Is Fantasy dead? Do GW no longer stock Fantasy? I know this one depends on the store, but do GW stores even allow Fantasy anymore? Can someone tell me what's going on?
Age of Sigmar is the re-invisioning of Fantasy. The exact reasons why are mostly speculation, but in the end GW seemed to think Fantasy needed to change to survive. The rules are free and less complex, everything's on round bases, and the timeline has advanced a few thousand years to basically a whole new universe/set of planets/realms. It's not a retcon and proceeds from the End Times.
I'm not sure about GW stores. All of your old models are still present in AoS and have free rules you can find on the website. The model range is staying the same mostly (as in, some of the rarely seen finecast models are likely slowly going to die while the plastics remain largely intact), with rebasings, some cost reductions on the old plastics and some changing of faction lines.
coldgaming wrote: Age of Sigmar is the re-invisioning of Fantasy. The exact reasons why are mostly speculation, but in the end GW seemed to think Fantasy needed to change to survive. The rules are free and less complex, everything's on round bases, and the timeline has advanced a few thousand years to basically a whole new universe/set of planets/realms. It's not a retcon and proceeds from the End Times.
I'm not sure about GW stores. All of your old models are still present in AoS and have free rules you can find on the website. The model range is staying the same mostly (as in, some of the rarely seen finecast models are likely slowly going to die while the plastics remain largely intact), with rebasings, some cost reductions on the old plastics and some changing of faction lines.
just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?
coldgaming wrote: Age of Sigmar is the re-invisioning of Fantasy. The exact reasons why are mostly speculation, but in the end GW seemed to think Fantasy needed to change to survive. The rules are free and less complex, everything's on round bases, and the timeline has advanced a few thousand years to basically a whole new universe/set of planets/realms. It's not a retcon and proceeds from the End Times.
I'm not sure about GW stores. All of your old models are still present in AoS and have free rules you can find on the website. The model range is staying the same mostly (as in, some of the rarely seen finecast models are likely slowly going to die while the plastics remain largely intact), with rebasings, some cost reductions on the old plastics and some changing of faction lines.
just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?
There was and still is a big backlash from a lot of Fantasy players, as the game fundamentally changed from square/rank style to skirmish style, the Old World was literally destroyed, the setting is basically starting fresh, and the emphasis is more on scenario and narrative than competitive play. There's been a lot of negativity on the forums, but I think the feeling has been turning more positive in recent times as more people give the game a chance and some of the anger dies down. From what I can see, people are playing more different game systems than ever today, and that's a great thing. Some of the people who loved the Fantasy style moved to Kings of War or 9th Age, which is a fan-made 9th edition. There's no reason why you can't use the same models in all three (or four if you count 8th) games as well.
Khrolek wrote: What's the general consensus regarding AoS?
I would say there is no general consensus, AoS has split the community like never before.
Some people have quit WHFB entirely.
Some people have moved to AoS.
Some people have moved to Kings of War (a game written by Mantic) and/or WHFB 9th age (a community project to keep WHFB going).
Some people have stuck to the previous editions of WHFB.
Some people may have done something else that isn't coming to mind.
Some people who never played WHFB previously have started AoS.
Which group of people is the largest? At this stage it's hard to tell and it's going to vary massively from one location to the next. You're probably best off feeling out what the vibe is in your local community. Some people despise AoS so much that if you start it you're going to struggle to win the community over to get a game.
just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?
Not very popular right now. At least amongst the vocal community, and especially the internet based one, it might be different in some of the more 'underground' circles. That may change. Aos created a massive backlash amongst warhammer players (while a lot of non-gw players looked on in a rather bemused fashion) , and this was on top of gw's antics in gutting the community via actions through 7th and 8th edition, so you have massive ill will on top of a mountain of negativity to start with. Like any gW game, It has a lot of legitimate issues if you approach it straight on, but with the right people, with the right attitude, and handled with care, it can work (but to be fair, everything that you can do with Aos with this attitude can be done with any other fame)
For a lot of people it was the proverbial straw to break their backs. I've never seen a wargame change that has divided and fractured the community in the way Aos has. Aos has its adherents (and to be fair, although it's not a game for me, I think it has 'game'). But it also has its detractors as well as those who are fundamentally hostile to it. And with good reason.
There was no one outcome for what people did, so the best bet is to see what your local community has done. Aos has not really kicked off here for example, and other games have taken advantage.
A lot of people have turned to the fan based '9th edition'. Whether a fan based game has the legs to maintain itself is another question. Though I personally doubt it especially for the long term. I don't think s lot of people turned to 40k - if anything, it was the other way round in that Aos is designed to appeal to 40k players mainly (stormcast externals are known as 'sigmarines' for a reason!). Some people are sticking with 8th or a Preferred older edition. a lot of people have taken the opportunity to outright jump ship and turn to other games instead. A lot of people have turned to mantic's kings of war game for example as the most obvious game to benefit. By all accounts, their sales have exploded (for rulebooks at least - everyone is sticking with gw models lol). Some have turned to, capitulated or have embraced (with joy, In some cases) to Aos. And to be fair, some people (arguably a new demographic) has been attracted to Aos alongside, other than the traditional hardcore wargamer (Aos isn't a hardcore wargamers game, but it can work as a hardcore wargamers friends and family game) and catering to folks that like a simple straight forward game with a focus on diy rather than organised play, which is a niche typically held by historical players. Whether it has the legs to grow and thrive is really up in the air. I can't answer that. If anything though, I see it as more of an 'underground' game than a game with a lot of exposure. It can work though. But it takes work and a co-operative community.
I have no idea how popular each one is, personally, but the one advantage that everything has right now? The rules are free, so it's at least easy to get a sense for what works for you and your friends.
But yeah, there's not much consensus. There is a lot of bitterness though! That's... that's a thing.
Deadnight wrote: I've never seen a game change that has divided and fractured the community in the way Aos has.
I've seen it happen many times in MMOs. The NGE for Star Wars Galaxies was the worst. Happens in comic books too. Ask any Deadpool fan about their opinion on Daniel Way. Ask a Deep Space Nine fan how they feel about JJ Abrams's Star Trek films. Hell, ask a Star Wars fan about The Force Awakens. I'll bet it happens every time there is a new edition for 40k/WHFB.
Fans have expectations for things. They don't want things to change, except the things they want changed, but nothing else. So when small, wrong changes happen, they get upset and feel abandoned and betrayed. When big wrong changes happen, it's scorched earth all around.
Deadnight wrote: I've never seen a game change that has divided and fractured the community in the way Aos has.
I've seen it happen many times in MMOs. The NGE for Star Wars Galaxies was the worst. Happens in comic books too. Ask any Deadpool fan about their opinion on Daniel Way. Ask a Deep Space Nine fan how they feel about JJ Abrams's Star Trek films. Hell, ask a Star Wars fan about The Force Awakens. I'll bet it happens every time there is a new edition for 40k/WHFB.
I was referring to wargames.
I don't play computer games. Nor do I read comics (I'm completely uninterested and apathetic to both). Aside from transmetropolitan and the crow. Spider Jerusalem is the boss. And the movie of the crow beats the comic hands down.
Fans have expectations for things. They don't want things to change, except the things they want changed, but nothing else. So when small, wrong changes happen, they get upset and feel abandoned and betrayed. When big wrong changes happen, it's scorched earth all around.
So what?
'Wrong things' being key. To a lot of people, Aos represents a lot of 'wrong things' to a lot of people.
'Wrong things' being key. To a lot of people, Aos represents a lot of 'wrong things' to a lot of people.
I'm just saying that fans can be VERY passionate about things moving in a different direction than they would like, and that this happens all the damn time. There's nothing particularly special about what has happened with AoS. "Splitting the community" isn't so much an indication of a making a wrong move as it is an indication of change - any change, but obviously, the bigger the change, the more personally the fans take it.
'Wrong things' being key. To a lot of people, Aos represents a lot of 'wrong things' to a lot of people.
I'm just saying that fans can be VERY passionate about things moving in a different direction than they would like, and that this happens all the damn time.
So what? This doesn't invalidate their reactions, nor does it necessarily excuse the actions of the company making the changes.
Sqorgar wrote: "Splitting the community" isn't so much an indication of a making a wrong move as it is an indication of change - any change, but obviously, the bigger the change, the more personally the fans take it.
Splitting the community can very much be a wrong move. But we shall have to wait and see on that one. it ends (theoretically) up killing the community, or more importantly, reducing it below a sustainable level. destroying the game, losing money etcetera, and hurting the company itself, then 'change' is very much 'making a wrong move'. A 'change' that ends up Pissing off and disenfranchising a large section of your potential player base is far from 'smart at the end of the day, it has huge potential to cause any end of negative consequences. But we shall have to wait and see on that.
And FYI I never said it was a 'wrong move' either. I said that it had divided the community and a lot saw it as a 'wrong move', and they're perfectly entitled to view it in that way.
And again, at the end of the day, So what? What the hell is your point?
Yup, GW killed fantasy. Now if only the game writers of the old school WFB would start a new system. I'll guess I will go play Kings of War ( hint, hint).
just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?
I live in a city of over 2.5 million, I have 1 gw store for the city. there are about 4 of us total that play AoS. basically it was DoA, not popular here at all. To the point that other than GW most of the other stores wont let you take up tablespace for it.
Yeah, it's different in every community, but certainly a lot of fantasy communities have moved on. Many AoS players are not former fantasy players. Our group has moved to Kings of War, and others have mentioned there is 9th Age, if AoS isn't your thing. Easy enough to walk into a GW to try a demo game and see (my local manager almost tied me down for one ).
