus or something.

 Talys wrote:

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

But aside from close friends, people might and will disagree on what is balanced. It's not the extreme cases players are worried about, but the gray areas that cause the most problems.

It takes out any chance of cheese.

Wait....what? Letting people take whatever with no way of knowing what's stronger prevents cheese? Going by wounds, there's a big difference in say a tac squad with all bolters and and a tac squad with a heavy bolter and melta gun and a sergeant loaded up with lots of upgrades. Without points they're technically equal, but clearly they're not.

The problem with people wanting balance is that for competitive players, and I am guilty of this they don't really want balance. They want people to FEEL that it's balanced, but they REALLY want the upper hand, through superior list building.

You're projecting your own weird ideas on others. That's simply not true. I want close games that come down to the line where player decisions determine who the winner is. Some of my most memorable games are ones I lost. As a fluffly player, I don't want a drastic disadvantage just because I like a particular army. I want the game to be as close to fair as possible. At the same time, I don't want an advantage over the player because it would cheapen my win and wouldn't be earned. It would be a let down if I stomped my opponent because my list happened to be far better. This idea that everyone's secretly a WAAC power gammer is ridiculous.

The whole idea of list building is to have a better army than the opponent's, giving you an advantage before the game starts.

No, it's to make the kind of army you want to play while giving yourself the best chance of winning because the other guy's doing the same. I don't want to be told what kind of army to make. "You have to take three of these, two of these and at least one of these. The remaining five points you can spend on whatever you like." That sounds boring as feth. List building is creative and also gives you the best chance of winning. Not "advantage" because the other guy is doing the same and hopefully it will come out equal.

The only difference is that some competitive gamers admit this, while others just want to feel smarter when they win, when in fact, 75% of their win was due to a better list, and the concept behind that list wasn't theirs, but rather someone else's on the Internet.

And that's due to shoddy rules where internal imbalance makes good and bad choices all to obvious. Make every choice viable and the type of lists you'd see would become far far more unique.

I'm telling you, optimized lists is a turn-off for the crowd that plays Magic games just for fun and don't want to face a competitive, razor-sharpened deck (read: 85% of the women I've played Magic with). By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately. This actually is NOT the game I want. In a war game, I want to start with an unfair advantage, not perfect balance, which is why I build army lists. But there are people that are not like me.

You're projecting your opinions on everyone like that is the norm. I don't want an unfair advantage. I want a close a game as possible.
I understand playing for fun, but optimized lists is not contradictory to that. It's only when the game's balance is so poor that a non optimized list stands no chance of winning.
It's not the concept of list building or points that's the problem. It's GW's terrible handling of the concepts that's the problem.

One more thing: A game doesn't HAVE to support competitive play in order to be a good game. In fact, if you want to target all the people who aren't interested in competitive gaming, keeping competitive players away from the game will have a positive effect for the people who DO play the game.

No, but it makes sense from a marketing stand point. Cutting out competitive players is a large chunk of potential revenue. And you're grossly over-emphasising this "Stomp all noobs" mentality among cempetitive players. They've been some of the nicest and welcoming people I've met. There are jerk competitive and jerk casuals. People are people.

 MWHistorian wrote:

It takes out any chance of cheese.

Wait....what? Letting people take whatever with no way of knowing what's stronger prevents cheese? Going by wounds, there's a big difference in say a tac squad with all bolters and and a tac squad with a heavy bolter and melta gun and a sergeant loaded up with lots of upgrades. Without points they're technically equal, but clearly they're not.

You misunderstand me: A preplanned game, where the scenario specifies the table size, location of all terrain, and all units to be fielded (perhaps with some allowance for minor customization) eliminates any chance of cheese. Even in a tournament game between total strangers, No options = no cheese. How you win is how well you play, period. Like a game of chess.

You're projecting your own weird ideas on others. That's simply not true. I want close games that come down to the line where player decisions determine who the winner is. Some of my most memorable games are ones I lost. As a fluffly player, I don't want a drastic disadvantage just because I like a particular army. I want the game to be as close to fair as possible. At the same time, I don't want an advantage over the player because it would cheapen my win and wouldn't be earned. It would be a let down if I stomped my opponent because my list happened to be far better. This idea that everyone's secretly a WAAC power gammer is ridiculous.

I didn't say everyone. I said, a category of powergamer and competitive player. I'm not tossing everyone into the mix, though, to some extent, I am one of those people who enjoy eliciting an advantage buy building strong lists. It doesn't make me evil or un-fun; it just means, I like building advantageous lists.

No, it's to make the kind of army you want to play while giving yourself the best chance of winning because the other guy's doing the same. I don't want to be told what kind of army to make. "You have to take three of these, two of these and at least one of these. The remaining five points you can spend on whatever you like." That sounds boring as feth. List building is creative and also gives you the best chance of winning. Not "advantage" because the other guy is doing the same and hopefully it will come out equal.

If everyone built armies on the basis of wanting to have fun, that would be great. But often, people build armies just to win, and it gets repetitive and monobuild.

No, but it makes sense from a marketing stand point. Cutting out competitive players is a large chunk of potential revenue. And you're grossly over-emphasising this "Stomp all noobs" mentality among cempetitive players. They've been some of the nicest and welcoming people I've met. There are jerk competitive and jerk casuals. People are people.

I don't particularly disagree. Especially since, on the relative scale, I'm reasonably competitive at times (and reasonably fluffy other times). I'm saying, there's the possibility that a game that focuses on social interaction and cooperation before the competition starts, rather than mathematical formulae, is an interesting concept that I won't dismiss as being impossible to be successful.

 Talys wrote:


If everyone built armies on the basis of wanting to have fun, that would be great. But often, people build armies just to win, and it gets repetitive and monobuild.

Always remember, having fun and wanting to win are not mutually exclusive affairs.

Further, I'm sure there's a number of players who like a specific theme to their army, and will therefore create and refine lists within their own self-imposed restrictions. It may seem repetitive to you, but others may see it as a gradual change and refinement of a concept they've been working on.

Ultimately, a points system (or other system of balance) is superior to a system without it precisely to mitigate these problems. A point-less system doesn't make people build 'fun' armies any more than a pointed one because you still have all the underlying balance issues without the ease of comparing relative strengths.

Just imagine 40k without points right now. The balance problems are still there, but now its even harder to judge what a fair, balanced match up would be without a basic benchmark to go off of, even with all of 40k's current balance issues.

 Talys wrote:
I agree that measuring to the mini (not the base) is not a good rule, though I think it's one that everyone has naturally changed, even if it's subconsciously.

So you admit that the game is broken.

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

No, it's an incredibly stupid thing. A game like WHFB/AoS/whatever requires point costs to function. The only question is whether those point costs will be provided by the publisher and the game will be playable "out of the box", or if the players will have to invest a ton of time and effort into creating their own point system.

Also, your comment about "you and I agree" misses a fundamental problem: AoS is a competitive game. All of my models are underpowered and should cost less than they do, all of your models are overpowered and should cost more than they do. Even if neither player is a WAAC TFG they're going to have an inherent desire to skew the game in their own direction. Therefore a system where each player has to lobby for their own faction to be better is going to be worse than one where a neutral third party (preferably the game designer) provides an evaluation of each unit's value.

By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately.

Actually, the three units in combination are worth less than they are separately because I've successfully argued that my overpowered combo should be even cheaper. Removing points doesn't remove list optimization and trying to gain an advantage before the first die is rolled, it just changes the goal from "find the best value in this list of options" to "be really persuasive in arguing that your army should be more powerful".

One more thing: A game doesn't HAVE to support competitive play in order to be a good game. In fact, if you want to target all the people who aren't interested in competitive gaming, keeping competitive players away from the game will have a positive effect for the people who DO play the game.

The problem with this argument is the same problem that it has when people make it about 40k: the things that make 40k/AoS/whatever bad for competitive play almost always make it bad for casual/narrative/whatever players. It's like saying well, this headache sucks, but maybe if I fetch my gun and blow my head off I'll get rid of the headache and be able to think clearly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I agree that measuring to the mini (not the base) is not a good rule, though I think it's one that everyone has naturally changed, even if it's subconsciously.

So you admit that the game is broken.

By that metric, every wargame is broken, because I can find something I don't like in every game.

So no, the game isn't broken, because I don't like one rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

No, it's an incredibly stupid thing. A game like WHFB/AoS/whatever requires point costs to function. The only question is whether those point costs will be provided by the publisher and the game will be playable "out of the box", or if the players will have to invest a ton of time and effort into creating their own point system.

Also, your comment about "you and I agree" misses a fundamental problem: AoS is a competitive game. All of my models are underpowered and should cost less than they do, all of your models are overpowered and should cost more than they do. Even if neither player is a WAAC TFG they're going to have an inherent desire to skew the game in their own direction. Therefore a system where each player has to lobby for their own faction to be better is going to be worse than one where a neutral third party (preferably the game designer) provides an evaluation of each unit's value.

1. Build a game that a WAAC TFG will have no interest in. Yay! I don't want them around anyways.
2. Build a game that encourages both players to NOT skew the game in their own direction. For example, by giving a preset of "take exactly this, play on exactly this environment." No skew.

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately.

Actually, the three units in combination are worth less than they are separately because I've successfully argued that my overpowered combo should be even cheaper. Removing points doesn't remove list optimization and trying to gain an advantage before the first die is rolled, it just changes the goal from "find the best value in this list of options" to "be really persuasive in arguing that your army should be more powerful".
[/quote[

You haven't successfully argued anything. You just argue something, and say, "See? I'm successful."

The world is flat. Truth. See? I successfully argued it. It just isn't actually true. But I did argue it successfully, because I said I did and declared victory. George W. Bush: "Mission Accomplished."

The problem with this argument is the same problem that it has when people make it about 40k: the things that make 40k/AoS/whatever bad for competitive play almost always make it bad for casual/narrative/whatever players. It's like saying well, this headache sucks, but maybe if I fetch my gun and blow my head off I'll get rid of the headache and be able to think clearly.

No, it just means, I'd rather play with like-minded people. I could really give a crap if people who aren't like-minded with me fall off the face of the earth or play another game, or go play paintball. Whether they are in the hobby or not makes no difference to me.

Conversely, if a game isn't designed for people like me, and/or there aren't people like me to play with, I'll do something else.

GW happens to design a game and game world that is just about perfect for me in Warhammer 40k. Note that I've said repeatedly that AoS is not perfect for me, but I can see that it's perfect for some people.

For example, 2 of the girlfriends of the guys that I play with, plus my wife play MtG is the most non-competitive way that you can imagine. They like taking every card they own, and laugh when they draw no land for 30 turns, draw only land for 30 turns, or draw the wrong color land for 30 turns in the row. They think it's hilarious, and their opponent will sit there doing nothing for 30 turns waiting for them to draw something useful, without attacking. They think an hour-long magic game where they get to look at lots of pretty pictures on cards is an awesome thing, so they'll purposely not kill each other.

They are actually thinking of playing AoS... after we paint them some minis that they can play with, lol... and they hate 40k, and would never, ever consider WHFB. Incidentally, they would also be terrible customers for AoS, long term -- I don't think they'd buy very many minis at all. But who knows; I didn't think my wife would buy a closet full of Magic cards either.

 Talys wrote:
By that metric, every wargame is broken, because I can find something I don't like in every game.

So no, the game isn't broken, because I don't like one rule.

There's a difference between "something I don't like" and "something so obviously bad that virtually everyone has changed it, and the designers are absolute ing morons for allowing it to be printed that way in the first place".

1. Build a game that a WAAC TFG will have no interest in. Yay! I don't want them around anyways.

The only way to do this is to make a game that nobody else will be interested in. In fact, WAAC players will often be the last players to leave a game because of its flaws. Problems that will drive other people to quit are just opportunities for TFG to exploit.

2. Build a game that encourages both players to NOT skew the game in their own direction. For example, by giving a preset of "take exactly this, play on exactly this environment." No skew.

No skew, but nothing really interesting either. Maybe a "fixed scenarios only" approach could be ok in hardcore competitive gaming (if the designer is good at making the scenarios balanced to that level), but it sucks for everything else. A huge part of the appeal of miniature wargaming is the ability to build your own army and write your own story. You can't do that if the designer takes away all of the options.

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

No, you misunderstand here. The fact that AoS is a competitive game is not something that's up for debate, because I'm talking about casual vs. cooperative not "how much do I want to win". AoS is a competitive game because it involves two (or more) players on opposing sides trying to defeat each other. A cooperative game would involve those players working together to defeat a common enemy, and AoS is clearly not a game like that.

You haven't successfully argued anything. You just argue something, and say, "See? I'm successful."

Sigh. I'm presenting a hypothetical scenario here where the WAAC player always lobbies for their own army to be more powerful. A + B + C are not inherently more "expensive" than those choices separately, it only works out that way if both players agree to that value. If the WAAC player dishonestly convinces their opponent that their "A + B + C" army is weak and should have extra warscrolls added to make up for their disadvantage then the combo will be "cheaper" than the units taken separately by some other player.

For example, 2 of the girlfriends of the guys that I play with, plus my wife play MtG is the most non-competitive way that you can imagine. They like taking every card they own, and laugh when they draw no land for 30 turns, draw only land for 30 turns, or draw the wrong color land for 30 turns in the row. They think it's hilarious, and their opponent will sit there doing nothing for 30 turns waiting for them to draw something useful, without attacking. They think an hour-long magic game where they get to look at lots of pretty pictures on cards is an awesome thing, so they'll purposely not kill each other.

Which is fine, if you're talking about a game where you spend $0 because a more serious MTG player gives you their discarded commons pile. How many of the people who play MTG like that are investing hundreds or thousands of dollars in buying new cards?

This is the fundamental problem with AoS: it's too expensive to be a casual "screw around for a few hours while drinking" game, and a spectacular failure as a "significant hobby" game. This goes back to the "millionaire children" point I made earlier, about how GW has limited themselves to people who like the awkward humor and have so much money that spending $500 on entertainment for an evening or two is just a rounding error in their daily budget. Their ideal and only target customer seems to be the kind of person who stops by their local UK store to pick up a starter box on the way to the airport where their private jet is waiting for trip to lunch in NYC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
They are actually thinking of playing AoS... after we paint them some minis that they can play with, lol... and they hate 40k, and would never, ever consider WHFB. Incidentally, they would also be terrible customers for AoS, long term -- I don't think they'd buy very many minis at all. But who knows; I didn't think my wife would buy a closet full of Magic cards either.

Exactly! If the only people who AoS is good for are not going to make any significant investment in the game then AoS is a hilarious failure.

This goes back to the "millionaire children" point I made earlier, about how GW has limited themselves to people who like the awkward humor and have so much money that spending $500 on entertainment for an evening or two is just a rounding error in their daily budget. Their ideal and only target customer seems to be the kind of person who stops by their local UK store to pick up a starter box on the way to the airport where their private jet is waiting for trip to lunch in NYC.