It's not for me, but I don't begrudge those who like it. I do hope massed / ranked fantasy coalesces around KoW, just for the sake of having a single system for the tourney circuit and finding games, etc
According to most online polls I've seen, around 75% of people are still negative towards AoS.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that many places are struggling to sell AoS merchandise, and that it is not being played much in game stores.
So overall this is a bad time to get back into Fantasy. Like others have said, the community has been shattered. Some people are trying to Thrawn it up, making things like 9th Age or the Azyr system. But there's no global consensus on what should be done, much less national or even regional agreement on what to play. Basically what is played locally is what is most likely to work for you.
Khrolek wrote: just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?
Over the course of the last generation, Games Workshop became synonymous with miniature wargaming. It's kind of like how "kleenex" and "tissue" are used as the same thing where I live, and when I hear people talk about using a "kleenex" they're not talking about grabbing a specific kleenex brand facial tissue they're just talking about tissues in general. Kleenex IS tissue, Games Workshop IS the hobby of miniature wargaming. That's the structure they had built up through so many years of success. You couldn't have been a hobbyist without having heard of and played GW games. Not possible.
Games Workshop is currently suffering from a slump where they don't have this dominance, where we're seeing lots of basement companies that are actually getting by pretty well. I think we're moving back into another age where people play all sorts of different things and there's no one game or brand that has such control over the whole market.
But that Games Workshop legacy still endures a bit. That 30-plus year history of Games Workshop constantly hitting home runs still has some kind of lingering influence, despite their striking out in recent years. I think that no matter what they do, no matter how badly they fail or what kind of garbage they put out some people will still convince themselves to like it and go play it just because of that history of Games Workshop being THE GAMES PEOPLE. This is really making their decline a lot slower than it would have been otherwise.
Age of Sigmar is "that game". From every objective metric I can think of, Age of Sigmar is worse. It's poorly thought out, the rules are awful and unfun, the lore is shallow and weak, every aspect of the design is just terrible compared to any other modern wargame, or any past edition of a GW wargame. Or any wargame period. The curious hobbist would be better off spending a few hours inventing their own wargame to play rather than playing Age of Sigmar- that newly invented wargame would almost certainly be more interesting, better balanced, and a better experience than the disastrous mess that is Age of Sigmar. And many people have seen what a mess it is and left.
But Games Workshop are THE GAMES PEOPLE! They invented Warhammer and 40k, they designed Bloodbowl and Necromunda and a dozen or two other franchises that all became part of our common pop culture language. It doesn't matter how terrible Age of Sigmar is, a certain number of people are still going to play it, just because it's made by Games Workshop. And that's okay.
Khrolek wrote: just curious, but how popular is AoS? Did a lot of people move from fantasy to 40k/another game when sigmar hit? What's the general consensus regarding AoS?
Age of Sigmar is "that game". From every objective metric I can think of, Age of Sigmar is worse. It's poorly thought out, the rules are awful and unfun, the lore is shallow and weak, every aspect of the design is just terrible compared to any other modern wargame, or any past edition of a GW wargame. Or any wargame period. The curious hobbist would be better off spending a few hours inventing their own wargame to play rather than playing Age of Sigmar- that newly invented wargame would almost certainly be more interesting, better balanced, and a better experience than the disastrous mess that is Age of Sigmar. And many people have seen what a mess it is and left.
Do you even know what objective means? Finding objective metrics for something "being worse" is one of the craziest things i've heard of in a long time. Your personal opinion is very valid, but your attempt to convince people that AoS is simply worse than WFB (or other games) is just weird and wrong. You have to operationalize "being worse" by some objective metrics that aren't opinion based, that can be tried and tested before writing stuff like that. Please use common sense instead of trying to use academia around miniaturegames. There aren't nearly enough published scientific works on this subject for you to use a word like "objective" around the hobby. And it frankly comes off as someone trying to be 'better-knowing' than others.
WHFB is dead. AoS is its direct decedent, but KoW is its spiritual successor in a much more important way imo, being still a mass battle game, with a single, logical, world of fluff, and written by he aame damn people that wrote WHFB.
Andreas 2.0 wrote: [Do you even know what objective means? Finding objective metrics for something "being worse" is one of the craziest things i've heard of in a long time.
But there are objective metrics that you can establish!
I mean, it someone offers me a sandwich with dog poop in it I can definitely, objectively establish that that dog poop sandwich is an inferior sandwich. I can say, well, these are all the things that make a sandwich a nice meal and the dog poop sandwich doesn't match any of those so it's a worse meal. I mean, I don't resent anyone for choosing to eat a dog poop sandwich, but it seems far more likely to me that they're eating it because of the branding behind the sandwich than the qualities of the sandwich itself.
Because it's really, just that bad. It's not a comparison of apples to oranges or horses to dogs: it's something that's edible versus eating feces.
Age of Sigmar is a game that requires a lot of investment to make it work at all. From the very start, you are navigating a social mine field to avoid making something "overpowered" that would ruin the game or start a fight. The game is structured around a set of rules that invites a comparison between units and their abilities, but makes that comparison seen evil and powergaming because there's no way to establish what you're allowed to bring to the battle. So why do we even have stats then? What?
Moving into the game you get sort of a crazy mish-mash where all the models slam into each other and you roll a lot of dice and activate some abilities and then you see who wins. It always seems pretty obvious what the optimal path to take is and what abilities you should be using. I find this part a bit better, but it's still just awful.
And I know, the customization and the friendliness and the casual nature etc. But that doesn't make any sense!
Age of Sigmar gives you the limitations that working with a set of rules does, but it doesn't give you any of the benefits. You don't have to play a game with rules... I can play chess and make all my rooks fly around and give my pawns special names and powers or whatever. And messing around with people I've done that kind of thing. The reason you play a game with rules is because the structure of the rules provides something to make it a better experience. Age of Sigmar gives some rules, it gives you certain restrictions on what you can do and how you can play but it doesn't give you anything in return.
Playing Age of Sigmar is inferior to playing without rules in every way, and it's inferior to playing with other rules because all other rulesets I've ever seen give you some sort of something back, some level of challenge and engagement. Some amount of competition, or maybe some sort of enforced guideline to make sure armies aren't totally imbalanced and the game ends in 5 minutes. Age of Sigmar does none of that, that's all "your job", but it does tell you how you have to take turns and what your models can and can't do and by doing that it's the worst thing ever.
As you can see, the battle rages on. The old Warhammer forums are not a great place to discuss AoS, as they're inhabited to a large extent by people who were put off by its introduction. I would recommend Facebook groups ("Age of Sigmar") and the YouTube and podcast community for discussion about the hobby, if you're interested.
You can tell from the GW website that they still stock it but its now called AoS.
AoS is pretty much a basic form of 40k but set in a fantasy universe with a focus more on Melee skirmish than 40ks shooting skirmish.
AoS is GW`s statement to the gaming community that they are officially more interested in the hobby/collecting end of miniature gaming than the competitive tournament end of it.Apparently its were the money is.
The AoS ruleset consist of 4 pages of basic rules along with individual rules for each unit/warscroll.So depending on the game size you choose to play,you will likely be playing with anywhere from 10 to 24 pages of rules overall for each game.
Its a very flexible ruleset and customization is even encouraged by GW as evidenced by the events they have held at WW thus far.
If you liked the unique mass battle/skirmish hybrid that whfb had then you will be set off by what AoS is.However if you liked playing in more casual/fluff oriented,non comptetative conditions in the past,AoS may be a Breath of Fresh air for you.
In my area we have a few smallish groups playing the game at least a couple times a month..probably 10-15 players with interest now.I have my boys at home so I get more frequent games and It should be pointed out that its very much designed with new players to the genre in mind
It is much cheaper to get into than previous editions.Sure the models are up in price as per always but you just don't need as many,,actually for most all units purchasing more than one box is just too much on the field.
The new model quality is top notch though.They are expensive but by far some of the best fantasy model kits available on the market.
And round bases showcase so much better than square.
As for KoW..I play it now and then and a few in the area are trying it.It does have that tactical movement vibe that WHFB had,but beyond that its a very hallowed out version.Ruleset is clear and solid,,but the game just feels empty overall.
Apparently most of the larger clubs in the states appear to be adopting it for competitive play as it really was designed with tourney play in mind.If you are in it for the competition than KoW is the way to go.
Also since you don't remove casualties from the trays you can build you units as a diorama of sorts which can be pretty cool on the modeling end of things
AoS Has done nothing but increase the size of my war gaming community. Not in the sense that AoS is big where I am (Indeed, it is moderate, probably higher than most, our GW manager is seriously the best) but that is has had no negative effects. AoS hit, those people who didn't like it moved on to 9th Age (link at the bottom, highly suggest it, it's much more in keeping with old Fantasy then KoW and it's, for better or worse, the creation of avid Fantasy fans. Take a look, the first 'proper' army book has just been released) and those who did continued to do both. As well as that I met knew people interested solely in AoS, some of whom I've converted into 9th Agers.
There aren't the walls between the games that some would like to imagine, they use the same minitures and it's entirely possible to enjoy them together.
Just take a little look at this website, go to the rules section and look at the Undead Dynasties book (A.K.A Tomb Kings). You can expect that level of commitment and profesionalism for all forth-coming books, and more importantly it's still in development so if you can convert a few friends over to 9th Age and play a few games your feedback will shape the development of the game.