Oh come on Pere, you dont really believe that do you?
Lots of us battle through a weeks work and earn a decent wage and then go buy some mdoels we want/like/enjoy. We then do not hop into first class for a trip to Tokyo

 Ratius wrote:

This goes back to the "millionaire children" point I made earlier, about how GW has limited themselves to people who like the awkward humor and have so much money that spending $500 on entertainment for an evening or two is just a rounding error in their daily budget. Their ideal and only target customer seems to be the kind of person who stops by their local UK store to pick up a starter box on the way to the airport where their private jet is waiting for trip to lunch in NYC.

Oh come on Pere, you dont really believe that do you?
Lots of us battle through a weeks work and earn a decent wage and then go buy some mdoels we want/like/enjoy. We then do not hop into first class for a trip to Tokyo

I highlighted the important part for you. Lots of people can afford to pay GW prices for a serious hobby. Very few people can afford to pay GW prices to screw around for a few hours.

AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

His point is that it's far too expensive for a casual game you'll fool around with for an evening or two and then forget about it.

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

Does AoS not feature two players where one of whom will be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game?

Because otherwise it's the very definition of competitive.

The fact you claim not to care whether you win or lose doesn't mean one of those two outcomes doesn't happen.

In fact I can't think of a single activity characterised as a "game" from hopscotch to paintball that doesn't involve an element of competition, if only with oneself to try and improve on past performances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

Really?

Wow. Unless that's an opportunity that occurs regularly for some reason, I'm not sure that was even remotely the right call.

 Azreal13 wrote:

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

Does AoS not feature two players where one of whom will be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game?

Because otherwise it's the very definition of competitive.

The fact you claim not to care whether you win or lose doesn't mean one of those two outcomes doesn't happen.

In fact I can't think of a single activity characterised as a "game" from hopscotch to paintball that doesn't involve an element of competition, if only with oneself to try and improve on past performances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

Really?

Wow. Unless that's an opportunity that occurs regularly for some reason, I'm not sure that was even remotely the right call.

Once again he's projecting his particular philosophy on the player base as a whole.

Peregrine,

I also said that my wife, whom I did not expect to ever buy more than a couple of starter packs has now spent a couple of thousand dollars over 10 years or so. This doesn't represent millionaires, and I said that although I dint think she'll buy AoD minis that add up to a hill of beans beyond the starter, who knows?

Anyways, we have a fundamentally different outlook on hobby. I believe that there are people invested in the hobby for wildly different reasons and with completely different priorities than me, and I believe that companies can and should market to segments other than mine -- which is probably more similar to yours, than our banter would suggest. You, on the other hand, dismiss every segment that you can't understand or is wildly different from your viewpoint as irrelevant, marginal, or unprofitable.

I'm willing to see the possibility that AoS may succeed or fail whereas you don't think that it has any possibility of even mediocre success. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think this is because the style of fun promoted by AoS is not at all enjoyable to you and you can't understand how it could be enjoyable to anyone, despite that if you look in the AoS GD thread, many people who have tried it have good things to say. I mean, it's not just me being a GW white knight. Keep in mind that I'm open to the possibility of it's long term failure, too.

I don't think we'll ever be able to reconcile this difference, no matter how many times we go back and forth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

Does AoS not feature two players where one of whom will be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game?

Because otherwise it's the very definition of competitive.

The fact you claim not to care whether you win or lose doesn't mean one of those two outcomes doesn't happen.

In fact I can't think of a single activity characterised as a "game" from hopscotch to paintball that doesn't involve an element of competition, if only with oneself to try and improve on past performances.

Yes, AoS features 2 players where one of them may be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game.

No, that doesn't mean that it must be a competitive game.

As an example, I know plenty (dozens!) of people who play magic with ridiculous, 300+ card decks, who refuse to make a killing attack. They want to play out their whole deck with their friends, and they have a good time playing the game. It is totally non-competitive in every conceivable sense of the word.

When their opponent doesn't draw land, what do they do? Laugh at them, and draw and discard.

Their goal is to PLAY, not to win, even though there may be judged a winner. Therefore, it's non-competitive. This may be a foreign concept to you, and you may think it stupid, but these people exist.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 notprop wrote:
AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

Really?

Wow. Unless that's an opportunity that occurs regularly for some reason, I'm not sure that was even remotely the right call.

Just like with Peregrine, you should try to understand that not everyone has the same priorities as you, and that they are not any more right or wrong as you. And, a game manufacturer shouldn't dismiss them as a player or potential customer.

Without knowing their circumstance, it's impossible to tell whether it mattered or not. Of course, some people do dumb things because they want to get a product as soon as they can. I went to a AoS launch party (12:01 midnight). By any rational explanation, that was dumb, because I already had Age of Sigmar, and I have no intention of playing Sigmar with anyone there, and our group doesn't have room for anyone new in the foreseeable future. But it was fun!

So what you're saying is, that because you don't think it's competitive then it isn't?

Two people going through a process in order to determine a winner is the very definition of competitive, all your examples do is demonstrate there's a spectrum of how hard people try.

I think you'll also find most people would rate a trip to NY from the UK over waiting in for a parcel - sure, that's me technically projecting "my" priorities onto the situation, although you'll note I did allow for it being not that big of a deal, my auntie worked for BA and my uncle and her were always popping off for a few days here or there, but I'm pretty confident that your average person would choose the trip over waiting in all day.

Talys, if one person is judged as a winner at the end of the game, then they were to some extent competing for the victory, thus making the game competitive. The degrees to which that effort is put in vary, but it doesn't make it less competitive.

Playing a game of cribbage with the wife is still a competitive affair, even after a bottle of wine. The amount we care or put effort into it is obviously very little but there's still a winner and we're still trying, thus by its nature, is a competitive game. A non-competitive game would be one where the group works together, making it cooperative as the goal isn't to compete against one another but rather to complete some objectives together.

*Edit* The next person who ninja's me gets a very stern private message stating my mild annoyance at being ninja'd. You've been warned.

On the Original Topic:

No

I hope they and any other game company currently in business stays in business.

Blacksails wrote:Talys, if one person is judged as a winner at the end of the game, then they were to some extent competing for the victory, thus making the game competitive. The degrees to which that effort is put in vary, but it doesn't make it less competitive.

Playing a game of cribbage with the wife is still a competitive affair, even after a bottle of wine. The amount we care or put effort into it is obviously very little but there's still a winner and we're still trying, thus by its nature, is a competitive game. A non-competitive game would be one where the group works together, making it cooperative as the goal isn't to compete against one another but rather to complete some objectives together.

I understand what you're saying, and obviously, there are varying levels of competitiveness.

My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

Here are 2 examples of non-competitive games where players play with, not against each other, even though there's a clear winner:

I am a pretty avid tennis player (in my youth, tournament-competitive). But it's more about exercise and playing a game with friends where there's a winner and loser; I'm sure not going to win 40-love in straight sets, because that's just stupid. If I tried, that's how 90% of my tennis games would turn out, because I happen to have thousands of more games and hours of practice under my belt than most.

Also, I'm not sure how you would characterize the games of Magic (sometimes, I'm in them!) where there are the massive decks, where everyone is purposely dragging it on forever. Where the loser is the one who is actually trying to WIN, even though everyone will congratulate the winner, because the goal is to make the one game last as long as dinner at Denny's and see as many cards as possible.

Azreal13 wrote:So what you're saying is, that because you don't think it's competitive then it isn't?

Two people going through a process in order to determine a winner is the very definition of competitive, all your examples do is demonstrate there's a spectrum of how hard people try.

I think you'll also find most people would rate a trip to NY from the UK over waiting in for a parcel - sure, that's me technically projecting "my" priorities onto the situation, although you'll note I did allow for it being not that big of a deal, my auntie worked for BA and my uncle and her were always popping off for a few days here or there, but I'm pretty confident that your average person would choose the trip over waiting in all day.

See above -- I'm just saying, some people are less competitive, and more interested in playing than winning, and don't care if they win or lose. Some people will even cheat or throw the game so that they don't win. It's really common if you're playing a video game with a kid. I try to have a low but believable win ratio. I fake it, so that my nephew can feel good that he destroyed me. RAWR.

Sometimes, I really want a parcel too I remember anxiously waiting for my first airbrush, and missing something for it. Neither here nor there, though.

 Talys wrote:

I understand what you're saying, and obviously, there are varying levels of competitiveness.

My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

Here are 2 examples of non-competitive games where players play with, not against each other, even though there's a clear winner:

I am a pretty avid tennis player (in my youth, tournament-competitive). But it's more about exercise and playing a game with friends where there's a winner and loser; I'm sure not going to win 40-love in straight sets, because that's just stupid.

Also, I'm not sure how you would characterize the games of Magic (sometimes, I'm in them!) where there are the massive decks, where everyone is purposely dragging it on forever. Where the loser is the one who is actually trying to WIN, even though everyone will congratulate the winner, because the goal is to make the one game last as long as dinner at Denny's and see as many cards as possible.

In both of your examples, assuming some sort of score is being kept to determine a winner, then yes, they're competitive. If you're just flipping cards over and telling a story about how your time dragon and grass troll are now dating in the haunted woods or practicing your serves over and over again, then yes, you wouldn't be competing.

There are degrees of effort or competitiveness, whatever wording you'd like to use, but if there's some metric being used to determine who won, its by definition a competition and therefore competitive. How much you care varies, and is largely irrelevant for establishing my point. Again, the drunker my wife and I get playing cribbage or munchkin with friends doesn't stop it from being competitive to some extent. The amount we house rule or let slide or fudge doesn't change that. Its still a competition, just one with nothing on the line and only minimal effort being exerted to remind my friend its their turn and to get me another beer.

was able to get a couple games in today with the release of the starter box...though it was Lizardmen vs Vampire Counts lol. and had a blast the whole time we tried a instant win condition game and it was close if my Temple Guard hadn't been where they were, i would have lost.

a quick run down of the armies.

Lizies:

1 Saurus oldblood
10 Saurus Warriors w standard and musician and alpha
5 Temple Guard w Stardrake icons
2 Jungle Swarm bases
1 Bastiladon w Solar Engine

Vamps:

Manfred Von Carstein.....thats it lol

he kept summoning skeletons, grave guard and some cavalry and kept my Sarus Warriors bogged down.

btw for any Lizardmen players reading this...Jungle swarms are SOOOO Deadly 5W 5A only hit and wound on a 5+ but on a 6+ to hit its a mortal wound...gahh

 Commissar41.0 wrote:
was able to get a couple games in today with the release of the starter box...though it was Lizardmen vs Vampire Counts lol. and had a blast the whole time we tried a instant win condition game and it was close if my Temple Guard hadn't been where they were, i would have lost.

a quick run down of the armies.

Lizies:

1 Saurus oldblood
10 Saurus Warriors w standard and musician and alpha
5 Temple Guard w Stardrake icons
2 Jungle Swarm bases
1 Bastiladon w Solar Engine

Vamps:

Manfred Von Carstein.....thats it lol

he kept summoning skeletons, grave guard and some cavalry and kept my Sarus Warriors bogged down.

btw for any Lizardmen players reading this...Jungle swarms are SOOOO Deadly 5W 5A only hit and wound on a 5+ but on a 6+ to hit its a mortal wound...gahh

If allowing summoning, just take a Slann and summon up more lizards

 Talys wrote:


My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

And the same could be done by a well written game with no effort on the players part. I just came from my FLGS where I watched two people with the new AOS box set (the only one sold all week) trying to come up with a balanced force. I was there for a half hour and they still hadn't started playing.

 Blacksails wrote:
In both of your examples, assuming some sort of score is being kept to determine a winner, then yes, they're competitive. If you're just flipping cards over and telling a story about how your time dragon and grass troll are now dating in the haunted woods or practicing your serves over and over again, then yes, you wouldn't be competing.

There are degrees of effort or competitiveness, whatever wording you'd like to use, but if there's some metric being used to determine who won, its by definition a competition and therefore competitive. How much you care varies, and is largely irrelevant for establishing my point. Again, the drunker my wife and I get playing cribbage or munchkin with friends doesn't stop it from being competitive to some extent. The amount we house rule or let slide or fudge doesn't change that. Its still a competition, just one with nothing on the line and only minimal effort being exerted to remind my friend its their turn and to get me another beer.

Well, the tennis games are a bad example of competitiveness, because there are people that I play with where I could win 100 consecutive serves if I wanted to, so I'm actively playing to extend the game and provide the other player some entertainment, rather than competing. We could start every game at match point foe the, and I'd probably still win a set of 6.

For wargaming, in principle, I largely agree with you. There is always some element of competitiveness; it isn't just storytelling (like an RPG).

But there is cooperative competitiveness, in which AoS can thrive, and hardcore competitiveness, in which it will almost certainly whither. Could it be great for both camps? In the current incarnation, only in preplanned games made by an impartial third party. I'm not sure what kind of market there is for the latter; I suspect there's more of a market for the former. I have no idea how large that market is, but it seems a reasonable (almost surprising) number of people have enjoyed trying it out.

That's all I was getting at

Played a few games today. Must say best fun ive had in a while wargaming wise. For me personally beats out old fantasy by a wide margin. Yeah its not for everyone but nothing rarely is. If you dont enjoy it ok. If you do ok. End of the day do what makes you happy be it 8th, 3rd or AoS.

Happy gaming

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:


My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

And the same could be done by a well written game with no effort on the players part. I just came from my FLGS where I watched two people with the new AOS box set (the only one sold all week) trying to come up with a balanced force. I was there for a half hour and they still hadn't started playing.

Somewhat swinging back to topic from redefining 'competitive' Wayland Games posted a pic on FB of all the copies of AoS on a table ready to be shipped, it looks like a big pile of stuff, cause it's a big box, but did a quick count and there were only around 40.

Not to say that was the total number of boxes sent, but I've seen them do similar with other big releases like Operation Icestorm, and even pics of whole lorry loads of stuff arriving for other releases.

Would be odd if the largest online retailer in the country had fewer than 50 pre orders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

*Edit* The next person who ninja's me gets a very stern private message stating my mild annoyance at being ninja'd. You've been warned.

I look forward to receiving it.

Operation Icestorm barely sold over here. Only one store actually carried it at all, and out of a 4 or 5 copies, a bunch stayed on the shelf for a long time (I bought one!). I don't even think they all sold yet. The new WMH war boxes sell quite well, for instance, in comparison. In about half a year, we'll see if Sigmar did anything positive for GW's bottom line and then we can all obsess over whether GW is going out of business or not all over again. Or maybe I'll smarten up and stop posting on these threads, and go back to spending more time painting minis

I digress on the topic of "competitive" -- I think I've said all that I can.