My issue with ninth age, is I actually wanted an update to fantasy (I stopped playing early in 8th)... just not an AoS-level update! KoW slims things down / streamlines gameplay nicely, but doesn't completely depart from formation based play. So, that's what's drawn us to it
Sorry. You still got it wrong even with the poop sandwich. A poop sandwich is by no means an inferior sandwich. It might be for you, but it might not be for a fly or even for me. You can establish what criteria you want for what a perfect sandwich should be, but you have to let other people disagree with that unless the criteria is indisputeable (which most things aren't). Tasting worse is not objective, smelling better is not objective, and even being healthier is not completely objective by definition. A sandwich's nutritional information might not even be an objective truth. Nice try though...
As for AoS, which should really be our discussion point - Being a less strict game doesn't make for a worse game. It's really as simple as that. We can read on these forums that alot of older gamers dislike this format, which gives us some good statistical information. The game will however still be a better game for a lot of people, and trying to establish objective metrics for what constitutes a better game is a task for greater thinkers than most of us (would be my guess).
I'll list your points for a 'worse game' -
Investing a lot of time from the get go - That is by no means a bad thing by definition. It's really a question of preference.
Avoiding a social minefield - Well, entering a social minefield and discussing what would be a good game for two people might actually be a good exercise for a lot of some. You could even argue that defining what would be fair before you play a game might actually defuse a potential fight, that would have started otherwise.
Why have stats when there are no point values to define the powerlevel of armies? This kinda answers itself right? Stats are used to play the game. Like how pieces move in chess. You can play chess with a single pawn on one side versus a full board on the other. It doesn't change the game rules. You just have to talk to your opponent to figure out what to bring. The rules even tell you what you can bring if you want to use that (= however many warscrolls you feel like). It doesn't have to be overpowered or even as unbalanced as some of the 40k fights I've had recently.
Age of Sigmar gives you the limitations that working with a set of rules does, but it doesn't give you any of the benefits - Let's say for the sake of the argument, that this is true. There are two problems I see with your point. Firstly I will point out that limitations and benefits derived from rules has nothing to do with what objectively constitutes a 'good game'. Limitations might be positive in some games, benefits might not benefit one player as much as it does another. Secondly AoS might not receive the benefits from a short set of rules. It may however benefit in a number of other ways. It could engage players in a social, philosophical, or spiritual way, that would contribute more to the game than rules might have. And I should also point out that your statement isn't true just because you said so. We haven't really tested that, whereto I really cannot comment.
The reason you play a game with rules is because the structure of the rules provides something to make it a better experience - You may be right in some instances, but in others, rules are just convoluted and divisive. As long as a game actually has rules, it starts getting really hard to define what constitutes 'what rules create a better experience for all people'. AoS has provided you with little structure, 40K has provided you with more, and there are a lot of 80's wargames with more rules than you would ever imagine. Saying that those older games are better because they have more structure (Which in theory is in place to provide a better player experience) is incredibly subjective which makes it - well, the opposite to objective.
Age of Sigmar gives some rules, it gives you certain restrictions on what you can do and how you can play but it doesn't give you anything in return. What more is necessary for a good game? You have rules for playing and armybuilding and rules for winning. If the point of the game is for the player to figure the rest out, then who are you to call it a worse game by 'objective standards'.
Playing Age of Sigmar is inferior to playing without rules in every way Do I really need to comment on this... You do not know every way, nor do I or anyone else. It might be in theory, but no one will ever know.
it's inferior to playing with other rules because all other rulesets I've ever seen give you some sort of something back, some level of challenge and engagement. Well, AoS doesn't aim to challenge your mental abilities. Your opponent does however. It's a bit like soccer you know, easy rules, but your opponent might still crush you even if the rules provide little challenge and engagement. It's all about playing.
Some amount of competition, or maybe some sort of enforced guideline to make sure armies aren't totally imbalanced and the game ends in 5 minutes. Balance has nothing to do with a game being good. It is merely a part of some peoples definition of what constitutes a good game, which is still subjective and frankly a bit conservative. I think an unbalanced game can be quite interesting. It might even be a great game for some people. And on another note, I would defy you to go onto youtube and count the unbalanced games played in battle reports vs. the balanced. It doesn't really sound like you've played or even seem a game played, because I (in my very anecdotal way) haven't seen a single game that was won in 5 minutes. Haven't heard of one either, but all I can really conclude based on that is, that some games of AoS aren't unbalanced, whilst Most might still be.
it's the worst thing ever I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's law here. Look it up, its all fun and games. But honestly - Worst thing ever? Couldn't think of ANYTHING worse?
Age of Sigmar will probably die if you listen to the internet. We really can't know for certain until we see the budget reports from GW in a few years when the dust settles. What we can do however is to try and judge a game for ourselves as the experience will vary from person to person. No game is inherently worse, but it does seem like AoS tries to draw a new generation into the gaming scene, and that can put off some people who love and miss the arguably more complex game of WFB. I personally think you should all give it try and ask yourself if it's worth the money spent. At least it's free and quite accessible.
TL;DR - don't ask the internet about AoS. Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.
Only thing I would suggest is that on anecdotal evidence, the 'anti-AoS' brigade appear to be the majority in Aus/NZ.
US about evens depending on where you are, and appear to be the minority in Europe, particularly the UK.
As has been pointed out, AoS is either the best, the worst or an okay game depending on who/where you ask.
For myself, I like it - but I have a local group of players who approach the game in roughly the same way I do, so the balance/competition arguments have never come up.
Check your local area, see how it's doing.
If nothing else, the rules are free and unless you're buying Stormcast any minis will slip into KoW, 9th age or any other fantasy system quite easily.
However if you liked playing in more casual/fluff oriented,non comptetative conditions in the past
There's little fluff beyond sigmarines beating everything in sight. That also describes how 'non-competitive' it is.
customization is even encouraged by GW as evidenced by the events they have held at WW thus far.
Did those involve the campaigns where participants had to, erm, compete for points and objectives?
It is much cheaper to get into than previous editions.Sure the models are up in price as per always but you just don't need as many,,actually for most all units purchasing more than one box is just too much on the field.
Until you get a hold of those battlescrolls that give you great extra rules for buying the 100-200-mini bundles for about £500-1000.
The new model quality is top notch though.
They managed to get the hot plastic into the moulds okay.
They are expensive but by far some of the best fantasy model kits available on the market.
They have skulls and spikes and skulls and hammers and lightning bolts and skulls.
And round bases showcase so much better than square.
I... have no idea what this has got to do with things. Even if it was hard truth.
Ruleset is clear and solid,,but the game just feels empty overall.
It revolves around tactics and maneouvre on the tabletop, not listbuilding a set of special rules beforehand.
If you are in it for the competition than KoW is the way to go.
If you are in it for a quick playing but reasonably thinky game of mass battles and unit-block maneouvre, then KoW is the way to go.
RoperPG wrote:TL;DR - don't ask the internet about AoS. Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.
I would say make your decision on what you like, whether that turns out to be AoS or not. The state of your local gaming scene is one thing, but it'd be a sad kind of hobby to just settle for something you don't particularly enjoy.
Though I guess GW has prepared many, many gamers for that.
If nothing else, the rules are free
The entire four pages of core rules are free, as are the hurried out rules for all the old Warhammer range. All the new factions' rules are hidden between ~£30 'battletome' covers, though.
What? Nobody said anything about the rules like "bending a knee in real life for what ever reason when playing a certain character makes you loose the game" or "if a person has a beard he gets a certain benefit". That would rule out the females playing
You could quickly find out if AoS is worth playing by checking out the local gaming stores. As I posted earlier, if you were looking for a game here, and didnt catch one of us, you would think noone plays it, you wouldnt be far off. If we had to rely on our local stores or even GW to get a game in, we wouldnt be able too, so if you have an established gaming group I would say"got nothing to lose" and grab a battallion and a hero and go from there. We are playing basically with our old warhammer armies. And while we are "fans" of AoS, if we had to buy into it again, none of us would have. It is a ok game, but it really is the midget among giants for gaming. I consider it not better than any other game at pretty much anything, but if you got a short amount of time, and already got the models, it is worth a go.
However if you liked playing in more casual/fluff oriented,non comptetative conditions in the past
There's little fluff beyond sigmarines beating everything in sight. That also describes how 'non-competitive' it is.
customization is even encouraged by GW as evidenced by the events they have held at WW thus far.
Did those involve the campaigns where participants had to, erm, compete for points and objectives?
It is much cheaper to get into than previous editions.Sure the models are up in price as per always but you just don't need as many,,actually for most all units purchasing more than one box is just too much on the field.
Until you get a hold of those battlescrolls that give you great extra rules for buying the 100-200-mini bundles for about £500-1000.
The new model quality is top notch though.
They managed to get the hot plastic into the moulds okay.
They are expensive but by far some of the best fantasy model kits available on the market.
They have skulls and spikes and skulls and hammers and lightning bolts and skulls.
And round bases showcase so much better than square.
I... have no idea what this has got to do with things. Even if it was hard truth.
Ruleset is clear and solid,,but the game just feels empty overall.
It revolves around tactics and maneouvre on the tabletop, not listbuilding a set of special rules beforehand.
If you are in it for the competition than KoW is the way to go.
If you are in it for a quick playing but reasonably thinky game of mass battles and unit-block maneouvre, then KoW is the way to go.
RoperPG wrote:TL;DR - don't ask the internet about AoS. Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.
I would say make your decision on what you like, whether that turns out to be AoS or not. The state of your local gaming scene is one thing, but it'd be a sad kind of hobby to just settle for something you don't particularly enjoy.
Though I guess GW has prepared many, many gamers for that.