As Motograter said, play it if you like it, skip it if you don't, and happy gaming either way!

No, you were on topic until you said "I digress" and then you digressed...

I'm curious as to where you got you stats for O:I from?

 Talys wrote:
I also said that my wife, whom I did not expect to ever buy more than a couple of starter packs has now spent a couple of thousand dollars over 10 years or so. This doesn't represent millionaires, and I said that although I dint think she'll buy AoD minis that add up to a hill of beans beyond the starter, who knows?

Yes, every rule has its occasional exceptions. But as a general rule the kind of person who enjoys playing a game of MTG where nobody does anything but look at the pretty pictures on the cards for 30 turns is not going to make a significant financial investment in their game. Where the millionaires bit comes in is that GW seems to be targeting the "ultra-casual" players who will spend a lot on AoS, not because they're willing to invest heavily into a game, but because they're so rich that they treat buying AoS like you or I might treat buying a $1 snack at the local gaming store.

You, on the other hand, dismiss every segment that you can't understand or is wildly different from your viewpoint as irrelevant, marginal, or unprofitable.

That's not true at all. I accept that there are profitable markets that enjoy things that I don't. For example, I have a lot of problems with WM/H and would never play the game, but it's very obviously successful at marketing to its target audience and making a lot of money. My problem with AoS is not a failure to understand differing viewpoints, it's that I think you're simply wrong about GW's target audience being a profitable one and AoS being a well-designed game.

Yes, AoS features 2 players where one of them may be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game.

No, that doesn't mean that it must be a competitive game.

Yes it does, because it's the definition of what makes a game competitive. The cooperative vs. competitive division is a fundamental concept of game design, and AoS is indisputably a competitive game. It has two (or more) players trying to defeat each other, not two (or more) players working together to defeat the game. Whether or not you care strongly about winning a game of AoS it's still a competitive game, and it still has all the properties of one.

On the Original Topic:

No

I hope they and any other game company currently in business stays in business.

Well said.

Why would anyone want a company that has given us over 25 years of fun, entertainment and ultimately friendships to fail?

Because their marketing strategy is a bit bizarre and some of their rules arent as tight?

Some seriously reflective perspective needed in this thread.

 Ratius wrote:
Why would anyone want a company that has given us over 25 years of fun, entertainment and ultimately friendships to fail?

Because then (hopefully) the IP will go to a company that isn't run by incompetent morons and we'll get a much better game for the next 25 years.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's not true at all. I accept that there are profitable markets that enjoy things that I don't. For example, I have a lot of problems with WM/H and would never play the game, but it's very obviously successful at marketing to its target audience and making a lot of money. My problem with AoS is not a failure to understand differing viewpoints, it's that I think you're simply wrong about GW's target audience being a profitable one and AoS being a well-designed game.

In your posts, you're very black-or-white. For example, on another topic, you would take a position like, "all models must be painted, because there is no other reason to play 40k" (or some such). There are just no levels of grey, or recognition that other people might differ from you -- or at least, acceptance of the possibility of such. It's not really a criticism, more an observation.

If you had said initially that your problem with AoS is that you think I'm wrong about GW's target audience being a profitable one, I would agree with you and say that we're not far apart at all on that. I mean, read back. How many times have I said, "I don't know if this is a viable market" (not necessarily in exactly those words, but pretty close). But I do concede that market exists, and I don't know it's size. And I've said that AoS at best gets me -- a pretty big 40k fan -- to buy only a tiny bit more Fantasy stuff than I otherwise would have.

I likewise have no issue with you thinking AoS being a poorly designed game. I also don't think it's the right game for me. But it is fun for me, and some people seem to like it quite a lot more than I do. Again, it's just shades of grey stead of stark, "next superstar game" versus "abject failure worth nothing".

I'm totally open to the idea that AoS will be a short term fad, people (gamers, modelers, and collectors) will get bored, and in a couple of years be buying as little or less than they do of Fantasy today. It's just not a foregone conclusion, and I think AoS has a chance for success.

Yes it does, because it's the definition of what makes a game competitive. The cooperative vs. competitive division is a fundamental concept of game design, and AoS is indisputably a competitive game. It has two (or more) players trying to defeat each other, not two (or more) players working together to defeat the game. Whether or not you care strongly about winning a game of AoS it's still a competitive game, and it still has all the properties of one.

Well, I gave you an example of tennis. You keep score, but often, where there's great disparity, the better player doesn't play to win, because otherwise he or she would win every single game (and likely, every single point). Another example is chess. Where there is great disparity, it's pointless for the better player to play to win, because even with severe handicaps (say, remove one each of rook, bishop, and knight), a brilliant/ranked player will destroy a neophyte or casual player in as many games as they play. So they play for other reasons -- like, they enjoy each other, because the weaker player wants to improve, or whatever. You also get the dynamic of adult/child games, where the adult lets the child win, because winning is more important to the child than to the adult.

None of which may apply to AoS, or perhaps they do. Again, my point, as I said to Azrael, is that there do exist some players who will happily work with their opponent (competitor, if you will) before the game to cooperatively build a game scenario, and, are more likely to disadvantage themselves than to advantage themselves. I know that when I build 40k scenarios, I'm always worried about giving myself the upper hand, and usually shortchange myself. So even though I *like* points and competitive listbuilding, and trying to create an edge using points and lists, I totally understand the dynamic of building an enjoyable competitive scenario in a cooperative and constructive way, either with my opponent or by myself.

And they might get sold to a company that lets them implode completely - do you enjoy GWs games on any single level Pere? thats not a loaded question.

It simply implies if they died, would you be happy with some sort of psuedo replacement?

I wouldnt. I like/really like playing 40k - over 2nd-7th ed.
Its not perfect but feth it, its still fun.

 Ratius wrote:
And they might get sold to a company that lets them implode completely

It would be very, very difficult for anyone to do a worse job than GW. And "implosion" is the likely result if GW continues to own the IP. So really, what do we have to lose?

do you enjoy GWs games on any single level Pere?

The games? Hell no. They're terrible in pretty much every way, and the only reason I play them at all is to use the fluff and models that I love.

It simply implies if they died, would you be happy with some sort of psuedo replacement?

Perfectly happy, as long as they don't touch the fluff or the (good) models. If the new IP owner scraps the entire 40k game and makes a new one from scratch it would almost certainly be a major improvement, and I wouldn't miss GW's version of 40k at all.

Ok, we agree to disagree.

I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

 Ratius wrote:
I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

I'm the first to agree that 40k has TONS of flaws, and sometimes poor or ambiguous rules -- though the latter has been getting better in the last few years. If the game weren't fun to play, I'd have a problem with that, but it is fun to play; in fact, I find it more fun to play than games with rules that seem better on paper. Maybe it's just the models, who knows. I just have a good time.

Now, Azrael and Peregrine have both accused me of having "low standards" at one point or another.

I'd argue that it's actually, "different priorities", because seemingly great rules aren't always that much fun to play, and at the end of the day, I'd rather spend my time playing a game with terrible rules that was fun, than a game with bulletproof, apparently perfect rules that wasn't fun. Since what's fun and is both subjective and contextual (eg, who am I playing with?), "what makes a tabletop game fun to play" is just really hard to answer.

All I can say is that 40k is really fun to play -- flaws and all -- and it's not because I'll play anything you stick in front of me. After all, I never could get into Fantasy Battle, even though I was pretty sure that on paper, I liked its rules better. Like I said, who knows, it could be as simple as the people I play with, or that I identify better with the factions. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't help me to try to figure it out.

We could be here all night Tal, with the back n forth....

Im with you but....hey lets grab a beer and play what makes us happy.......... night night

I think this post has highlighted a common problem with GW not communicating with the customer base in a meaningful way.

There are lots of people who are happy with the value for money that GW plc give them in GW plcs product range.
And so they are happy with what GW plc sell them, and that is great.

However, there are lots of other people who would like to enjoy GW plc products , because they enjoyed them in the past at some point.
But GW plc are not offering them the value for money they used to.

If the people who find enough value in the art and narrative of GW games were enough to sustain GW plc. Then GW would not have suffered falling sales volumes for the last decade.
This has led GW plc to increase retail prices and the amount cost cutting to try to sustain profit,which they have since failed to do.

The people who still find value in GW plc products are either not caring , or willfully ignoring the problems that are putting the company that make their favorite products in decline.

If GW plc actually wrote rules focusing on quality game play* , that would promote long term interest in GW games and GW game players.
(* Rules written with professional levels of proof reading and editing. to result in enough clarity, to prevent mis-interpritation..And enough balance to support fun random pick up games.)
This would be all that would be needed to get MORE people to enjoy GW plc products.

I know some people say that GW plc sell enough not to bother with actual game development.But I do not think that is going to be true for very much longer.

If GW plc communicated in a meaningful way , they could make it absolutely clear what their long term plans are, and how they intend their products to be used.
And this would reduce the ' horrible mess of hope and wishful thinking taking on disillusionment and resentment ,' we currently have,

Their lack of communication , simply divides the customers base into those that are happy with current value for money and those that are not.
And the resultant 'dis agreements' is just giving GW plc such a negative vibe.(And the GW corporate legal team have made it much worse. )

If GW plc just made a bit more effort to communicate with customers, and produce rule sets that are of similar high quality to others currently available.
I am sure this would be enough to turn things around.

Writing rules for people who do not play or who think the rules are not all that important.

Is on the same level as making a commitment for producing minatures just good enough for people who use them as game counters , or just use the bases for tiddly winks.

If it was the other way round...
If your box of GW plc minatures just included bases, and some wire frames and modeling clay and some sculptiing tools.

And all you could make was a blobby mess...Yet other people with years of experience and skill could create sculpts that was good if not better than what was on the box lid.

How would you feel if the company said , other people get great results you are just doing it wrong?

You point out other companies are producing finely detailed minatures that are a joy to assemble and paint.And the people who can sculpt , just call you 'haterz.'

How happy would you be, as GW plc lost sales volumes, customers and profits.....?

I have been trying to get the white dwarf with the free mini to check it out, but to no avail, I will be giving this box set a miss, not really liking this new faction at all and the only chance they had to get me on board ( me checking the mini out via WD )they missed out on due to limited numbers of this gakky magazine, cant believe it even sold out online.

Sometimes i really can sympathise with the GW haters, the stupid fething company really does not do themselves any favours.

Not realy, I got into wargaming through 40K and I do like the games and products from Workshop. I want GW to improve but at the moment, it's looking bad for them. Every time the prices go up I just think about what Prodos do with Warzone miniatures; 3D printed, good quality, well detailed and a box of 5 is £13 and are about the same size as a normal 40K miniature. If GW did that, all would be fine and it can be done on the scale that GW would require as well.

Slothenstein wrote:
Not realy, I got into wargaming through 40K and I do like the games and products from Workshop. I want GW to improve but at the moment, it's looking bad for them. Every time the prices go up I just think about what Prodos do with Warzone miniatures; 3D printed, good quality, well detailed and a box of 5 is £13 and are about the same size as a normal 40K miniature. If GW did that, all would be fine and it can be done on the scale that GW would require as well.

That's cherry picking, though. Sure, they have a box that's about $20-ish for 5 miniatures, but they also have boxes of 3 minis for the same price, and a solo for $20 too. And, their AvP box set is $120, with way, way less miniatures than Sigmar (or Dark Vengeance).

Prodos' miniatures are cool, but they have so few miniatures that if I bought into them, I'd literally finish painting everything they ever produced (to a decent standard) in 2 weeks :X

Dreamforge is really in the same boat, but they've got a little more stuff -- they're basically at the stage where the collection is big enough that I will buy their models. I think that DF's is the the minimum collection size for me.

What? Prodos only few miniatures?
They have more than 100 unique models.

Quite a lot of them are vehicles, some super large.
You seem to have 0 idea about Warzones miniature range.

RoninXiC wrote:
What? Prodos only few miniatures?
They have more than 100 unique models.

Quite a lot of them are vehicles, some super large.
You seem to have 0 idea about Warzones miniature range.

Talys apparently buys tens of thousands- just to have, and with a minority that ever get painted, and from what I read, considers that scale of purchasing as fairly normal.

For you or me, the new infinity releases or warmachine releases are more than enough to keep up with and get painted. Not so for our Canadian friend...

It is interesting that he says using Prodos as an example is cherry picking, then goes on to use his own very personal and outlying circumstances to support his argument....

Well said Lanrak!

Is it a bad thing that I never so much hope that GW goes under than just after I have read a post that... uses extreme measures... to try to defend GW's practices?

The Auld Grump

Deadnight wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
What? Prodos only few miniatures?
They have more than 100 unique models.

Quite a lot of them are vehicles, some super large.
You seem to have 0 idea about Warzones miniature range.

Talys apparently buys tens of thousands- just to have, and with a minority that ever get painted, and from what I read, considers that scale of purchasing as fairly normal.

For you or me, the new infinity releases or warmachine releases are more than enough to keep up with and get painted. Not so for our Canadian friend...

I was inarticulate, and did not say what I mean. I'm sorry.

Yes, Prodos has a bunch of miniatures. However, pick a faction in Warzone. In that faction, there are very few models. They are eminently paintable in a short period of time. And, within most of their factions, there are a lot of models that, in my opinion, are at best average and expensive, and a few models that are great.

For example, this model is $15; you can just buy a Reaper mini for a third of the price (or less) as a solo; it is not remotely comparable to the complexity of an AoS model -


There are a lot of models like this, which I just don't think are anything special (nor are they particularly cheap):


There is not a single model from Prodos' range that is within the order of magnitude of complexity of the angels or the mounted hero from the Age of Sigmar box. If you think there is, show me, and I'll take it back.

From Privateer Press or Games Workshop, you can just do a lot better -- in my opinion. There are a small number of Prodos models that I really like, but not enough models that I would consider modelling Warzone. And none of the factions are complete enough for me to consider modelling it, either. In comparison to, for example, Menoth, Cyngar, Retribution. There are no big, cool models that drive me to it, either, such as Dreamforge.

To my other point: $22 / 5 minis, or $4.40 per miniature, is not the median price of Prodos infantry kits. This is the median price of their troops. And it's not much different from Games Workshop, which charges about $40-$50 for a box of 10 troops.

Prodos Heroes are about $15-$20, which is cheaper than Games Workshop and Privateer Press. But I would argue that the vast majority are not really that great. A few, like their new Alakhai Ascendant, look awesome.

And by the way, in the last few years, I've painted about 400 minis a year, on average. If you don't believe me, just look at my Gallery; about 100 photos of unique models uploaded since last August, and obviously, I don't photograph or upload everything I paint (who wants to see the other 59 tactical marines for the full Company). I own in the order of magnitude of about 5,000 painted miniatures, collected since the 80s (It could actually be higher, I dunno; that's just a guess. I couldn't even tell you how many miniature carrying cases I have.). I spend MUCH more time when I paint GW minis than I do when I paint other ones. I don't know why, but I can paint 30 Menoth in 1 week and be happy with it, but I'll be lucky if I finish 1 tactical squad in the same time, and a hero could take me several days.

Yes, I have a very large collection of unpainted minis BNIB and neatly organized on shelves like you would see in a hobby shop. I happen to have worked hard, and made some money, and miniatures and wargaming are where I like to spend my money. I am unapologetic about it.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Is it a bad thing that I never so much hope that GW goes under than just after I have read a post that... uses extreme measures... to try to defend GW's practices?

The Auld Grump

Not really. Some of the "white knighting" can really grate sometimes.
I speak as someone who doesn't hate GW as much as many do but are aware of their faults, seeing people brush off legit issues like the IP bullying, rule screwups and so on has me all like

And seeing people stand up for the really bad stuff can make one a lot more adamant on seeing it gone.

@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spots the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

Most of the companies that I buy things from that I like do things that I don't like, but it doesn't make me stop buying their products. A very small list of examples would include Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Exxon, Hewlett Packard, British Petroleum, Chevrolet, Pfizer, Jonson & Jonson, Sony, and Monsanto.

It's not that I hold Games Workshop to a lower standard because I like their products; it's that I hold them to the same standard as any other company. At some point, if they do something horrible, like hire children in Bangladesh to press miniatures and those children die in a fire because of poor safety conditions, I'll boycott their goods. But a dumb lawsuit over perceived IP infringement? If that was the standard by which I boycotted product, I would not be able to purchase an electronic device.

Heck, I still buy Apple products, and Foxconn regularly has workers who make iPads in slave labor conditions that hurl themselves off of buildings to commit suicide, because they just can't take it anymore. I still eat shrimp and halibut even though commercial fishing nets are killing whales (which I adore) in a horrible way when they get tangled in them. I still have hamburgers and scrambled eggs even though cows and chickens are often treated in a very inhumane way.

The threshold for boycotting a product has become very high, because so much of what is done to produce goods that first world nations consume is highly unethical. Since I choose to live in this world rather than be an activist about... everything... I just have to accept that this is the world that we live in, and is driven by our desire to have nice things for low prices.

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

 Ratius wrote:
I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

Wouldn't you still have fun with it if the game wasn't crap, though? Or are you saying it's only fun because it's crap?

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

Oh, for sure. There are people who have tried defending things that make no sense to defend -- and why do so anyhow. On this we agree


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
I think with all its darned flaws and sometimes poor rules writting,a lot of us still play and really enjoy their products (including most rules). I dunno, maybe I am just a weird white knight

Wouldn't you still have fun with it if the game wasn't crap, though? Or are you saying it's only fun because it's crap?

He's saying the game isn't crap, and he enjoys it. He might enjoy it more if it were better, sure. And there isn't something else he enjoys more (which, in relative terms, makes other things more crappy -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

A product with flaws isn't a crappy product. Just like every person has flaws, but they aren't terrible people (otherwise nobody would ever get married, right?). You gotta take the good with the bad, and it can always get better. Just choose what you like the most, and it's fine if it's not what others like.

Essentially the same boat as me.

 Talys wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

Oh, for sure. There are people who have tried defending things that make no sense to defend -- and why do so anyhow. On this we agree

For the record - I mostly disagree with you, but you seldom raise my hackles.

The specific offending post was not yours, and was not even in this thread.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
For the record - I mostly disagree with you, but you seldom raise my hackles.

The specific offending post was not yours, and was not even in this thread.

The Auld Grump

Oh, okay -- thanks. Good to know!

Likewise to you, man. I'm happy to read differing views. If I weren't I wouldn't come here

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@CrashGordon94 -- I think there's a difference between "white knighting" indefensible IP practices (like Spot the Space Marine), and just not caring about such things, or at least not caring enough.

A) Just an individual example.
B) I'm pretty sure both me and Auld were talking about things more like the former. Not everyone defending stuff in here is being a twit but you've got to admit some are.

@Crash: so how about some examples of where people are being a twit, if you want an admission of it???
it would be interesting to see what fits your definition...

cheers
jah

 Peregrine wrote:

Sheck2 wrote:
If not, I just do not understand this sentiment at all. You are buying their product not their corporate performance.

And GW going bankrupt and losing the IP to WOTC/FFG/etc would produce a better product.

As a GW shareholder, I agree with this sentiment. Except the WoTC part. 4th Edition D&D was an abomination.


And,bluntly, yes, you are buying their corporate behavior when you buy their products. If you don't like what a company does, do not buy their products.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sheck2 wrote:
If not, I just do not understand this sentiment at all. You are buying their product not their corporate performance.

And GW going bankrupt and losing the IP to WOTC/FFG/etc would produce a better product.

As a GW shareholder, I agree with this sentiment. Except the WoTC part. 4th Edition D&D was an abomination.


And,bluntly, yes, you are buying their corporate behavior when you buy their products. If you don't like what a company does, do not buy their products.

an interesting little back and forth here...

i am not convinced that another company buying GW would automatically result in a better product...
i am a fan of the fluff, even with The Old World blowing up and ushering in the Age of Sigmar, so see no need for a change there...
i see the minis getting better every year, so again, see no need for a change there
i understand people's argument about rules not being up to snuff, with typos, bloat, and contradictions, but don't see how a different company handling those duties would guarantee a change that would make people happier...
something about, "be careful what you wish for"...

as to a customer buying into corporate behavior, i can see that...
i have no problem with people choosing to boycott any company whos behavior they don't like...
i do have a problem with people trying to tell me that i am selfish for buying GW books and minis, or that i am being willfully ignorant of their behavior (when we all have access to the same information), instead of just not being bothered enough by it to stop buying the books and minis that i enjoy so much...
it is compounded when those people rail against GW and call me selfish for buying the products i am happy with the quality of, while at the same time being supporters of companies like Mierce and Battlefoam, whos owners have a horrible track record of dodgy business practices in the community...
something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind...

it is funny how the people on the positive side of the fence are happy to let others have their opinion, while the guys on the negative side of the fence get angry about people being happy with their purhases...
personally, i am just happy that we are all members of this big community of miniatures, and can find joy in the products that we do support, from whichever company you choose...
it's nice to have a comunity that doesn't look at you like you just grew an extra head when you start talking about how awesome Borka is, how much you loved Prospero Burns, or how many hours you spend painting your little toy soldier...

cheers
jah

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Sheck2 wrote:
If not, I just do not understand this sentiment at all. You are buying their product not their corporate performance.

And GW going bankrupt and losing the IP to WOTC/FFG/etc would produce a better product.

As a GW shareholder, I agree with this sentiment. Except the WoTC part. 4th Edition D&D was an abomination.


And,bluntly, yes, you are buying their corporate behavior when you buy their products. If you don't like what a company does, do not buy their products.

I agree DnD4 was an utter abomination. But you know what? WotC noticed the response and they listened, they took notice, and they made sure DnD5 was a much superior product.
I think in a way, DnD4 is precisely why some of us who are appalled at the current state of affairs would like to see WHFB and 40K end up in WotC hands.

 jah-joshua wrote:
it is funny how the people on the positive side of the fence are happy to let others have their opinion, while the guys on the negative side of the fence get angry about people being happy with their purhases...

Seriously?

Have you seen the posts from some of the people on the so-called 'positive' side of the fence?!!

I've seen far more threads locked because 'positive' people start hurling abuse and attacking posters than negative, chiefly I feel because they're arguing a perspective frequently rooted in emotion rather than anything factual and consequently run out of argument a lot sooner.

Despite the label, there's far less emotion on the "hater" side of things and it is those who wish to defend their shinies to the death that are the worst offenders.

@Azreal13: of course i have seen the positive posts...
i have not seen the same vitriol and personal attacks from the positive side...
they are not the ones feeling like they are losing something they love, so seem a lot less inclined to get personal and judgemental...
that is not to say that there are not loonies on both sides of the fence...

we could do this dance all day, but we happen to have different perspectives...
maybe that colors our interpretation of how others post...

for the record, i have not called anyone a hater, or dismissed anyone's unhappiness as blind rage, that i am aware of...
i disagree that those defending their shinies are the worst offenders, but you are welcome to that opinion...
i am of the opinion that here are extremes on both sides of the argument, but i see a lot less judgement on the positive side...

i try to be middle of the road, in that i feel you are all welcome to do as you please...
i will enjoy my hobby regardless...
it does get old being told that i am selfish for enjoying what makes me happy, even though i don't have any desire to do it at the expense of others...
it's a shame that it has to be perceived like that...

cheers
jah

Well, let's just say that the fact you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't happen frequently, and leave it at that.

Confirmation bias on both sides, really. The N&R thread had plenty of mudslinging and wrongbadfun!!!11!! to go around - from every angle.

Yeah I hope GW die. For a very long time, I wanted GW to turn it around because I feared what would happen if they went down the tube, I figured they'd destroy their games in the process. But with the loss of WHFB, they've already gone too far for my liking so it'd be good if they died sooner rather than later.

Of course I don't think it will happen, they have a lot of shrinkage and destroying of their product lines to go before they actually fold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bolognesus wrote:
Confirmation bias on both sides, really. The N&R thread had plenty of mudslinging and wrongbadfun!!!11!! to go around - from every angle.

It'd be an interesting social experiment to read through the thread and take note of every time someone made a post that attacked the person/group rather than the actual argument and get a tally

 Bolognesus wrote:

I agree DnD4 was an utter abomination. But you know what? WotC noticed the response and they listened, they took notice, and they made sure DnD5 was a much superior product.
I think in a way, DnD4 is precisely why some of us who are appalled at the current state of affairs would like to see WHFB and 40K end up in WotC hands.

D&D 4th edition was an amazing game and, looking at the technical standpoint, the best role playing game that got published under that name. But, and that's a HUGE but: It is not what their customers wanted. Which hurt them quite a lot, but led to 5th Edition, which was an enormous effort to reclaim those lost customers. Which is, in the end, all that matters: Giving your customer base what it wants.
4th edition was also not, as many people like to claim, a complete failure, but it wasn't has as successful as they had hoped, not by a wide margin and it opened up the market for another publishing house that basically published 3.5 with the serial filed off and ran with it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if exactly the same thing would happen now, with some company trying to make the jump and releasing "Battleaxe Fantasy Strategy Game", the wargame that is WHFB in all but its name.

 jah-joshua wrote:

@Crash: so how about some examples of where people are being a twit, if you want an admission of it???
it would be interesting to see what fits your definition...

Believe it or not, I don't keep in-depth records about things of that nature, and it's really frequent anyway.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Confirmation bias on both sides, really. The N&R thread had plenty of mudslinging and wrongbadfun!!!11!! to go around - from every angle.

No confirmation bias here, there's plenty of "negs" do likewise, I was just wanting to point out that it's not all skipping around on unicorn back on the other side of the fence.

Bolognesus wrote:Confirmation bias on both sides, really. The N&R thread had plenty of mudslinging and wrongbadfun!!!11!! to go around - from every angle.

I find wrongbadfun offensive.

Critical: I don't get how pushing toy soldiers can be fun, how anyone can have the patience to paint miniatures, or why people would spend that much money on a game.

Wrongbadfun: Nobody with a brain over the age of 12 plays with toy soldiers, only rich children paint overpriced miniatures, and anyone playing war games is just wasting away their money and time because there's way better things they can be doing.

Now just replace toy soldiers, miniatures, and war games with Space Marines, GW models, and AoS.

IMO, people should all do and play what they enjoy. If someone has fun playing 30k with their $20,000 army and fill their home with display quality commissioned models, good for them. I would never feel jealous or entitled to the same, or resentful, any more than if I see someone with their own jet.

 Korraz wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

I agree DnD4 was an utter abomination. But you know what? WotC noticed the response and they listened, they took notice, and they made sure DnD5 was a much superior product.
I think in a way, DnD4 is precisely why some of us who are appalled at the current state of affairs would like to see WHFB and 40K end up in WotC hands.

D&D 4th edition was an amazing game and, looking at the technical standpoint, the best role playing game that got published under that name. But, and that's a HUGE but: It is not what their customers wanted. Which hurt them quite a lot, but led to 5th Edition, which was an enormous effort to reclaim those lost customers. Which is, in the end, all that matters: Giving your customer base what it wants.
4th edition was also not, as many people like to claim, a complete failure, but it wasn't has as successful as they had hoped, not by a wide margin and it opened up the market for another publishing house that basically published 3.5 with the serial filed off and ran with it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if exactly the same thing would happen now, with some company trying to make the jump and releasing "Battleaxe Fantasy Strategy Game", the wargame that is WHFB in all but its name.

You mean Kings of War?

 Bolognesus wrote:
Confirmation bias on both sides, really. The N&R thread had plenty of mudslinging and wrongbadfun!!!11!! to go around - from every angle.

i agree with this, for the most part...

my point is, i can only speak for myself, and i have not engaged mudslinging or wrongbadfun statements, as far as i'm aware...
i am firmly in the "GW minis are my favorite minis to paint" camp, but i have no desire to tell anyone that they are having fun wrong, are selfish for buying things that they like, or call people names...
anyone who does, regardless of which side of the argument they present, is not helping to contribute to a friendly discussion...
as i said earlier, i feel like we are all members of the same community, and should appreciate the things we get to share an interest in...

@Azreal13: sorry, mate...
i meant to say i have not seen the same amount of vitriol and personal attacks from the positive side...
i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but i missed a crucial word in my statement...

@Crash: come on, buddy...
if you are going to call people twits, you should be willing to back it up with some examples...

cheers
jah

 Azreal13 wrote:
Have you seen the posts from some of the people on the so-called 'positive' side of the fence?!!

I've seen far more threads locked because 'positive' people start hurling abuse and attacking posters than negative, chiefly I feel because they're arguing a perspective frequently rooted in emotion rather than anything factual and consequently run out of argument a lot sooner.

Despite the label, there's far less emotion on the "hater" side of things and it is those who wish to defend their shinies to the death that are the worst offenders.

I disagree. People get plenty worked up on both sides of the fence. It just seems more objective and rational when someone shares an opinion with you. Because, after all, you believe that your own position is rational. The posited position seems irrational because you genuinely can't figure out how the other folks can't see the light of day.

In fact, most of what we are talking about is just preference and perspective. Is A better than B? Is A expensive? Is A fun? Is B stupid? An objective observer would simply say, it all depends, and there's no right answer.

I think it's ok for people to get emotional about things they care about. What they should try to do is mot make it personal, and try to understand that other people might have a different opinion. "I think X is stupid" oils way less offensive than, "You are stupid for liking X" -- or implying it.