If nothing else, the rules are free
The entire four pages of core rules are free, as are the hurried out rules for all the old Warhammer range. All the new factions' rules are hidden between ~£30 'battletome' covers, though.
RoperPG wrote: Only thing I would suggest is that on anecdotal evidence, the 'anti-AoS' brigade appear to be the majority in Aus/NZ.
I think you'll find in the online wargames community in general Oz/NZ is over represented given the small population, so it might simply be your perceived bias to Oz/NZ making complaints is simply because Oz/NZ has a reasonably large online community.
I'm considering giving it a go, having made peace with the death of WHFB. KoW doesn't seem to be for me and there's not much in the way of generic fantasy skirmish games (it's apparently steampunk/sci-fi or bust). Just treat AoS as a fresh start: It's NOT WHFB and will never be, it just so happens to use the same models and the universe is set in the grim darkness of the far future...hey wait a second
I'd recommend finding out if there's a group playing it near you, if so give it a whirl with existing minis (it'll only cost you the price of printing the paper/ink) then see if it's for you or not. From what I gather, AoS is a quick and casual game to unwind and have a bit of a good time.
If AoS isn't for you, there's a whole host of alternative games out there to play: The many historicals, Frostgrave, X-wing, Warmahordes, KoW, and so on.
RoperPG wrote: Only thing I would suggest is that on anecdotal evidence, the 'anti-AoS' brigade appear to be the majority in Aus/NZ.
I think you'll find in the online wargames community in general Oz/NZ is over represented given the small population, so it might simply be your perceived bias to Oz/NZ making complaints is simply because Oz/NZ has a reasonably large online community.
Quite likely, my only knowledge of gaming outside my area is the internet any way! (I did say anecdotal evidence...).
@OP I'd recommend giving AoS a proper go with an open mind.
I've already seen a number of the folks in my local club who were vehemently anti-AoS to begin with have now not only started playing but actively evangelising. Was quite a shock...
RoperPG wrote: Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.
I definitely agree with that! If your local area is playing it, might be something to seriously consider
RoperPG wrote: US about evens depending on where you are
This I think is not something that you can say - and if anything, you would say the opposite. In other words, it's one thing to say there's not enough evidence to determine how AoS is truly doing, but to say it's "about even" is: 1) Going against the evidence available "online" 2) Not supported by any fact that I have seen. Indications are in general certainly the opposite, that it is struggling to be adopted... and while I'm totally onboard with folks saying to try it and make up your own mind (which is what my first post here was) to take that a step further and say the reception in the US has been "even" between adoption and rejection is just not supportable.
This I think is not something that you can say - and if anything, you would say the opposite. In other words, it's one thing to say there's not enough evidence to determine how AoS is truly doing, but to say it's "about even" is: 1) Going against the evidence available "online" 2) Not supported by any fact that I have seen. Indications are in general certainly the opposite, that it is struggling to be adopted... and while I'm totally onboard with folks saying to try it and make up your own mind (which is what my first post here was) to take that a step further and say the reception in the US has been "even" between adoption and rejection is just not supportable.
First, I don't think it really matters how well the game is doing. Either you have local players to play with or you don't. The miniature community is smallish and tends to heavily favor local trends, so even if 40k is the most popular miniature game in the world, if everybody locally plays Malifaux, then that's what matters.
Second, GW is continuing to support AoS heavily. There's new models pretty much every month, and AoS seemed to be equal promotional support to 40k. So, if you are in one of those pockets of AoS players, then game is supported enough to ensure new models and content for a long time to come. The pocket AoS communities should be plenty healthy as a result, even if the national adoption rate is not as strong.
Third, I think the public opinion pendulum on AoS is swaying the other direction now. In this forum, it used to just be two or three people defending AoS. Now there are a dozen. Why, in this thread alone, someone decided to compare AoS to a poop sandwich, and it wasn't me who rushed to its defense. I know! I'm as surprised as you are!
As far as this forum goes, I am hopeful for a more positive tone and I do think we're getting there. Part of this is just folks who aren't as interested moving on. I just think you can't then say it's "about even", when if you were to make a new "How is AoS doing?" thread, you'd certainly see more than the "poop sandwich" comment
I don't think hating on AoS is helpful and I'd love to see more useful discussion . But I know how AoS is doing not just as my store, but in most of Maryland, where GW has been extremely popular (I used to game at their HQ all the time until they consolidated it elsewhere). So statements like it's "about even" are where I think people need to be more realistic, is all.
But I'm all for reasonable discussion rather than "poop sandwiches"
I don't think hating on AoS is helpful and I'd love to see more useful discussion .
I don't see the logic in this argument. If someone liked WFB and wanted it to get better and get better support, but got AoS. Then i can't think of many things that would make him happier, then AoS going down and all people who were saying WFB was bad and AoS is the good thing expiriencing their game going down the drain. Considering some WFB players may have waited for WFB getting better for 3-4 editions, it is only natural that they want AoS players expiriance the same thing only in a shorter time frame, so it hurts more.
RiTides wrote: As far as this forum goes, I am hopeful for a more positive tone and I do think we're getting there. Part of this is just folks who aren't as interested moving on. I just think you can't then say it's "about even", when if you were to make a new "How is AoS doing?" thread, you'd certainly see more than the "poop sandwich" comment
The problem is, I don't think anybody really knows what a good adoption rate constitutes. I mean, Infinity just celebrated its 10th year anniversary, but I know I haven't been hearing about it for ten years. Malifaux is 6 or 7 years old, and I never hear anyone talk about it. Warmachine took half a decade to reach any sort of prominence. Age of Sigmar certainly has a better adoption rate than Dark Age or Wrath of Kings. What exactly should AoS's adoption rate look like? How can we decide if it is above the norm or below it, if we have no idea what the norm is?
The only miniature game that has had the success that people seem to think AoS should be seeing is X-Wing, which has all sorts of extenuating circumstances (it's Star Wars, built on a tried and true decade old game system, no hobby aspect, sold in Target) that prove that it is the exception rather than the rule. Kings of War seems to have increased in popularity as well, but mainly because WHFB died - again, extenuating circumstances in its favor. Even then, Kings of War is on its second edition and is capitalizing on WHFB's death by releasing books specifically tailored to WHFB factions.
The truth is, outside of X-Wing, you can't point out ANY miniature game which has had a faster adoption than Age of Sigmar. I don't think you can, at least. It's just that people expect AoS to instantly be at full popularity yesterday.
I think another (hopefully) plus point for AoS is coming in the next couple of months if rumours are true;
It seems to me that a lot of the issues with AoS have moved on from the actual system to the setting, with "endless legions of immortals" deemed to be the backdrop for the whole setting.
If rumourmill is on point, then we'll shortly be seeing an AoS faction that is entirely mortal, has actually had to survive in the mortal realms, and isn't "without number". If the backdrop for them cancels out a few of these issues, it might start winning over some of the fluff stalwarts. Maybe Bottle too.
Sqorgar wrote: The truth is, outside of X-Wing, you can't point out ANY miniature game which has had a faster adoption than Age of Sigmar. I don't think you can, at least. It's just that people expect AoS to instantly be at full popularity yesterday.
GW is still the biggest games company around and AoS has one of the largest communities that already own the models so comparing its adoption rate to other games is mostly meaningless.
AoS needs to have huge popularity yesterday and it needs to maintain that because GW are investing a ton of money in it and it's costing them a ton of money distributing it and maintaining the existing model range established by WHFB. We'll see how it goes, but if AoS isn't hugely popular and sustain that huge popularity it's going to be canned by GW or at the very least stagnate like WHFB has for the past 5 years, they can't afford to be investing in something that isn't pulling in big money.
It is relevant to the individual how both the local and global popularity of AoS is doing. A smaller company can afford to have games that are popular among smaller communities, GW apparently can't.... otherwise they wouldn't have killed WHFB which was still popular in some areas, just not globally.
I don't think you can point to the adoption rate it has had as a positive either, though - this game has the full might of GW behind it, and their stores are pushing it Really hard (like I said, the local manager almost physically restrained me to give me a demo ). That may well lead to it having enough adoption to continue, but like you say, it's hard to know what the needed rate is - the investment into AoS is likely much higher than the other games mentioned, even if only in opportunity cost (having "blown up" the Old World to create it, even with a major PC gaming coming out for it next year in Total War).
So, I get the frustration people have, but in response to Makumba, the only reason I think a former fantasy player could have for wanting AoS to not do well is for another ruleset to become more established (such a 9th Age, or KoW). But because the games are so different, one might not necessitate the other... I'm really hopeful for KoW adoption even though I think with all that GW is putting into AoS, it will continue for some time even without a great adoption rate.
I think part of the expectation of adoption also comes from GW's "new edition" style of releases in the past - almost every fantasy gamer buys the next edition, which obviously isn't happening here (complicated by the fact that the initial rules are free, of course ). So, GW is going through a phase of rejection by their current customers to seek new ones... it is a huge gamble but it seems to me that they are totally committed to it. Will be interesting to see how it plays out, for sure!
Anyway, for my part I want all the best for AoS and KoW, but I just still can't figure out GW's AoS market - walking into the FLGS the other day, the Archaeon "battletome" is $58. Most wargamers are going to quickly know that it's only the basic rules that are free... and will they really be frequently shelling out for these kinds of products? The production quality is high, but I just don't see the hook for that kind of price.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:GW is still the biggest games company around and AoS has one of the largest communities that already own the models so comparing its adoption rate to other games is mostly meaningless.