If someone is happy buying a $30 dice shaker, I may not get it, but I wont call them an idiot, or imply it, either.

Read the whole thread before replying mate..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Worth cross posting from the FW thread, if only because it may inform some people's opinion on their response to the OP...

 jah-joshua wrote:

@Crash: come on, buddy...
if you are going to call people twits, you should be willing to back it up with some examples...

Nope.
Don't need to when it's all over the place.
Besides, why do you care? I never claimed that everyone positive was like that or anything of the sort, which is what you seem to be insinuating (otherwise you wouldn't be pushing this).

 heartserenade wrote:


You mean Kings of War?

We'll see if the lists and KoW2 Rules fit that niche, but I've meant something more along the lines of literally WHFB without the names. KoW is probably too different to simply scoop up the WHFB fans that have been hung out to dry.

@Azreal13: yes, so silly of GW to push their new product...
what the hell are they thinking???
poor Space Marine never gets any love:(...

@Crash: i ask because i was trying to get to your definition of what kind of behavior you would consider making someone a twit...
in the end, it only matters because you wanted Talys to admit that some of the defenders were acting like twits, and i was curious about what qualifies a person for entry into the twit of the year competition...
i did read your post, and did see where you said "some people", not all...
i am not trying to insinuate anything...
i am asking for what kind of behavior fits your categorization...
if you want someone to admit that you are right, they need to know what you are describing...
just saying, "it's everywhere" doesn't help anyone understand your stance...

cheers
jah

As a GW shareholder, I agree with this sentiment. Except the WoTC part. 4th Edition D&D was an abomination.

Did you even play 4th? It was a game built around mechanics and depth in its mechanics. 4th had a grindy start, but abomination is a bit harsh.

Do you play any edition of Warhammer? If so what do you think about it, or your favorite game you play? Once you read/play a game and understand the reasons things are they way they are, and read/play multiple different games, it allows you to compare systems. As a game it makes all Warhammer editions look like a game ment to sell toy soldiers to pre-teens. Some supplements are always better than others, in every game that has them.

4th is a robust game, no shame in liking it. Even if it needed work after launch and they spread it thin here and there. Open Grave covered over alot of the undead flaws.



----
The money issue will still plague AoS. How much money do they expect people to pour in?

I dunno, I think GWs are doing rather well for themselves, not necessarily financially, but from a design standpoint, everything is amazing.

 Korraz wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:


You mean Kings of War?

We'll see if the lists and KoW2 Rules fit that niche, but I've meant something more along the lines of literally WHFB without the names. KoW is probably too different to simply scoop up the WHFB fans that have been hung out to dry.

That's what happening, though. Most of GW armies/minis would be easy to use in Kings of War (in fact, it is encouraged!). Rules are like a simplified version of WHFB. There are tales of how it started: during a drinking session Alessio was dared to make a more streamlined WHFB. I dunno the veracity of that but that story is floating on the web.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Azreal13: yes, so silly of GW to push their new product...
what the hell are they thinking???
poor Space Marine never gets any love:(...

You either didn't look hard enough at the picture, or the imagery went whistling over you're head.

That's the statue that stood at the gates of GWHQ for however many years (decades?) dumped under the stairs literally in favour of the new shiny.

Out of all places that they could put that statue, under the stairs behind the AoS banners seems like the absolute worst place I can possibly think of, short of between the urinals in the men's bathroom.

If only they'd recently remodelled with a bunch of extra space...

They could've at least put a drape on it so people won't see.

@Az: of course i saw it, that is why i said Space Marine never gets any love...
i figured the sarcasm would be pretty evident...
i guess i need to be more literal...

for all of the complaints, even by a lot of GW fans, that Space Marines get way too much love, i would think that some people would be happy for a change...
or they will just say these are Sigmarines, and it is business as usual...
either way, i am not bothered by the new statue out front...
i think it is good that they are going all in to support the new setting...

@JNC: all the monies!!!

on a serious note, anybody who thought that a box of 5 Sigmarites, that are bigger than a Terminator Marine, would be any less than $50 was always going to be in for a rude awakening...
they could have priced them at $60 like the Blood Angels Assault Terminator squad, so just be glad there is not a banner in the box of Sigmarites, or it would have cost $10 more...

cheers
jah

Two bites at the cherry, fair to say the point has been missed.

i knew you were going to say that, Az...
i got your point...
you made it quite clear with, "That's the statue that stood at the gates of GWHQ for however many years (decades?) dumped under the stairs literally in favour of the new shiny."

honestly, i think the picture is pretty damn funny...

cheers
jah

"on a serious note, anybody who thought that a box of 5 Sigmarites, that are bigger than a Terminator Marine, would be any less than $50 was always going to be in for a rude awakening."

True, but I'll need something more than just Terminators, with different weapons, to keep me interested. It's a slow start. Battlecat isn't my thing, same as SMs riding wolves.

Well, AoS managed to get me to buy $150 worth (at a 20% discount) of Empire stuff, as one of the FLGS was having a sale on their fantasy stock. I'm only another unit away from a 1000 points in KoW, so I'm heading back and hoping they still have that box of Militia/Free Company available.

Well over the weekend I saw 18 AoS starter box sets sell in one GW store alone and the auxiliary products connected to AoS was also walking off the shelves.

I predict that GW made millions of pounds worldwide over the weekend, far from dying it has probably given GW a heart starter.

I bet this pisses off a lot of folks. Congrats to GW.

The owner of our gaming shop ordered 20 starter boxes, 16 of them have been preordered mine included.
Not a bad deal for GW.

 infinite_array wrote:
Well, AoS managed to get me to buy $150 worth (at a 20% discount) of Empire stuff, as one of the FLGS was having a sale on their fantasy stock. I'm only another unit away from a 1000 points in KoW, so I'm heading back and hoping they still have that box of Militia/Free Company available.

My store was smart and had a big sale. I went a little nuts and bought random fantasy stuff I'll probably never play, but models that I always thought looked cool in White Dwarf :X

Magic Prerelease that day too, store was bonkers. I vaguely recall people saying how silly it was to launch on the same weekend as a MtG release date, but that actually worked out, I think. A whole bunch of free eyeballs looking at big stacks of gold boxes with nice artwork. If I ever feel like I'm spending too much on hobby, all I have to do is look at the people who insist that they must own every single Magic card ever printed and I feel good


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The owner of our gaming shop ordered 20 starter boxes, 16 of them have been preordered mine included.
Not a bad deal for GW.

Wow... even better deal for the store That's easy money for an independent.

Is that more or less what WHFB 9th would have sold?

Will those sales keep going, or will they drop off once people have played it, a la Dreadfleet?

It could be a runaway success, but only if it's still selling well in a couple of months.

 jah-joshua wrote:

i am not convinced that another company buying GW would automatically result in a better product...

In my opinion we have now reached the stage where just about any company who bought GW would do at least as good as the current management. A company with at least some idea of how the Wargames market actually works (or any market for that matter) would do a better job than GW.

GW has been undermining and defacing its own games for years and they have now shown themselves perfectly willing to pull the plug on their core games rather than try to actually fix them. They can no longer be trusted.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

i am not convinced that another company buying GW would automatically result in a better product...

In my opinion we have now reached the stage where just about any company who bought GW would do at least as good as the current management. A company with at least some idea of how the Wargames market actually works (or any market for that matter) would do a better job than GW.

GW has been undermining and defacing its own games for years and they have now shown themselves perfectly willing to pull the plug on their core games rather than try to actually fix them. They can no longer be trusted.

Speak for yourself -- I can trust that they'll keep making cool miniatures that I like, and games that I find enjoyable.

I've never had as much fun since 1988 playing 40k as I have with the Post 2015 factions, and Age of Sigmar was an entertaining diversion the one night we tried it out -- and the models are awesome. There hasn't been a collection I've been excited for models about like the Sigmarites and Adeptus Mechanicus, since the Dark Eldar plastics.

In the last 7 months, the only thing two significant things they've done that I didn't like were: they shouldn't have split the 2 AdMech books, IMO, and the new synthetic round brushes are a terrible replacement for the old Kolinsky round brushes. But I mean, whatever. I'll live with owning separate books, and I don't really use GW brushes other than drybrushes anyways.

Herzlos wrote:
Is that more or less what WHFB 9th would have sold?

Will those sales keep going, or will they drop off once people have played it, a la Dreadfleet?

It could be a runaway success, but only if it's still selling well in a couple of months.

Most people I know (me included) bought the box because the minis in it are pretty cool and they can either use them for 8th Ed., Kings of War (Basileans, anyone?) or even 40k. SOME might even play AoS with it ...
But those people will mostly NOT buy follow-up products (with follow-up silly prices). Let's face it, the box is a very good deal. Everything else GW is gonna serve up - not so much.
So I predict sales will go down hard, once the initial hype about the starterbox wears off.

I don't hope for any company to fail. Why would i?

I too hope GW stays and improves on some points, like many other answered here (and above all bring back Epic :-)

In regard to Age of Sigmar i kind of suspect this might not be a bad thing in the long run. WHFB did not do much good anyway (i liked the current edition, but many did not) and i like the new background more than the old more generic background.
And i also suspect that more depth and rules will come in the future to better serve bigger games and competitive games.
This is just the beginning.

And unlike many other people: i have patience.
I'ts WAY to early to Judge or predict. Maybe by the end of this year a usefull review and prediction can be made, but not now.

And in any case, i hope this does GW good.

And if i have to predict something, i predict it will do GW good.

Personally, I got into Warhammer back in the long-ago because of the generic background.

Mutter wrote:

Most people I know (me included) bought the box because the minis in it are pretty cool and they can either use them for 8th Ed., Kings of War (Basileans, anyone?) or even 40k. SOME might even play AoS with it ...
But those people will mostly NOT buy follow-up products (with follow-up silly prices). Let's face it, the box is a very good deal. Everything else GW is gonna serve up - not so much.
So I predict sales will go down hard, once the initial hype about the starterbox wears off.

That's part of my thinking; the Sigmarites will make pretty cool Blood Angels (they already look like the Sanguinary Guard or whatever they are called) or some sort of ancient terminators.

I'm curious as to how many people are buying AoS for Aos, or for cheap(ish) conversion fodder?

 Talys wrote:

Speak for yourself

That's all anyone can do.

Once someone has bought a box for the figures he has got the game rules and fluff book so he might easily give it a quick go and like it even if he intends the figures to be used as Space Marines.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Speak for yourself

That's all anyone can do.

The irony gave me lockjaw!

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Well over the weekend I saw 18 AoS starter box sets sell in one GW store alone and the auxiliary products connected to AoS was also walking off the shelves.

I predict that GW made millions of pounds worldwide over the weekend, far from dying it has probably given GW a heart starter.

I bet this pisses off a lot of folks. Congrats to GW.

Was there a burning smell when you were in there? You guys pay A LOT for your GW stuff lol.

Sort of related: behold the Age of Sigmar.

Once the got to have it wears off sales will drop, they always do. Going to be intresting to see how long AoS last in the long run. I am yet to see anybody buy something for AoS, matter of fact the WD with the free mini was still sitting on the shelf at my FLGS when I was there yesterday. Of course I live near the small city of Youngstown, Ohio where people rather spend their money on hookers and blow then on games.

"Most of my money I spent on women and drink, the rest of it I wasted."

If you have WDs left I should buy a few of them, they should go for good money on eBay.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Most of my money I spent on women and drink, the rest of it I wasted."

If you have WDs left I should buy a few of them, they should go for good money on eBay.

Just looked that WD issue up on eBay and its selling for 5x the price or more. Guess I will call the shop and tell them to put them up on eBay. What's so special about that issue, the miniature did not look to be anything special

If I were you I would get the WDs on ebay, I could not get one for cheaper than £25, needless to say I did not bother, but there are plenty of people out there will to pay silly money for the free mini.

 Chute82 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Most of my money I spent on women and drink, the rest of it I wasted."

If you have WDs left I should buy a few of them, they should go for good money on eBay.

Just looked that WD issue up on eBay and its selling for 5x the price or more. Guess I will call the shop and tell them to put them up on eBay. What's so special about that issue, the miniature did not look to be anything special

Mostly, it is the first 'free' miniature that they have included with a magazine in years... plus the rules for AoS.

Not worth it for me - I would be buying the miniature and throwing away the magazine - but it might become valuable as a collectors' item.

The Auld Grump - I wonder how much the old Free Necron issue is going for, if it still has the Necron enclosed?...

I picked up a starter box this weekend mostly because it was on sale for $90 at my FLGS, and that was a great deal for the amount of plastic you get in it. They had a some on the shelf and I saw a bunch behind the counter with names on em for pre orders I guess. They were running an intro-to-AOS tourney and everyone seemed to really be enjoying it.

I certainly don't want to see GW fail, as much as I dislike a lot of their corporate decisions (especially the moronic "nothing exists till a week before it's released" idea).

I've always loved the models and I'm a model builder and painter first, so as long as they continue making awesome models I want to collect I will continue to buy them. I'm even happy to pay the full retail price to support my FLGS rather than buying online. I don't really get to play too often, when I do I manage to still have fun, so that's all that matters to me in the end.

That said, I also plan to pick up the Kings of War rulebook in August and have 2 different games to play with the same minis

 Achaylus72 wrote:
Well over the weekend I saw 18 AoS starter box sets sell in one GW store alone and the auxiliary products connected to AoS was also walking off the shelves.

I predict that GW made millions of pounds worldwide over the weekend, far from dying it has probably given GW a heart starter.

I bet this pisses off a lot of folks. Congrats to GW.

To make £1m in revenue at UK RRP, GW would need to shift over 16 500 copies. Now, I have no doubt they've probably shifted a fair few, but I'm not sure that there's simply enough customers in the GW ecosystem to have "made millions of pounds" (made implying a profit)

Why would it be the final nail? They are still making a profit? Aren't they?

 Reality-Torrent wrote:
Why would it be the final nail? They are still making a profit? Aren't they?

They are as of the last report, and likely will still be after this report.

The discussion being that GW has been making steadily less money. Some believe that AoS will turn out to be a huge flop and represent everything GW does wrong with their games and general practices, and thus accelerate their potential flop.

Others believe AoS is quite good and will represent growth for Fantasy and GW at large.

Time will tell.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The Auld Grump - I wonder how much the old Free Necron issue is going for, if it still has the Necron enclosed?...

I still have the Necron in its blister, but not the WD

I am sure AOS will do well to start with. The boxed set is good value. The question is whether the game has legs for the long term. I can't see GW shifting a lot of £30 dice shakers and £20 plastic measuring widgets.

They need to put out plenty of good kits.

Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?

No. I rather like the HH books from FW, and I'm looking forward to finally using my new Space Marine codex this week.

I don't like 7th edition as much as 5th edition, but it's still fun.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am sure AOS will do well to start with. The boxed set is good value. The question is whether the game has legs for the long term. I can't see GW shifting a lot of £30 dice shakers and £20 plastic measuring widgets.

They need to put out plenty of good kits.

I think a big chunk of money for GW will be books -- even though rules are free, the story isn't, so to speak. For models of any of these 30-ish model games, I don't see the revenue from people who treat the models as game pieces and play casually going much more than... $400 an army? And at most one of those a year. That's a best case scenario, I think.

The modelling crowd who just wants to buy pretty plastic was buying pretty Fantasy plastic before anyhow, so these aren't really new sales, though I think the Sigmarites are a popular enough aesthetic to generate some additional non-gaming sales. Being one of the modelling-only Fantasy buyers before, I rarely bought anything that wasn't a "prestige model", like Treeman or Bloodthirster.

But please, they're METAL 20GBP measuring widget things! The metal doohickey is actually a programming wedge for a Kastellan Robot, and the cord can be used as a garrote in your next kill job, because we all know the whole nerd gamer thing is the perfect cover for CIA assassin. And, you can slip it into your finger as brass knuckles. Plus it's bulletproof. It's only 20GBP... how can you beat all THAT? You'd think the preorders would be sold out just from the multi-class undercover Datasmith + contract killer + wargamer niche.

Piles of AoS boxes by the door of my FLGS with the contents laid out to look at. It was a MtG prerelease this week but I didn't see much interest in the boxes from anyone coming into the shop. Two kids arrived and moved a few boxes on the table to make space to play Yu Gi Oh. It looked like a hell of a lot of boxes to sell.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Reality-Torrent wrote:
Why would it be the final nail? They are still making a profit? Aren't they?

They are as of the last report, and likely will still be after this report.

The discussion being that GW has been making steadily less money. Some believe that AoS will turn out to be a huge flop and represent everything GW does wrong with their games and general practices, and thus accelerate their potential flop.

Others believe AoS is quite good and will represent growth for Fantasy and GW at large.

Time will tell.

I have a feeling that AoS is more likely to bring some new fuel to a game system that died of a long time ago.

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am sure AOS will do well to start with. The boxed set is good value. The question is whether the game has legs for the long term. I can't see GW shifting a lot of £30 dice shakers and £20 plastic measuring widgets.

They need to put out plenty of good kits.

I think a big chunk of money for GW will be books -- even though rules are free, the story isn't, so to speak. For models of any of these 30-ish model games, I don't see the revenue from people who treat the models as game pieces and play casually going much more than... $400 an army? And at most one of those a year. That's a best case scenario, I think.

The modelling crowd who just wants to buy pretty plastic was buying pretty Fantasy plastic before anyhow, so these aren't really new sales, though I think the Sigmarites are a popular enough aesthetic to generate some additional non-gaming sales. Being one of the modelling-only Fantasy buyers before, I rarely bought anything that wasn't a "prestige model", like Treeman or Bloodthirster.

But please, they're METAL 20GBP measuring widget things! The metal doohickey is actually a programming wedge for a Kastellan Robot, and the cord can be used as a garrote in your next kill job, because we all know the whole nerd gamer thing is the perfect cover for CIA assassin. And, you can slip it into your finger as brass knuckles. Plus it's bulletproof. It's only 20GBP... how can you beat all THAT? You'd think the preorders would be sold out just from the multi-class undercover Datasmith + contract killer + wargamer niche.

If you look really close I think the measuring device was made by Tiffany & Co. Lol

 Reality-Torrent wrote:

I have a feeling that AoS is more likely to bring some new fuel to a game system that died of a long time ago.

I disagree, as I feel the game is far too shallow, and only real selling point is how simple it is.

Whether or not that outweighs its other failings will tell over time, but the game itself isn't particularly suited to any particular style of playing other than being simple.

I wasn't a fantasy player for many reasons, but this release has put me off even considering it until the rules change dramatically.

 Reality-Torrent wrote:


I have a feeling that AoS is more likely to bring some new fuel to a game system that died of a long time ago.

Same here, the simplicity that is putting a lot of people off, could well be a major draw to others.

The minute details that some of us really like are deemed pointless and a waste of time to some.

I guess it just depends if the new people are spending more than the older chaps did, I think they might well do that as well, in my area at least most of the WFB players I knew hardly ever spent any money nowadays anyway, cheap **** lol.

(i know some will read this )

A lot of people seem to think that GW would do better under different management because they believe AoS is some kind of mistake or joke.

You know what another management team would do if they had control of GW and AoS failed? They would cut fantasy. That's it, no more. Dead IP. If it fails here it's a totally unprofitable venture for GW as a company, which can happily survive by focusing on 40k.

This, or they are bought out by another game company who uses them to crank out miniatures and benefits from the 40k IP. Fantasy, though? Not a chance, it would compete directly with what most companies already market.

Most of you need to just go play the other game systems. If you're so salty about AoS that you want GW to close up shop and eliminate their fantasy IP from the hobby out of spite, you need to take a step back and a few deep breaths. GW has not personally attacked you, nor does it particularly owe you anything if you derived many years of enjoyment from the hobby already. The hobby itself wasn't sustainable from a business standpoint because models weren't moving and the game system didn't actually encourage buying models either, unless they were the new OP thing (which GW caught flak for also, rightly so).

GW's hand was forced. It's a marvel that GW kept WHF afloat for so long - and at such cost to themselves. They clearly actually liked the IP they had, but it wasn't sustainable and no reasoning company goes down with a failing IP out of stubbornness.

AoS isn't WHF and there aren't many good alternatives to replace it, given - but AoS itself is actually a good game. Whether you enjoy it, or whether you even give it a shot, is up to you.

If you're not going to do those things, please sell me your WE models, I've been meaning to add a few to my collection. :3

overtninja wrote:
A lot of people seem to think that GW would do better under different management because they believe AoS is some kind of mistake or joke.

They believe that for more reasons than just AoS. A cursory look through these forums would have told you that.

You know what another management team would do if they had control of GW and AoS failed? They would cut fantasy. That's it, no more. Dead IP. If it fails here it's a totally unprofitable venture for GW as a company, which can happily survive by focusing on 40k.

There's nothing to say for sure a different company would cut fantasy entirely. Its all speculation, and therefore equally valid to say a different company would have revised the game and booted up a new edition that fixed the chief complaints with the old system and added in new features that people wanted.

This, or they are bought out by another game company who uses them to crank out miniatures and benefits from the 40k IP. Fantasy, though? Not a chance, it would compete directly with what most companies already market.

Again, nothing but speculation. Another game company could also see the potential in the existing customer base and market penetration to make a competitive game (and indeed make new ones based on old specialist games to take back market share lost to competitors) in the fantay market.

But again, nothing but speculation and armchair CEO-ing by all.

Most of you need to just go play the other game systems. If you're so salty about AoS that you want GW to close up shop and eliminate their fantasy IP from the hobby out of spite, you need to take a step back and a few deep breaths. GW has not personally attacked you, nor does it particularly owe you anything if you derived many years of enjoyment from the hobby already. The hobby itself wasn't sustainable from a business standpoint because models weren't moving and the game system didn't actually encourage buying models either, unless they were the new OP thing (which GW caught flak for also, rightly so).

Maybe a lot of people do play other games in addition to whatever GW game they've played for years, if not decades.

People have a right to be upset and say so on forums. If you get riled up enough to tell people to shut up or get out, you may also need to take some of your advice.

GW's hand was forced. It's a marvel that GW kept WHF afloat for so long - and at such cost to themselves. They clearly actually liked the IP they had, but it wasn't sustainable and no reasoning company goes down with a failing IP out of stubbornness.

GW's hand was forced by nothing other than themselves. Warhammer Fantasy didn't die from reasons outside of GW's control. The growth of a dozen or more companies that have filled the void of specialist games and selling alternative fantasy rulesets shows that there's still a market, and all the evidence we have indicates its growing, or at the very least, profitable.

AoS isn't WHF and there aren't many good alternatives to replace it, given - but AoS itself is actually a good game. Whether you enjoy it, or whether you even give it a shot, is up to you.

I'd hardly call AoS a good game. Its a simple game that provides the basics of wargaming, but it has the tactical depth of a kiddie pool, the balance is non-existent, the rules are barely functional or wonky at best (seriously, who thought measuring to the model was a good idea?), and the silly 'narrative' bits on legacy armies is a bad joke. Upsides are that it is indeed simple, and its free. As for good, I say it is not. It can be enjoyable, certainly, but I don't think its a good game. Like the Super Mario Bros movie. Fun to watch, but every quality of the movie was just bad.

If you're not going to do those things, please sell me your WE models, I've been meaning to add a few to my collection. :3

I have a box of Lizardmen on sprue somewhere when I almost joined a Fantasy escalation league many years ago. Now they may end up as conversion fodder. Or painting practice. Both? Drunk me will decide one day.

Achaylus72 wrote:Well over the weekend I saw 18 AoS starter box sets sell in one GW store alone and the auxiliary products connected to AoS was also walking off the shelves.

I bet this pisses off a lot of folks. Congrats to GW.

18 boxes! That's horrible! As many as 18 people bought AoS! This totally means the success and proliferation of a terrible game! I'm pissed off!

No, wait...

18 boxes! That's terrible! Only 18 people bought AoS! It's the best game ever so it should've sold a gazillion! That owner should have his store burned down rather than be given responsibility of these jewel-like items of wonder! I'm pissed off!

No, hang on...

18 boxes! That's pathetic! 18's an even number! It's, like, two times nine... I'm pissed off...

Um...

What was the point again?

Blacksails wrote:I'd hardly call AoS a good game. Its a simple game that provides the basics of wargaming, but it has the tactical depth of a kiddie pool, the balance is non-existent, the rules are barely functional or wonky at best (seriously, who thought measuring to the model was a good idea?), and the silly 'narrative' bits on legacy armies is a bad joke. Upsides are that it is indeed simple, and its free. As for good, I say it is not. It can be enjoyable, certainly, but I don't think its a good game. Like the Super Mario Bros movie. Fun to watch, but every quality of the movie was just bad.

I've said it before: it feels like a basic or novelty boardgame, where goofy things happen and you can pretend the dice rolls are meaningful, and have some fun for a while, but where the novelty soon wears off and it gets shoved in the back of a cupboard somewhere.

overtninja wrote:
A lot of people seem to think that GW would do better under different management because they believe AoS is some kind of mistake or joke.

You know what another management team would do if they had control of GW and AoS failed? They would cut fantasy. That's it, no more. Dead IP. If it fails here it's a totally unprofitable venture for GW as a company, which can happily survive by focusing on 40k.

This, or they are bought out by another game company who uses them to crank out miniatures and benefits from the 40k IP. Fantasy, though? Not a chance, it would compete directly with what most companies already market.

Most of you need to just go play the other game systems. If you're so salty about AoS that you want GW to close up shop and eliminate their fantasy IP from the hobby out of spite, you need to take a step back and a few deep breaths. GW has not personally attacked you, nor does it particularly owe you anything if you derived many years of enjoyment from the hobby already. The hobby itself wasn't sustainable from a business standpoint because models weren't moving and the game system didn't actually encourage buying models either, unless they were the new OP thing (which GW caught flak for also, rightly so).

GW's hand was forced. It's a marvel that GW kept WHF afloat for so long - and at such cost to themselves. They clearly actually liked the IP they had, but it wasn't sustainable and no reasoning company goes down with a failing IP out of stubbornness.

AoS isn't WHF and there aren't many good alternatives to replace it, given - but AoS itself is actually a good game. Whether you enjoy it, or whether you even give it a shot, is up to you.

If you're not going to do those things, please sell me your WE models, I've been meaning to add a few to my collection. :3

^ This

It's not a good game. It's not had a chance to gain any feedback yet. It can't be said to b bad yet either. Sure from cursory examination I'd say it doesn't look good but until it's been doing the rounds for a good couple of months it has no reputation, good or bad.

 Blacksails wrote:

This, or they are bought out by another game company who uses them to crank out miniatures and benefits from the 40k IP. Fantasy, though? Not a chance, it would compete directly with what most companies already market.

Again, nothing but speculation. Another game company could also see the potential in the existing customer base and market penetration to make a competitive game (and indeed make new ones based on old specialist games to take back market share lost to competitors) in the fantay market.

But again, nothing but speculation and armchair CEO-ing by all.

Most of you need to just go play the other game systems. If you're so salty about AoS that you want GW to close up shop and eliminate their fantasy IP from the hobby out of spite, you need to take a step back and a few deep breaths. GW has not personally attacked you, nor does it particularly owe you anything if you derived many years of enjoyment from the hobby already. The hobby itself wasn't sustainable from a business standpoint because models weren't moving and the game system didn't actually encourage buying models either, unless they were the new OP thing (which GW caught flak for also, rightly so).

Maybe a lot of people do play other games in addition to whatever GW game they've played for years, if not decades.

People have a right to be upset and say so on forums. If you get riled up enough to tell people to shut up or get out, you may also need to take some of your advice.

Slow clap for immediate, point-by-point takedown. And quoted for truth.

My store still has 45 of the 50 copies im sure they were forced to order in order to guarantee shipment on time. And from everyone I have talked to who has played it for the last week, multiple games, it just dosent have the same fun. That right there is the killer.

jah-joshua wrote:
poor Space Marine never gets any love:(...

Clearly we need another Codex!
(Apparently we actually do for Blood Angels and Space Wolves. I guess that's the issue with splitting stuff up this way)

jah-joshua wrote:@Crash: i ask because i was trying to get to your definition of what kind of behavior you would consider making someone a twit...
in the end, it only matters because you wanted Talys to admit that some of the defenders were acting like twits, and i was curious about what qualifies a person for entry into the twit of the year competition...
i did read your post, and did see where you said "some people", not all...
i am not trying to insinuate anything...
i am asking for what kind of behavior fits your categorization...
if you want someone to admit that you are right, they need to know what you are describing...
just saying, "it's everywhere" doesn't help anyone understand your stance...

I mean unreasonable defenses of GW. Don't know what that means?

unreasonable

adjective
1.
not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational:
an unreasonable person.
2.
not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate:
His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3.
excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable:
an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4.
not having the faculty of reason.

Source

defense

noun
1.
resistance against attack; protection:
Two more regiments are needed for the defense of the city.
2.
something that defends, as a fortification, physical or mental quality, or medication:
This fort was once the main defense of the island.
3.
the defending of a cause or the like by speech, argument, etc.:
He spoke in defense of the nation's foreign policy.
4.
a speech, argument, etc., in vindication:
She delivered a defense of free enterprise.