It'd give them a small leg up, but considering that most people bought those models for a completely different game, I think the legacy models are more beneficial to new AoS players looking for more models than existing WHFB looking to play a new game with them.
AoS needs to have huge popularity yesterday and it needs to maintain that because GW are investing a ton of money in it and it's costing them a ton of money distributing it and maintaining the existing model range established by WHFB. We'll see how it goes, but if AoS isn't hugely popular and sustain that huge popularity it's going to be canned by GW or at the very least stagnate like WHFB has for the past 5 years, they can't afford to be investing in something that isn't pulling in big money.
It's fair to say that AoS has more reach than any other miniatures game out there, bar 40k and X-Wing. There was a lot of resistance against AoS initially, due to replacing WHFB and the confusion concerning the lack of points, but as that slowly dies away, the availability of AoS will become a huge bonus for its adoption in the future. In other words, it has nowhere to go but up, and according to that one recent report, GW's sales are down "only" 5%, meaning AoS wasn't a cataclysmic bomb.
It is relevant to the individual how both the local and global popularity of AoS is doing. A smaller company can afford to have games that are popular among smaller communities, GW apparently can't.... otherwise they wouldn't have killed WHFB which was still popular in some areas, just not globally.
I think WHFB was dwindling - that is, the number of players leaving the game (or playing it without buying new models) was greater than the number of new players coming into it. At some point, WHFB wouldn't have been sustainable. Given that there's about a two year lead time on designing new models (possibly longer when creating a new game system from scratch), they needed to plan ahead. In other words, WHFB was killed not because it wasn't successful enough, but that it wouldn't be one day. I don't think AoS needs to be an instant hit, just so long as it shows the potential for growth in the long run - which I think it is showing.
(and truth be told, GW could use a few lean years to teach them some humility. I mean, sales drop 5% and now they have actual sales? In January, they'll release starter boxes with exceptional value. If nothing else, AoS is helping 40k players get some value)
RiTides wrote:I don't think you can point to the adoption rate it has had as a positive either, though - this game has the full might of GW behind it, and their stores are pushing it Really hard (like I said, the local manager almost physically restrained me to give me a demo ). That may well lead to it having enough adoption to continue, but like you say, it's hard to know what the needed rate is - the investment into AoS is likely much higher than the other games mentioned, even if only in opportunity cost (having "blown up" the Old World to create it, even with a major PC gaming coming out for it next year in Total War).
It's been anything but a smooth transition, and I'm not sure anyone could've predicted exactly how not smooth it would go. I mean, there would be some resistance after losing WHFB, of course, but a large majority of the online AoS hating has come from people that didn't play WHFB. I guess you could say that GW's crappy business practices engendered a lot of ill will, and AoS became the catalyst for all of it to come pouring out. I don't think GW expected that.
I think that AoS will be in the top 5 miniature games eventually - actually, is there a list anywhere of the top miniature games? I'm curious what the top 5 would look like. I'm guessing 40k, X-Wing (or X-Wing then 40k), then maybe Warmachine. What's #4? Infinity? Bolt Action?
Anyway, for my part I want all the best for AoS and KoW, but I just still can't figure out GW's AoS market - walking into the FLGS the other day, the Archaeon "battletome" is $58. Most wargamers are going to quickly know that it's only the basic rules that are free... and will they really be frequently shelling out for these kinds of products? The production quality is high, but I just don't see the hook for that kind of price.
I think Archaon and the Everchosen were big ticket items released specifically for Christmas. I don't think the rest of the AoS releases will be anywhere near that - but I guess the real test will be the new Dwarves in January.
Pretty interesting stuff, though I would've liked more than just the top 5 (and to know how exactly the lists are created). Summer 2013 is the last time Warhammer Fantasy showed up. Before that, it was pretty consistently 1) 40k 2) X-Wing 3) WHFB 4) Warmachine. After WHFB disappears from the list, Warmachine never really moves up, but instead has Star Trek Attack Wing inserted above it. Then that disappears, only to be replaced by Armada. So X-Wing is so popular, even its spin offs are more popular than Warmachine. I don't know if Warmachine would be higher if Hordes was included though.
So, it's safe to say that 40k, X-Wing, and Warmachine are the biggest mini games out there. Warmachine apparently has problems beating whatever X-Wing spin off is popular during that trimester. Before X-Wing, however, the list is fairly consistent. 40k, Warmachine, WHFB, Hordes, Malifaux. Malifaux is so small though, I can only believe that the gulf between Warmachine and whatever is next is pretty huge. Like, 40k, X-Wing, Warmachine, BIG GAP, and then everything else. I would've thought Infinity would've been higher than Malifaux though. Go back to 2010 and Malifaux is replaced with Reaper miniatures.
I guess this is just a really long way of saying that AoS will probably get into the top 5 pretty easily.
Chute82 wrote: Warmachine and hordes are separate because of legal reasons having to do with one of the original owners leaving before hordes was developed.
However if you liked playing in more casual/fluff oriented,non comptetative conditions in the past
There's little fluff beyond sigmarines beating everything in sight. That also describes how 'non-competitive' it is.
customization is even encouraged by GW as evidenced by the events they have held at WW thus far.
Did those involve the campaigns where participants had to, erm, compete for points and objectives?
It is much cheaper to get into than previous editions.Sure the models are up in price as per always but you just don't need as many,,actually for most all units purchasing more than one box is just too much on the field.
Until you get a hold of those battlescrolls that give you great extra rules for buying the 100-200-mini bundles for about £500-1000.
The new model quality is top notch though.
They managed to get the hot plastic into the moulds okay.
They are expensive but by far some of the best fantasy model kits available on the market.
They have skulls and spikes and skulls and hammers and lightning bolts and skulls.
And round bases showcase so much better than square.
I... have no idea what this has got to do with things. Even if it was hard truth.
Ruleset is clear and solid,,but the game just feels empty overall.
It revolves around tactics and maneouvre on the tabletop, not listbuilding a set of special rules beforehand.
If you are in it for the competition than KoW is the way to go.
If you are in it for a quick playing but reasonably thinky game of mass battles and unit-block maneouvre, then KoW is the way to go.
RoperPG wrote:TL;DR - don't ask the internet about AoS. Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.
I would say make your decision on what you like, whether that turns out to be AoS or not. The state of your local gaming scene is one thing, but it'd be a sad kind of hobby to just settle for something you don't particularly enjoy.
Though I guess GW has prepared many, many gamers for that.
If nothing else, the rules are free
The entire four pages of core rules are free, as are the hurried out rules for all the old Warhammer range. All the new factions' rules are hidden between ~£30 'battletome' covers, though.
Bet you're glad you asked, Khrolek.
And the sad fest continues....
So,are you going to refute Vermis' points or just continue with the ad-hominem?
The new line of models are great and the rules seem pretty simple. I don't actually play...just collect/build/paint the GW mini's because they are awesome.
AoS seems to be aimed the the casual/newer player. It does seem to be the kind of game where you'd pick up a case of beer and have a football game on in the background, which is ideal for some of us.
I just don't have the time and desire to learn/play/compete/commit to a huge, in-depth tactical mass battle game. The new AoS ruleset has me considering thinking about maybe entertaining the idea of trying a game because it's so much more casual.
TL;DR- different folks, different strokes. I like making models and pretending to think about playing, so AoS is fine by me.
"So,are you going to refute Vermis' points or just continue with the ad-hominem?"
You would like that wouldn't you...
But since it quite obvious that I take a more positive view of the game and Vermis takes a more negative view,I don't see the need to expand further.
its 6 mos after the big release and the haters are STILL on game forums attempting to ram home their point that AoS has failed miserably(as if whfb was rocking a huge community in the past few editions).Yet I see a slow but growing interest in those who want to try it out,a few jumping on board even.And I really should point out that its not just on game forums as im an active member of a large game club and I run game nights at the largest game shop in the city(75+ patrons in the store is normal).I hear the comments and the jabs first hand,face to face and that's fine.especially since most are from long time fantasy players that have reason to be frustrated.I played 8th as well but wasn't that invested in the game.
I also get the pleasure of telling potential new players about the hobby and the game.Kids with their mothers and fathers are always interested in what we are doing seeing all the fantastic figures on the board.Some are intrigued about the need to assemble and paint them,others are turned off by it.And of course price is an issue for some.Then theres always former players from many editions past that are interested in what it has become and most all are very positive about it.Some say they will try a game once they get an army together.
The bottom line is,its time to move on past the hate.Im sorry AoS is not what some wanted,hell I would have preferred something in between AoS and what would be 9th edition.
Hard numbers aren't available, but GW apparently suffered another drop in overall sales this past half-year, so it's clearly not blowing the doors off. The most reliable report I've seen is from Bell of Lost Souls' Larry Vela, who said the following:
Bigred wrote:What we've heard from every retailer out there was a strong robust year up until AoS hit on July 4th weekend - followed by the worst 12-week summer for GW sales they had ever seen. (One retailers said is was the worst summer of GW sales in 17 years!), followed by a leveling off and slow regrowth with the arrival of Tau. Still, not back up up to the pre AoS levels.
Several retailers told us they would never treat GW the same after that summer and are strongly diversifying product lines away from them.
I would assume that many people lost interest in GW over the summer and are slowly percolating back. Also note that Tau was never that much of a favorite army and Heresy while a wet dream for veterans is still kind of a niche within a niche for new players. If GW can kickoff 2016 with some strong popular armies getting good releases, I would expect to see interest and traffic pick up again. But Harlequins and Ad-Mech is a hard act to follow.
[...]