Source

So speech and arguments in favor of GW's practices which are not reasonable or rational.
That's all you need to know.
You don't need me to point at specific people and say "Users X and Y are being douchebags because A, B and C", it's a general point anyway and I don't tend to keep records of any post that pisses me off to be put in the Codex Assholius and pulled out whenever I say something because:
1) Highly specific examples aren't necessary for general things, particularly when it's to clear up what's meant by a simple phrase, which is easily achieved by knowing what words mean.
2) I already have anger issues as it stands, I REALLY don't need to exacerbate it by deliberately cultivating grudges.
3) I've seen that sort of behavior. I've seen borderline-stalker people who pick apart all of a users posts to make them look bad. I've seen a whole site dedicated to borderline-bullying people for writing fiction, having odd fetishes and other minor-if-even-bad-at-all things, run by the kind of people who use "autistic" as an insult. Please excuse me if I'm not willing to engage in such behavior simply because you asked me to for no good reason.
And quite frankly while you say you aren't insinuating anything, it seems pretty blatant that you're just wanting me to pick people out so you can passive-aggressively pick it apart to try and make me look bad.

 Vermis wrote:
18 boxes! That's horrible! As many as 18 people bought AoS! This totally means the success and proliferation of a terrible game! I'm pissed off!

No, wait...

18 boxes! That's terrible! Only 18 people bought AoS! It's the best game ever so it should've sold a gazillion! That owner should have his store burned down rather than be given responsibility of these jewel-like items of wonder! I'm pissed off!

No, hang on...

18 boxes! That's pathetic! 18's an even number! It's, like, two times nine... I'm pissed off...

Um...

What was the point again?

When no one was looking Games Workshop sold eighteen boxes.
They sold eighteen boxes.
That's as many as six threes.
And that's terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orock wrote:
My store still has 45 of the 50 copies im sure they were forced to order in order to guarantee shipment on time. And from everyone I have talked to who has played it for the last week, multiple games, it just dosent have the same fun. That right there is the killer.

Honestly, that sounds about right. Amongst all the complaints there seems to be the general consensus that the main issue (aside from screwed-up rules and buggering over a long-standing franchise, which can both be potentially excused) is that something like this would get old FAST.

A long-standing and increasingly unprofitable franchise.

Nomeny wrote:
A long-standing and increasingly unprofitable franchise.

Are you responding to me? It's not really clear.

 Orock wrote:
My store still has 45 of the 50 copies im sure they were forced to order in order to guarantee shipment on time. And from everyone I have talked to who has played it for the last week, multiple games, it just dosent have the same fun. That right there is the killer.

Strange. I know one of my local guys got his in on time and didn't order nearly that many boxes.....

And our local group actually has people pretty excited. But each area is it's own little hamlet. I'm finding that my friends that spend a fair amount of time on boards like this are ones that don't care for it much or aren't into giving it a chance while people who don't seem to spend nearly the same amount (if any) of time on forums like this are excited.

 Hulksmash wrote:

And our local group actually has people pretty excited. But each area is it's own little hamlet. I'm finding that my friends that spend a fair amount of time on boards like this are ones that don't care for it much or aren't into giving it a chance while people who don't seem to spend nearly the same amount (if any) of time on forums like this are excited.

Quick question, since correlation, causation, all that jazz. Do the people who are excited for AoS mainly GW players, and are they fantasy vets? And the opposite for the people who are less excited - do they play other games, and are not primarily GW players or are they long time fantasy vets?

@Crash: yes, i can see that you have anger issues...
things have been confrontational since your first post all of one month ago...
seems like you got off to a running start...

not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
just saying, if you are going to talk the talk, you should be willing to walk the walk...

i don't know why you and i got off on the wrong foot from your first day here...
i can see that my posts seem to piss you off...
i don't try and pick fights here, so i will just stop responding to you...
have fun, and enjoy Dakka...

cheers
jah

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
A long-standing and increasingly unprofitable franchise.

Are you responding to me? It's not really clear.

Most likely to Overt Ninja.

The Auld Grump

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Orock wrote:
My store still has 45 of the 50 copies im sure they were forced to order in order to guarantee shipment on time. And from everyone I have talked to who has played it for the last week, multiple games, it just dosent have the same fun. That right there is the killer.

Strange. I know one of my local guys got his in on time and didn't order nearly that many boxes.....

And our local group actually has people pretty excited. But each area is it's own little hamlet. I'm finding that my friends that spend a fair amount of time on boards like this are ones that don't care for it much or aren't into giving it a chance while people who don't seem to spend nearly the same amount (if any) of time on forums like this are excited.

There aren't any stores in our area thought bought 50 boxes, or if they did, they didn't stick them on the shelf. One place only got in something like 10 (and sold out when they opened Saturday... brilliant, lol). And they had theirs on Wednesday for the Saturday launch, same as they get stuff every week.

From someone who was genuinely interested in Fantasy, let me give my reasons for not plunging my money into it further than I did.

1. Cost of entry - This was a HUGE barrier, because I wanted to play Daemons, more specifically a Khornate Daemon army. Which means I needed hordes of Bloodletters, they aren't terribly expensive, $3 a guy is okay ($30 for a box of ten) I'm fine paying that for basic troops. Whatever.
However, when I looked at other armies I might've been interested in starting instead, I noticed some of their troops costed about $60 for a box of ten... $6 per model is an unreasonable cost. Especially at the numbers you needed to purchase them at to be competitive. This turned me off of the game almost immediately as I would've been likely to have been stuck with one army the entirety of my time in the game. (This problem isn't unique to Fantasy mind you, I bought a crapton of the old Assault Marine boxes when they were $25, I was overwhelmed to see that the new one costs $41... For five guys... Really GW? )

2 - The Magic Phase - I watched a few games of WHFB, and the magic phase just looked awful, it was so swingy I was like "Why even play the game at all if one magic phase can be so destructive? Where's the balance?"

3 - Swarmhammer - The simple fact that I needed large globs of models just to be any sense of competitive was really the final straw that broke the camel's back. I mean, yes, you could take monsters, but they got easily torn up by cannons, etc, that it wasn't worth buying a few $150 models to assemble, and paint just to take off the table two turns in.

And now, we come to Age of Sigmar, or, as I like to call it, "Age of S**tmar."

Here are my big issues with the game.

1. No balancing mechanic - At least with a points system in place there was some balancing mechanic involved, especially if one took an army of elite units that costed more points per model, etc. They pulled their weight against cheaper units as well. With AoS, no balancing mechanic means that one could field an entire army of elite troops and simply overwhelm an opponent who brought mostly squishy units to the table.

2. Silly abilities - I mostly play games at my LGS, I don't relish the thought of *having* to do something stupid like dance and get my opponent to dance just to use the Masque of Slaanesh's ability. Or something like Konrad and having to talk to a model and hope it talks back... I've interacted personally with a model once, I flipped off a dreadnought, and I felt stupid for doing it. If I want something silly, i'll do an Unhinged MTG draft where all the cards are silly, or play Munchkin, or Cards against humanity, where *everyone* playing is being an ass, not just me. Wargames aren't supposed to be *that* stupid, i'll admit, I play with little toy soldiers and I like it, but that doesn't mean I want to act like a grade-a jackass at my LGS *just* to get some abilities to go off.

3. Sigmarines - Sure, let's bring the most monotonous, boring unit from 40K over into Fantasy and to boot, let's make them all REALLY powerful and broken! This is one reason to stay away from AoS. In 40K, everything is measured against a Space Marine, because they're the best troop in the game for their points cost. But in AoS, they don't have a points cost, so let's just field TONS of groundmarines to wipe the field of everything. Daemons? Oh no, they're too squishy compared to the Sigmarines. That was one of the initial reasons I was interested in fantasy in the first place, NO MARINES...Now, I have no reason to be interested in fantasy. The old world is destroyed, and now we're stuck with Space Marines in fantasy... Can I just not buy any Sigmarines and use my Blood Angels instead? I mean, it doesn't matter right? As long as I tell my opponent that they're Sigmarines, right? W/e... Oh yeah, and 5 Sigmarines, the basic troop for the army, costs more than a box of Terminators does... Terminators are an elite unit, you usually don't need to buy more than two-four boxes of them at a given time, unless you're playing draigowing/deathwing. But here, I'm expected to buy 50 sigmarines and expected to pay $600 for them? No... GW, you can keep em.

4. The boring scenarios - There really isn't much room for replayablility here either, I mean, each game usually is going to end in a giant clusterfeth in the middle of the board anyways, with the majority of our forces killing each other, no strategy, no tactics, just rush in and fight... Oh yeah, and not measuring from the base for charging, etc? Spears out everyone, and since facing doesn't mean anything, if I don't want to be charged, i'll just turn my guys the other way around so you have to move further to hit them.

It really doesn't sound like they gave it much thought, and instead of bringing me into the game, they just pushed me further away. I'll admit, I want some of the Khornate Models from the starter to convert into Khorne Daemonkin, but I really don't feel comfortable supporting AoS in any way, shape or form. Even if it means relegating myself to using the same, crappy berserker models that GeeDub refuses to update.

Sorry, I had to get this off of my chest.

Our friendly, not so local, game store got in twelve, sold four, and are holding two for eventual pickup.

Which puts it dead even with the last version of Warhammer*, and way, way, way behind the Magic the Gathering release.

Aside from the copies put aside, none have sold since the first three days - but then the folks that got them that first day most likely went in to the store specifically to get AoS (for good or bad).

They expect to sell the rest by the end of the month, when they will drop down to two on the shelf.

If the store were more local, I would see how well Kings of War might catch on.

Much as I love Kings of War, it just does not get the same amount of exposure - with all of the local group having bought their copies straight from Mantic, or are waiting on the Kickstarter.

The Auld Grump

* With the same two people holding their copies for later.... The store had already put their copies aside before they had even reserved them.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Our friendly, not so local, game store got in twelve, sold four, and are holding two for eventual pickup.

Which puts it dead even with the last version of Warhammer*, and way, way, way behind the Magic the Gathering release.

Aside from the copies put aside, none have sold since the first three days - but then the folks that got them that first day most likely went in to the store specifically to get AoS (for good or bad).

They expect to sell the rest by the end of the month, when they will drop down to two on the shelf.

If the store were more local, I would see how well Kings of War might catch on.

Much as I love Kings of War, it just does not get the same amount of exposure - with all of the local group having bought their copies straight from Mantic, or are waiting on the Kickstarter.

The Auld Grump

* With the same two people holding their copies for later.... The store had already put their copies aside before they had even reserved them.

Got a chance to play KoW the other night and like it a lot, and I think you'll be seeing an uptick in the number of people getting into it. For myself, I'll be playing both games, adding to my undead for KoW and the Sigmarites for AoS.

jah-joshua wrote:not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
just saying, if you are going to talk the talk, you should be willing to walk the walk...

I DID "walk the walk" all I needed to, how about instead of not responding, you actually explain why I need to give specific things out for a general thing easily understood by knowing what words mean?
And your posts in these arguments always come across as passive aggressive since you claim to be not all that bothered and just wanting to paint things, but adamantly holding to a particular point and picking apart anything that disputes this, all in multiple short sentences trailing off with ellipses (Which gives a very particular tone). It's fine to passionately hold to something (as long as you can back it up), but putting up a guise of being impartial and not caring when that's not really true is highly dishonest.

TheAuldGrump wrote:Most likely to Overt Ninja.

Fair enough. I suppose he should've quoted that guy, then.

PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:It really doesn't sound like they gave it much thought, and instead of bringing me into the game, they just pushed me further away. I'll admit, I want some of the Khornate Models from the starter to convert into Khorne Daemonkin, but I really don't feel comfortable supporting AoS in any way, shape or form. Even if it means relegating myself to using the same, crappy berserker models that GeeDub refuses to update.

If you'd like those models but don't want to support AOS, how about keeping a lookout for them second hand after AOS has some time under its belt?

 Talys wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Orock wrote:
My store still has 45 of the 50 copies im sure they were forced to order in order to guarantee shipment on time. And from everyone I have talked to who has played it for the last week, multiple games, it just dosent have the same fun. That right there is the killer.

Strange. I know one of my local guys got his in on time and didn't order nearly that many boxes.....

And our local group actually has people pretty excited. But each area is it's own little hamlet. I'm finding that my friends that spend a fair amount of time on boards like this are ones that don't care for it much or aren't into giving it a chance while people who don't seem to spend nearly the same amount (if any) of time on forums like this are excited.

There aren't any stores in our area thought bought 50 boxes, or if they did, they didn't stick them on the shelf. One place only got in something like 10 (and sold out when they opened Saturday... brilliant, lol). And they had theirs on Wednesday for the Saturday launch, same as they get stuff every week.

Same here. If any store in my area ordered 50 boxes it would be to fill pre orders.

Talking about how many boxes are sold is moot, the more important question is, will these be returning customers or are those one time sales, from people who only want to try it out, or for people that only liked the models (or want to 40k them), time will tell.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Crash: yes, i can see that you have anger issues...
things have been confrontational since your first post all of one month ago...
seems like you got off to a running start...

not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...

Um.

 heartserenade wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Crash: yes, i can see that you have anger issues...
things have been confrontational since your first post all of one month ago...
seems like you got off to a running start...

not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...

Um.

tongue-in-cheek humor is passive aggressive???
like i said, i'm not trying o start a fight with anyone...
i guess i'll just have to accept that some people don't like my style...
i'm cool with that...

cheers
jah



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

jah-joshua wrote:not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
just saying, if you are going to talk the talk, you should be willing to walk the walk...

I DID "walk the walk" all I needed to, how about instead of not responding, you actually explain why I need to give specific things out for a general thing easily understood by knowing what words mean?
And your posts in these arguments always come across as passive aggressive since you claim to be not all that bothered and just wanting to paint things, but adamantly holding to a particular point and picking apart anything that disputes this, all in multiple short sentences trailing off with ellipses (Which gives a very particular tone). It's fine to passionately hold to something (as long as you can back it up), but putting up a guise of being impartial and not caring when that's not really true is highly dishonest.

i was just curious to see if you had the cajones to give examples of GW supporters acting like twits in this thread...
it was not a big deal, so i let you have the out of "unreasonable defense"...

you say i am highly dishonest, but i have never claimed to be impartial...
i have been very clear in my support of GW's minis, art, and fiction...
i have been very overt in my support of the design studio...
i have stated, every time, that i am not bothered by the prices, and will continue to buy the things i like...

yes, i am just a painter, but that doesn't mean i am not passionate about my hobby...
i don't know where you got the idea that i am trying to be impartial...
i have been open, honest, and consistent in my support of a company that has given me 30 years of joy...
hopefully, i don't engage in unreasonable defense, but if that is the impression that you get, it's no biggie...

like i said earlier, you and i have butted heads from our first encounter a month ago...
if you don't like the way i type, or what i have to say, just hit the ignore button, and then you won't have to read my posts...
am i crazy, or is this the second time i've suggested that to you???

anyway, i will be clear right here...
i am not impartial at all...
i am very passionate about my enjoyment of GW's minis, art, and fiction...

cheers
jah

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

jah-joshua wrote:not trying to be passive aggressive, mate...
just saying, if you are going to talk the talk, you should be willing to walk the walk...

I DID "walk the walk" all I needed to, how about instead of not responding, you actually explain why I need to give specific things out for a general thing easily understood by knowing what words mean?
And your posts in these arguments always come across as passive aggressive since you claim to be not all that bothered and just wanting to paint things, but adamantly holding to a particular point and picking apart anything that disputes this, all in multiple short sentences trailing off with ellipses (Which gives a very particular tone). It's fine to passionately hold to something (as long as you can back it up), but putting up a guise of being impartial and not caring when that's not really true is highly dishonest.

My personal theory is jah-joshua's Avatar is holding his posts hostage.

This whole subject begins with a quite subjective and negative question "final nail" and reactions seem to be quite subjective, especially the posts that hope or think that this is the end for GW.

It is WAY to early to make any predictions at this point, even what AoS will be (and the complete rules).

ORicK wrote:
This whole subject begins with a quite subjective and negative question "final nail" and reactions seem to be quite subjective, especially the posts that hope or think that this is the end for GW.

The emotional responses, gut feelings, and similar are obviously subjective. Not sure why that needs to be stated. Might as well say this thread is full of opinions while you're at it.

The responses discussing GW's financial state are much more objective, seeing as they're going off data and making reasoned arguments from known stats. But again, of course that's obvious and shouldn't need to be stated.

I'm not sure what you're trying to even say or add to this discussion other than pointing out the obvious after 26 pages of discussion.

It is WAY to early to make any predictions at this point, even what AoS will be (and the complete rules).

People can make predictions if they like, based on what we know. If something changes in the future with AoS, those opinions and predictions will change accordingly.

Simple stuff really.

Well... If I was new I'd look at the price of;

a) The pseudo-rulebook / scenarios = £45
b) Lord whatever on foot = £20
c) A unit of 5 liberators = £30
d) Some dice/shaker = £25

That's £120 to start me off and I have a whopping 6 miniatures.

I know you can get the starter which is way beťter value but jeez, that list of prices puts me off as much as anyone would have been starting old 8th edition.

Do I hope they fail?
No. Like Jah, I prefer GW figures, and I was hoping AoS would keep the old fantasy figure line going so I could have figures for my KoW armies.
Looks like GW will be ditching all those figures as they renew the line (with scale creep).
:-(

So business as usual? They've been redoing miniatures since time immemorial, with scale creep.

Does anyone else find it utterly bizarre that Age of Sigmar has a terrain generation chart, but GW scenery availability is at an all time low????

At present, the webstore offers the wide range of the Storm of Chaos staircase kit, the altar kit and the wood.

 Orock wrote:
I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.

Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.

As long as people like me keep buying two of everything, that won't be an issue.

 pities2004 wrote:

 Orock wrote:
I kind of am. What they have been doing since going public has just completely turned me off to them. However the IP's are too valuable to let languish, so I'm sure someone like Hasbro would snatch them up if they went under.

Aside from those who don't deserve to losing their jobs I can't think of one downside to it. I truly believe almost anyone could run them better at this point.

As long as people like me keep buying two of everything, that won't be an issue.

I think it's a little bit more complex than that.

 keezus wrote:
Does anyone else find it utterly bizarre that Age of Sigmar has a terrain generation chart, but GW scenery availability is at an all time low????

At present, the webstore offers the wide range of the Storm of Chaos staircase kit, the altar kit and the wood.

Thank god I have their Garden of Morr before it disappeared. I was also saving up for buying the destroyed tower, but it disappeared a long time ago so...

 heartserenade wrote:

 keezus wrote:
Does anyone else find it utterly bizarre that Age of Sigmar has a terrain generation chart, but GW scenery availability is at an all time low????

At present, the webstore offers the wide range of the Storm of Chaos staircase kit, the altar kit and the wood.

Thank god I have their Garden of Morr before it disappeared. I was also saving up for buying the destroyed tower, but it disappeared a long time ago so...

Garden of Morr was almost a must-buy for me... but then I saw the skulls. I don't think the fence can be de-skulled without ruining it.

Actually I think it's appropriate (shocking, I know) because it's a graveyard. I just don't like the skulls on the fence because WHY WOULD YOU PUT SKULLS ON THE FENCE. The skulls on the floor I hid with greenstuff and sand.

Garden of Morr gone?

What the feth!!?!

That kit is awesome. They better be repackaging it or i'm gonna scream, stamp my feet and all sorts.

[runs off to FLGs to buy any left overs]

Honestly, I was super disappointed when the chapel / fortified manor got discontinued. That thing is versatile as heck. If they still made it, just from ease of availability alone, I'm sure that guys playing Malifaux or Warmachine would buy it for terrain.

There are other towers and things in the world from other companies.

Once upon a time, GW taught you how to make your own terrain using cheaply available materials and tools. They even did a book, which I've got.

Gimgamgoo wrote:Well... If I was new I'd look at the price of;

a) The pseudo-rulebook / scenarios = £45
b) Lord whatever on foot = £20
c) A unit of 5 liberators = £30
d) Some dice/shaker = £25

That's £120 to start me off and I have a whopping 6 miniatures.

But, but, you get four pages of free rules!

Nomeny wrote:So business as usual? They've been redoing miniatures since time immemorial, with scale creep.

They've been pruning and modifying certain armies and unit types piecemeal as their setting and game developed. Things like zoats, fimir and kislevites disappeared for whatever reason. Remaining armies and troop types got updated as they moved to (ostensibly) cheaper materials, newer sculpting styles, and newer sculpting and casting methods.

This might possibly be a wee bit different to killing everything dead in one fell swoop and starting again from the ground up.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Well... If I was new I'd look at the price of;

a) The pseudo-rulebook / scenarios = £45
b) Lord whatever on foot = £20
c) A unit of 5 liberators = £30
d) Some dice/shaker = £25

That's £120 to start me off and I have a whopping 6 miniatures.

I know you can get the starter which is way beťter value but jeez, that list of prices puts me off as much as anyone would have been starting old 8th edition.

Do I hope they fail?
No. Like Jah, I prefer GW figures, and I was hoping AoS would keep the old fantasy figure line going so I could have figures for my KoW armies.
Looks like GW will be ditching all those figures as they renew the line (with scale creep).
:-(

I'm not trying to attack you, but your list seems like a very unlikely way to start AoS as a new player.

First, the dice/shaker is about as unnecessary as you can possibly get. They're just 6-sided dice. Second, why MUST you have the Lord Celestant on foot? You can get him mounted in in the starter box.

If you want to play Sigmarites, I think a much more reasonable starting point would be:

1. 75 GB - AoS starter box, giving you 47 miniatures -- you can sell the Chaos ones if you wish.
2. 60 GBP - 2 boxes of 5 Liberators
3. 30 GBP - some near-future future box that I'd like
4. 45 GBP - 264 page book

Making a total of 210 GBP, less recovery of the Chaos models if you don't want them. You end up with:

- 1 Lord Celestant on Dracoth
- 1 Relictor
- 3 Retributors
- 3 Prosecutors
- 10 Liberators with hammer/shield
- 10 more Liberators, with bows or some other weapon configuration
- 5 more models in a box assuming there will be more drops in the coming weeks
- 96 page rulebook, dice, templates
- 264 page supplementary book
- Free warscrolls

That would make for 33 models, a pretty good size for Age of Sigmar, and a good variety of units to boot -- and it would make a lot more sense than spending 125GBP to have just 6 models and dice shakers (and book)

For the budget-conscious starter, remove the "5 more units" and the campaign book (#3 and #4), making the cost 135GBP. You'd still have 28 models (eminently playable!).

In any case, you wouldn't have an effective battleforce playing Sigmarites at the moment WITHOUT buying the starter box, no matter how much money you wanted to spend, because the only units available to you are the unmounted Celestant and the Liberators. Of course, you could make a case for pricing out a 30-40 model army using some other faction, like Wood Elves or Skaven.

TWOHUNDRED AND TEN POUNDS FOR STARTING A WARGAME?

Are you nuts?

All other companies offer something around 100 pounds MAXIMUM for the rulebook and a nice little starter army.

RoninXiC wrote:
TWOHUNDRED AND TEN POUNDS FOR STARTING A WARGAME?

Are you nuts?

All other companies offer something around 100 pounds MAXIMUM for the rulebook and a nice little starter army.

Which AoS does. It's 75 pounds for that actually....

Or whatever the cost of a battalion is and free rules online.

Or a couple of random boxes of stuff you like and free rules online.

Seems cheaper to start than most games actually...

But, but, the OUTRAGE?!?!

RoninXiC wrote:
TWOHUNDRED AND TEN POUNDS FOR STARTING A WARGAME?

Are you nuts?

All other companies offer something around 100 pounds MAXIMUM for the rulebook and a nice little starter army.

That $328.21 USD.... More then what Iam willing to pay for Sigmarines

 Hulksmash wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
TWOHUNDRED AND TEN POUNDS FOR STARTING A WARGAME?

Are you nuts?

All other companies offer something around 100 pounds MAXIMUM for the rulebook and a nice little starter army.

Which AoS does. It's 75 pounds for that actually....

Or whatever the cost of a battalion is and free rules online.

Or a couple of random boxes of stuff you like and free rules online.

Seems cheaper to start than most games actually...

I replied to his post.
Yes AoS is a nice deal. No question about it.

Well besides 90% of the rules costing 50 pounds each in the additional books.

Use historical figures instead of the Sigmarines.

Perry Bros Men at Arms WoTR box would do nicely.


38 figures for £20, free rules, job done! Well, you will need bases too.

50 circular plywood bases, 3mm by 32mm, $14.99 from Litko Aero.

RoninXiC wrote:
TWOHUNDRED AND TEN POUNDS FOR STARTING A WARGAME?

Are you nuts?

All other companies offer something around 100 pounds MAXIMUM for the rulebook and a nice little starter army.

First of all, 130GBP for the budget version, which is only missing the second book and 5 minis. And that is NOT just the starter box.

Secondly, let me know how you arrive to a comparable army in Warmachines or Hordes, plus a comparable amount of printed matter. Not to mention ,that you get a ton of models from a second faction.

Thirdly, if the total came to 100 GBP, the same people who complain about the game being a ripoff would just say the models are junk and the rules are worthless

If by 90% of the rules you mean all the optional rules being in additional books then you're right. They've already shown they plan to release actual models rules online when the models go up for preorder.

Seriously not sure what the issue is.

Rules to play the game are actually free. New units and models coming out have free rules available BEFORE the unit is even available for sale (something GW hasn't done in forever). Game can be played by literally grabbing models you like off the shelf and building them.

I get not liking the actual rules or background. I don't get pretending GW is doing horrible things to people with this release. It's almost a 180 from what they've been doing for years and has a good chance at bringing in a whole new generation of gamers.

RoninXiC wrote:
TWOHUNDRED AND TEN POUNDS FOR STARTING A WARGAME?

Are you nuts?

All other companies offer something around 100 pounds MAXIMUM for the rulebook and a nice little starter army.

Rabble Rabble

1. The disorganized utterances of a large crowd, usually as part of a mob.

2. When someone takes a disorganized approach to speaking out against something, the result being an incoherent collection of syllables.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are other towers and things in the world from other companies.

Once upon a time, GW taught you how to make your own terrain using cheaply available materials and tools. They even did a book, which I've got.

They did more than one, I've got two different ones on the shelf, amazing books.

 JamesY wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are other towers and things in the world from other companies.

Once upon a time, GW taught you how to make your own terrain using cheaply available materials and tools. They even did a book, which I've got.

They did more than one, I've got two different ones on the shelf, amazing books.

I've got one of those myself, and it is a good book. In one of my old White Dwarves, it taught how to make press molds out of green stuff so you could make green stuff copies of tombstones that came with the skeletons and zombies boxes. I actually ended up refering back to that issue to make casts of scarabs for my Necrons in order to fill bases and have hordes of the things.

Let's See.

Saga rule book: £25

4 Mounted, or 6 Foot miniatures from Gripping Beast: £12

That means that 40 mounted or 60 foot comes to £120

And, Fantasy Miniatures from other, similar companies are roughly an equivalent price (Reaper, Iron Wind, Thunderbolt Mountain, etc.).

I got roughly 150 Thunderbolt Mountain elves, and an equivalent number of Heavy Goblin Warriors and Archers for around $750. That was a little less than $3/figure, for what are some of the best sculpted fantasy miniatures ever produced.

Now, I understand that there is a certain aesthetic to GW's products, to which people are attracted.

But they are really being taken advantage of considering the prices being charged for these products.

GW are not Meirce, or one of the other companies who do legitimately high-end miniatures.

Most of the miniatures GW makes are rather clumsy and over-the-top in their detailing and sculpting when compared to even Reaper.

But, I suppose that Stockholm Syndrome is pretty strong when dealing with people who are basically held hostage by a company like GW.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:
Let's See.

Saga rule book: £25

4 Mounted, or 6 Foot miniatures from Gripping Beast: £12

That means that 40 mounted or 60 foot comes to £120

And, Fantasy Miniatures from other, similar companies are roughly an equivalent price (Reaper, Iron Wind, Thunderbolt Mountain, etc.).

I got roughly 150 Thunderbolt Mountain elves, and an equivalent number of Heavy Goblin Warriors and Archers for around $750. That was a little less than $3/figure, for what are some of the best sculpted fantasy miniatures ever produced.

Now, I understand that there is a certain aesthetic to GW's products, to which people are attracted.

But they are really being taken advantage of considering the prices being charged for these products.

GW are not Meirce, or one of the other companies who do legitimately high-end miniatures.

Most of the miniatures GW makes are rather clumsy and over-the-top in their detailing and sculpting when compared to even Reaper.

But, I suppose that Stockholm Syndrome is pretty strong when dealing with people who are basically held hostage by a company like GW.

MB

From the websites:


GW Elfin spearmen are $35 for 16 plastic multipart

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/High-Elf-Spearmen

Thunderbolt Mountain are $55 for 20 metal

http://www.thunderboltmountain.com/collections/30mm-high-elves/products/8251-war-pack-of-20-high-elf-spearmen

I think you have drifted far into hyperbole with your talk of Stockholm Syndrome.

So, like he said, he got what he considered to be some of the greatest fantasy sculpts ever produced for a little less than $3 a model, whereas what he considers the rather clumsy, over the top GW models aren't noticeably cheaper.

Plus the core troop boxes are the least egregious of GWs pricing sins.

So, you've not really refuted his point, you've just listed some prices.