I'm certain GW has felt the pain of AoS behind the scenes, regardless of the public face they are putting out. Not one retailer talked about it in positive terms with us.
So, not great.
Honestly, it's hard to see how there could be any other result - AoS just doesn't have much going on to recommend it. The rules are sold as a narrative framework, but it doesn't provide any tools to that end. It just seems to operate under the daft assumption that making it impossible to be "competitive" immediately makes the game a great storytelling experience, rather than just a mess. It also doesn't help that they haven't provided a good world to tell stories in. Its not that the AoS setting lacks for background - it's got far more fluff, on a page-for-page basis as most settings at this point in their lifecycle - but what's there is just so hollow. GW isn't interested in creating anything for AoS that can't be poured into a plastic mold and sold at premium prices, and you just don't get a good world that way.
The bright side of AoS is that this is the game and the universe that GW has been wanting to make for years now. It's the ultimate expression of the confounding strategies and toxic attitude that has defined the company for close to a decade, and all indicators show that it's failed pretty spectacularly. A clear rejection by the market may cause GW to rethink its approach. In fact, there's some indication that it's already happening.
You know, I absolutely hated the idea of Age of Sigmar the minute I heard about it. It is funny that I took so much offense to it, I hadn't played a game of Fantasy for years, stopped really caring about 40k once 3rd edition ended, played some 4th and 5th just because I had armies. But, it still didn't excite me. Once I came around to the idea of Age of Sigmar... I am not going to lie, I am the most excited I have been for a game in years.
Yes, the ruleset is very bare right now, but this was a change from the ground up, and with the way armies are made I am now given complete freedom to truly make WHAT I WANT. I can give my collection any theme I want now, I can finally make my High Elf army with White Lions as my core/line units, I can use all 20 of my Shadow Warriors without worrying how much the skirmisher rules have changed for the worse. I won't spend hours upon hours reading the massive rules time that contradicts itself, has poor wording leading to rules arguments with players. It is truly a game that can be bought and played.
Yes, they leave a lot of the balancing up to the players, but it is a blank slate right now. I have been complaining about Games Workshop for years, hoping for a reason to use my High Elves, which the mid to late 90's and early 2000's are my favorite ever. Even with the absolutely stunning models that have been coming out from other companies for the other games I play, all I want to do is be able to see the jewels of my whole miniatures collection on the table again. All I can do now is just enjoy the game, give my feedback to GW and do my best to help influence Age of Sigmar for the better. The game has potential, I think that with some community support it can really kick butt.
I know not everyone will enjoy what happened to Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but I am glad I was able get over my complaining just to complain that it was gone and get out and play again. In all honesty the very loose rules pamphlet is a breath of fresh air. A lot of games coming out now have such in depth rules and subtle list building tricks and combos, that it is just so hard to get people into it and start playing. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love X-Wing, Malifaux, Warmachine and soon to be Infinity. Those games each scratch a different gaming itch, and Age of Sigmar does as well. I play so much competitive Warmachine that I get burnt out of it for a bit every now and than. I love the mental workout of Malifaux, but I also want a casual and fun beer and pretzels game with some good laughs and a rulebook that isn't 300 pages long.
If you don't like the game, good for you, there are so many options today that there will be something for you. I am ready to embrace it and see where it goes.
Bottle: are they? I wasn't aware. Didn't notice them among the old world warscrolls. Does that include all the formations, too?
Minijack wrote:You would like that wouldn't you...
Watch out, Grimtuff!
But since it quite obvious that I take a more positive view of the game and Vermis takes a more negative view,I don't see the need to expand further.
Which was the point of my post, to balance out some of the subjective hagiograph...iphising, so I'm satisfied too.
its 6 mos after the big release and the haters are STILL on game forums attempting to ram home their point that AoS has failed miserably(as if whfb was rocking a huge community in the past few editions).
The bottom line is,its time to move on past the hate.Im sorry AoS is not what some wanted,hell I would have preferred something in between AoS and what would be 9th edition.
I'd hazard WFB had a bigger community than thought, but a big part of it - including me - wasn't active because they were waiting to see if GW would pull it's head out and gradually return to sane rules and sane prices. AoS was a huge, just about irrecoverable lurch in the other direction, and an impolite gesture to any players (ex or current) who wanted that stability. It stings. You say it's been 6 months, you could also say it's only been 6 months.
And beyond that seems to be shaping up as a big, forseeable blunder - the people in your store nonwithstanding - as per Lexington's quote and other sources. Shouldn't the number of people who dislike the game, and why, be information as valid and vital to Kholek's, or anyone else's decision, as the number of people who do like it, and why?
Although judging from the parts of your post that I quoted, I'd guess not. People who disagree that it's the best thing to happen to Warhammer, who disagree with the almost spurious reasons why it's good, get dismissed as 'haters'. That pisses me off more than the game itself, and almost makes me echo Grimtuff. Almost: you can think I'm wrong, and you can just say that you think I'm wrong, with no further explanation. No probs. At least no explanation is better than a handwaving, labelling explanation.
On that note...
Its just another game...play and let play
It's a noble sentiment, but I've seen it too often recently (thank you JJ Abrams) to just skim over it. It tends to go:
"X is really good!"
"What about these big bad bits in it?"
"Oh, well, it's just..."
The impression of the given thing, from it's proponents, seems to swing from fantastic to mediocre in the space of those two little words.
NH Gunsmith wrote:
Yes, the ruleset is very bare right now, but this was a change from the ground up, and with the way armies are made I am now given complete freedom to truly make WHAT I WANT.
Yes, they leave a lot of the balancing up to the players, but it is a blank slate right now.
So GW made a game where you can play with whatever models you want; it's just that the biggest wargaming company for decades, didn't make the game very playable.
That said, I understand your enthusiasm, the ability to really shape your force with the models you want. I've been feeling it myself, lately. I've started buying and fiddling with high elves myself, among others. I'm even waiting for a box of stormcast liberators to arrive in the post.
Difference is, I'm getting all that (and a bit of structure and depth) from, and for, Dragon Rampant.
(Which is an answer to SpincycleDreadnought, too)
All I can do now is just enjoy the game, give my feedback to GW
@vermis no the formations cannot be found for free, but for each models' warscroll just find it on the webstore and there's a link to its Warscroll on the right hand side. That includes all the new models too. :-)
I'd hazard WFB had a bigger community than thought, but a big part of it - including me - wasn't active because they were waiting to see if GW would pull it's head out and gradually return to sane rules and sane prices. AoS was a huge, just about irrecoverable lurch in the other direction, and an impolite gesture to any players (ex or current) who wanted that stability. It stings. You say it's been 6 months, you could also say it's only been 6 months.
AoS wasn't an "impolite gesture". That's just you seeing what you want to see. If anything, the ability to use pretty much ALL your existing Warhammer models in AoS - with square bases! - was a fething olive branch of epic proportions. GW bent over backwards to accommodate existing and lapsed WHFB players.
And beyond that seems to be shaping up as a big, forseeable blunder - the people in your store nonwithstanding - as per Lexington's quote and other sources. Shouldn't the number of people who dislike the game, and why, be information as valid and vital to Kholek's, or anyone else's decision, as the number of people who do like it, and why?
They say opinions can't be wrong, but they can be uninformed or biased as crap. The people who dislike AoS, and have actually played the game more than one aborted experience against another bitter WHFB player, absolutely have pertinent opinions on the game they are encouraged to share in a respectful, constructive manner. But the majority of the AoS haters haven't played the game, wouldn't play the game, and never want to play the game - so their opinions on the quality of AoS is the definition of uninformed and biased. Heck, I'm even okay with them sharing their uninformed and biased opinions so long as they don't personally insult others who disagree with them.
It takes time to build a community, and due to the resentment GW built over the years and through killing WHFB, AoS has had trouble doing that. I think that right now, it is more important to be supportive of the fledgling community. We gain nothing by being bitter and angry towards other miniature gamers, and the entire market will suffer when companies become afraid to experiment and explore. There will always be friction between communities, but there's room for all. What's important is that we don't make the mini game community as a whole into one big impotent nerd rage machine.
Although judging from the parts of your post that I quoted, I'd guess not. People who disagree that it's the best thing to happen to Warhammer, who disagree with the almost spurious reasons why it's good, get dismissed as 'haters'. That pisses me off more than the game itself, and almost makes me echo Grimtuff. Almost: you can think I'm wrong, and you can just say that you think I'm wrong, with no further explanation. No probs. At least no explanation is better than a handwaving, labelling explanation.
I think the "hater" dismissal is largely used for the people who dislike AoS that have no interest in having a constructive discussion. I guess you could say that AoS fans dismiss them outright because they dismiss AoS outright. I would think that any constructive discussion to be had would begin with admitting that AoS can be appealing to some players, then move into discussion about how certain decisions made negatively impact the game, players, and community - but if someone can't even allow for the idea that liking AoS isn't wrong, childish, or stupid, then I guess I have no problems dismissing them as a "hater".
RoperPG wrote: TL;DR - don't ask the internet about AoS. Check in your local GW/FLGS/gaming clubs, see how it's doing there, make your decision based on that.
Only thing I would suggest is that on anecdotal evidence, the 'anti-AoS' brigade appear to be the majority in Aus/NZ.
US about evens depending on where you are, and appear to be the minority in Europe, particularly the UK.
Rubbish mate. Maybe in one wee building in Nottingham, but elsewhere in the UK the popularity of AoS is every bit as dependent on the local scene as the US. Thankfully it was DoA here in all but one local club, and even the GW staff have the decency to look embarrassed when they try and flog it to Realhammer fans, so I don't have to deal with it.
EDIT: And as for this "Gah, like, brah, it's totes been six months already, like, get over it brah" nonsense - matey, the Warhammer World has been one of the major focuses of my hobby/free time since I was five years old, that's 25 bloody years, and I am hardly unique, yet you expect folk to just get over it? To just ignore GW metaphorically guzzling down the fiction that made their company what it is, turning around, and spattering a massive liquid gak in our faces then holding out their hands and saying "£75 please"? Nowp. If people enjoy AoS, they enjoy it, so more power to them - that doesn't mean I have to like it, nor does it place me or anyone else under some obligation to stop expressing that opinion or to stop trying to persuade others to agree.
I like AOS and I like the Stormcast Eternals, I think they look cool and I'm having more fun painting and playing AOS then I ever did 40k. I tried WHFB many years ago with a Hordes of Chaos army and hated it. I hope AOS goes from strength to strength, the fluff is better, the models look better, they got rid of ranking models up and put them on round bases which is better and its faster paced. The only problem is GWs pricing which I won't defend. I've invested just under £200 so far and I would hate to see AOS sink as apart from the price AOS is an enjoyable game. Ok. Rant over and don't call me a GW fanboy either.....
EDIT: And as for this "Gah, like, brah, it's totes been six months already, like, get over it brah" nonsense - matey, the Warhammer World has been one of the major focuses of my hobby/free time since I was five years old, that's 25 bloody years, and I am hardly unique, yet you expect folk to just get over it? To just ignore GW metaphorically guzzling down the fiction that made their company what it is, turning around, and spattering a massive liquid gak in our faces then holding out their hands and saying "£75 please"? Nowp. If people enjoy AoS, they enjoy it, so more power to them - that doesn't mean I have to like it, nor does it place me or anyone else under some obligation to stop expressing that opinion or to stop trying to persuade others to agree.
"Spattering a massive liquid gak in our faces"? You are obviously coming from an objective and constructive place, so there is absolutely room for your impotent rage here!
It just seems to operate under the daft assumption that making it impossible to be "competitive" immediately makes the game a great storytelling experience, rather than just a mess
For me its not that it is impossible to be competitive that makes it a great storytelling experience.
Its that it is the only game that I have ever played that is truly (or seems to be truly) scenario driven.
After playing your 958th variant of pitched battle in WHFB, things got a bit stale and old. I like that the game is about doing a variety of scenarios instead of just doing the same six for years and years and years.
I tried for years. No one would ever play anything other than the core scenarios because "they weren't balanced".
9 out of 10 of the players I knew didn't even know that the rulebook HAD other scenarios in the back other than the core six tournament scenarios.
We did some Lustria campaign a couple years ago and 3/4 of our players quit because they didn't want to play in non tournament scenarios because "it wasn't fair, my army is built for tournament scenarios, and i'm at a disadvantage"
Trying to do End Times scenarios was also very difficult for the same reason.
Could you do it? Sure - nothing stopped you. Except for your community - that is all hung up on doing tournament scenarios or nothing else.
Age of Sigmar not having a core scenario is a positive in my opinion and the fact that its entirely scenario driven is what makes it feel more driven toward narrative games. We could probably argue back and forth on that all day pedantically picking out pieces but in the end you can't prove a feeling. I've watched the Kings of War players here play Kings of War and they are doing what they did in WHFB - playing the same tournament scenarios over and over again.
It just seems to operate under the daft assumption that making it impossible to be "competitive" immediately makes the game a great storytelling experience, rather than just a mess
The daft assumption is the starting premise, that it is impossible to be competitive.
Sqorgar wrote: [...] the entire market will suffer when companies become afraid to experiment and explore.
I dunno, there's not much that's "experimental" in AoS. Things like keywords and progressive damage are nice, but Warmachine's been doing both of those for over a decade now. The most radical shift in AoS is the lack of points, but that's not an experiment - it's a sales tactic that's been marketed as an experiment.
If GW were really interested in making AoS an experiment in creating a different type of tabletop narrative experience, they'd have made tools for that style of gameplay, the most important of which would be a gamemaster. Add that, give them some guidelines for creating scenarios and adding in their own participatory elements (weather, creatures, etc), and you might have something that lives halfway between traditional Warhammer and Descent. That's something to get interested in! Give it a setting that isn't crap and I'd jump in wholeheartedly!
That was never going to happen, tho, because it'd involve a player who wasn't obligated to buy miniatures, and maximizing the sale of miniatures is the unmitigated objective of AoS. Instead, they've simply taken away a barrier to sales and told us it's a gift to our own imaginations. I imagine prospective game makers are pretty able to see through that, given how many of the overall customer base have as well.
I would love a 'Dungeon Master's Guide' style book for AoS, and I think there are loads of improvements that could be made to the game - especially more in depth sourcebook materials.
At the same time, I keep cooking up cool little projects in my head and because of AoS I now own 5 armies rather than the one I had for WHFB.
It might not be revolutionary, but in comparison with WHFB I think AoS really does open up the miniatures range to allow me to dabble and collect whatever I want and bring them to the table with rules - and it is that aspect of AoS which I find exhilarating and brilliant. In fact, it is that aspect that keeps AoS as my main hobby despite the niggles I have with certain things.
I am currently finding the many comp systems are helping me scratch my competitive itch too. Once more of the traditional races get updates for AoS I think we are going to have a very nice game on our hands :-D
I dunno, there's not much that's "experimental" in AoS. Things like keywords and progressive damage are nice, but Warmachine's been doing both of those for over a decade now. The most radical shift in AoS is the lack of points, but that's not an experiment - it's a sales tactic that's been marketed as an experiment.
There are, what, ten or so somewhat popular and active miniature games on the market?
40k Warmachine / Hordes
X-Wing / Armade / Attack Wing
Malifaux
Infinity
Kings of War
Age of Sigmar
Bolt Action
Flames of War
Batman Miniatures Game
HeroClix (kinda)
Frostgrave?
And then there's the less popular miniature games, or the ones just starting out, like Gates of Antares, Deadzone / Warpath, Wrath of Kings, Dark Age, This Is Not a Test, Non-Frostgrave Osprey, etc.
The point is, you can count all the miniature games on your fingers and toes, with some toes left over. Even then, most FLGS don't carry even remotely all of them. Many only carry 40k, a few Warmachine boxes, maybe some Reaper figures, and X-Wing. There just isn't a lot of room in the industry for more than a handful of games, and even then, MOST of them exist on the fringes. Whether you like AoS or not, it's a GOOD THING(tm) that it exists. By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome. Seriously, despite there only being a handful of games out there, the sheer volume of clones is frightening.
GW tried something different. They didn't have to, and it was somewhat unwelcomed, but in the grand scheme of things, it was a great, forward thinking move that could've been done with just a little more tact and finesse.
If GW were really interested in making AoS an experiment in creating a different type of tabletop narrative experience, they'd have made tools for that style of gameplay, the most important of which would be a gamemaster. Add that, give them some guidelines for creating scenarios and adding in their own participatory elements (weather, creatures, etc), and you might have something that lives halfway between traditional Warhammer and Descent. That's something to get interested in! Give it a setting that isn't crap and I'd jump in wholeheartedly!
Age of Sigmar, perhaps more than any other miniature game currently available, is what you make it. And you apparently want to make it into a lump of coal. That's fine. You just act surprised that it's a lump of coal, when you never wanted it to be anything else. To some players - not you, obviously - Age of Sigmar represents something they can't find in other games, and they appreciate that. They looked at the lump of coal more closely, and they found a diamond.
Sqorgar wrote: By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome.
auticus wrote: After playing your 958th variant of pitched battle in WHFB, things got a bit stale and old.
And in all that time, no one in your group ever said, "Hey, let's try a scenario instead of pitched battle," until GW came along and said you could?
One of the biggest surprises for me in AoS is discovering that so much of the community won't have freedom until GW gives them no other alternative
It's quite hard to add structure to an unstructured game, it's so easy to take a structured game and make it unstructered, but it seems no one thinks to do it.
Sqorgar wrote: By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome.
I'll bite. What do you mean by this?
The games listed are clones or variations of other games. Like X-Wing and Attack Wing are variations of Wings of War. Horus Heresy is a 40k mod. Dragon Rampart is a fantasy version of Lions Rampart. Etc.
auticus wrote: After playing your 958th variant of pitched battle in WHFB, things got a bit stale and old.
And in all that time, no one in your group ever said, "Hey, let's try a scenario instead of pitched battle," until GW came along and said you could?
One of the biggest surprises for me in AoS is discovering that so much of the community won't have freedom until GW gives them no other alternative
It's quite hard to add structure to an unstructured game, it's so easy to take a structured game and make it unstructered, but it seems no one thinks to do it.
Partially true. But lets also address the other main thing with the community as a whole - very few people like to deviate from "standard". If the "standard" is you will play a set of core scenarios, few want to deviate from that standard.
If the standard is that you will play with a host of scenarios, that's the standard.
While it is more difficult to add structure to a non structured game (and i have plenty of experience in that field so agree fully) its equally difficult to get the community to deviate from what a game considers standard.
Chumbalaya wrote: So, in your view, AoS is totally unique and not derivative of anything?
Of course not. Everything is a remix. But Age of Sigmar is a direct clone/mod of anything. It at least takes inspiration from multiple, different games to create a game which has a unique experience compared to its contemporaries. It's not that Age of Sigmar does anything unique, but that Age of Sigmar is unique itself.
Sqorgar wrote:Age of Sigmar, perhaps more than any other miniature game currently available, is what you make it.
I don't really see how. Out of the box, AoS provides you a complete game product - it's just that the product is so anemic, people need to fiddle with it in order to make it work. I'm a fan of fiddling with games, especially with loosey-goosey games like what GW normally puts out, but it's not an integral part of AoS so much as a wide-spread coping mechanism
Sqorgar wrote: The games listed are clones or variations of other games.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what's supposed to be a clone of what, there. I've played, or at least read through the rules of most of the games you've listed, and none of them are any more clones of anything than AoS is a clone of 40K.
Sqorgar wrote: By the completely inbred standard of gaming we have now, the fact that AoS isn't just 40k, part 2 (see Horus Heresy, Hordes, The Other Side, Kings of War, Marvel Miniatures Game, Dragon Rampart, X-Wing/Attack Wing) is awesome. Seriously, despite there only being a handful of games out there, the sheer volume of clones is frightening.
I applaud those who have the willpower and fortitude to actually formulate counter-arguments when they see this level of wilful ignorance and circular logic, instead of just shaking their heads and immediately giving up.
Sqorgar wrote: The games listed are clones or variations of other games.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what's supposed to be a clone of what, there. I've played, or at least read through the rules of most of the games you've listed, and none of them are any more clones of anything than AoS is a clone of 40K.
I think he's claiming Hordes is a clone of Warmachine, which is odd because it's literally designed to be fully compatible with Warmachine and they are the same game in all but name, yet Hordes does have a significant difference with it's warlocks compared to warmachine's warcasters.
He's right in that winga of glory/x wing/star trek attack wig are built in the same core mechanics, as are 40k and 30k.
Other than that I don't get it. Of those othees listed I think the only other onw I have a lot od experience with is KoW, and I couldn't tell you what that is meant to be a clone of. The obvious answer is warhammer itself but I'd consider the two VERY different. Very different stat lines, blocks of troops rather than individuals moving in formation, completely different magic systems, completely different artillery sysrems.. there isn't really anything therw directly ported from WHFB, it's just that the concept is 'hownwe think WHFB should have been done right'.
The only thing that made me mad about Age of Sigmar was the fact that they stopped selling the 8th edition rulebook and armybooks.
Let's look at the positives:
1) all models from 8th edition are still available (whether that's direct only or from local retailers)
2) we can all still play 8th edition fantasy - its not like GW hit the self destruct button on our rulebooks and armybook and now they don't exist
3) local shops will still support fantasy players. My local shop stocks it still and the owner is a lover of fantasy so still holds tournaments occasionally
4) Age of Sigmar gives new players an in on our series of miniatures (with FREE rules which is awesome) and it let's veterans have another way to play for free with those rulesets
I don't play Age of Sigmar. I still play 8th edition with friends and at the local shop. I think Age of Sigmar was kind of a flop, at least locally, but I am grateful that the fantasy model range is still available to purchase. I just wish veteran players didn't just quit fantasy because its not what it used to be. I've noticed a dip in threads and activity on the Fantasy sub-forum since Age of Sigmar which is pretty disappointing. I am still happy that models are still available though and I can still collect 8th edition armies.
Sqorgar wrote: Of course not. Everything is a remix. But Age of Sigmar is a direct clone/mod of anything. It at least takes inspiration from multiple, different games to create a game which has a unique experience compared to its contemporaries. It's not that Age of Sigmar does anything unique, but that Age of Sigmar is unique itself.
I'm still not following. Is AoS not the lovechild of WHFB and 40k? Move + shoot + random charge, to hit + to wound + to save with modifications, bonus special rules for taking a certain combination of units.
I get that you like the game. You don't have to justify it to anyone. Save your energy for playing more games.
Lexington wrote: Ack, misread, thought he was talking about the initial list, with things like Infinity and Malifaux. Sorry, Sqorgar!
Nah, man. That was two different things. One was that there are only a handful of miniature games out there, and the other is that given how small the field is, there is a surprising number of clones/spinoffs. Each of the popular games have a carved out little niche, and it seems like a lot of them have sought to expand within that niche by basically being largely the same game with minor differences. It's Batman MG but with Marvel characters. It's Warmachine, but with warbeasts. It's X-Wing but with Star Trek.
My argument is that the miniature hobby is so small, and so inbred, that we should welcome any and every new game - especially the ones that try to be something different. We should welcome the opportunity to expand the borders of the hobby, as it will keep the games from getting too stagnant as well as broaden the potential audience (and thus pool of players) for the hobby.
The thing is, I think we're seeing that expansion, but from the board game side. Board games are sort of growing into miniature games (especially stuff like Imperial Assault and BattleLore), but the end result is that board games are getting more broad. People who enjoy skirmish mode with Imperial Assault aren't then moving to the more hobby-orientated miniature games. Team Covenant, for example, basically started with Monsterpocalypse (a board/mini hybrid). And when Monpoc collapsed, instead of going to the more hardcore miniature games, they went with LCGs like Netrunner and Star Wars tCG, and more board/mini hybrids like X-Wing and Imperial Assault. People, even those who paint their Imperial Assault and Mice + Mystics figures, just aren't moving to full fledged miniature games.
It was actually Age of Sigmar which got me to take the plunge. I've always been a video gamer first, but I started branching into board games when DLC and DRM made the prospects of gaming being a bit more ephemeral than I would like. I have pretty much always been envious of miniature games, and in the past have made small, unsuccessful attempts at getting into them (I had a 40k starter set that I never played). Warmachine was the closest I got, but I only played with two of my close friends - one of whom didn't buy any models and just borrowed mine. The other friend stuck with it and found a group to play with, but I didn't follow (mostly due to being a new parent at the time).
I wouldn't be here without the Age of Sigmar starter set. I wouldn't have then bought into Deadzone, Infinity, or Malifaux. Even though I was a lapsed Warmachine player (who only played with my immediate friends), it was actually Age of Sigmar which got me back into that to where I go and play with a group now. And I brought a few other people in as well, due to my excitement. So in a very real way, Age of Sigmar brought at least one new person into the world of miniatures, which then benefited multiple other games and communities. So I think if Age of Sigmar can do that with one person, it has the chance to do that for others - and though I know not everyone in this forum is thrilled to have me around, debating in every other thread, I'd say it is a net win overall.
I think there is a tendency to only look at what you have lost, and I think most of the complaints about AoS revolve around that. This is what it no longer has. This is what it no longer does. This is what we've lost through its existence. But we'll also gain things from its existence, and it won't always be immediate or obvious. And because people can't see how it benefits them, personally, right now, they don't have the foresight or patience to wait and see what they could potentially gain from it. So my argument is that whatever you think about AoS as a game, whatever you've lost from it existing, just don't treat AoS players poorly. Their existence can only be a good thing for the hobby.
Lexington wrote: Ack, misread, thought he was talking about the initial list, with things like Infinity and Malifaux. Sorry, Sqorgar!
Nah, man. That was two different things. One was that there are only a handful of miniature games out there, and the other is that given how small the field is, there is a surprising number of clones/spinoffs. Each of the popular games have a carved out little niche, and it seems like a lot of them have sought to expand within that niche by basically being largely the same game with minor differences. It's Batman MG but with Marvel characters. It's Warmachine, but with warbeasts. It's X-Wing but with Star Trek.
My argument is that the miniature hobby is so small, and so inbred, that we should welcome any and every new game - especially the ones that try to be something different. We should welcome the opportunity to expand the borders of the hobby, as it will keep the games from getting too stagnant as well as broaden the potential audience (and thus pool of players) for the hobby.
The thing is, I think we're seeing that expansion, but from the board game side. Board games are sort of growing into miniature games (especially stuff like Imperial Assault and BattleLore), but the end result is that board games are getting more broad. People who enjoy skirmish mode with Imperial Assault aren't then moving to the more hobby-orientated miniature games. Team Covenant, for example, basically started with Monsterpocalypse (a board/mini hybrid). And when Monpoc collapsed, instead of going to the more hardcore miniature games, they went with LCGs like Netrunner and Star Wars tCG, and more board/mini hybrids like X-Wing and Imperial Assault. People, even those who paint their Imperial Assault and Mice + Mystics figures, just aren't moving to full fledged miniature games.
It was actually Age of Sigmar which got me to take the plunge. I've always been a video gamer first, but I started branching into board games when DLC and DRM made the prospects of gaming being a bit more ephemeral than I would like. I have pretty much always been envious of miniature games, and in the past have made small, unsuccessful attempts at getting into them (I had a 40k starter set that I never played). Warmachine was the closest I got, but I only played with two of my close friends - one of whom didn't buy any models and just borrowed mine. The other friend stuck with it and found a group to play with, but I didn't follow (mostly due to being a new parent at the time).
I wouldn't be here without the Age of Sigmar starter set. I wouldn't have then bought into Deadzone, Infinity, or Malifaux. Even though I was a lapsed Warmachine player (who only played with my immediate friends), it was actually Age of Sigmar which got me back into that to where I go and play with a group now. And I brought a few other people in as well, due to my excitement. So in a very real way, Age of Sigmar brought at least one new person into the world of miniatures, which then benefited multiple other games and communities. So I think if Age of Sigmar can do that with one person, it has the chance to do that for others - and though I know not everyone in this forum is thrilled to have me around, debating in every other thread, I'd say it is a net win overall.
I think there is a tendency to only look at what you have lost, and I think most of the complaints about AoS revolve around that. This is what it no longer has. This is what it no longer does. This is what we've lost through its existence. But we'll also gain things from its existence, and it won't always be immediate or obvious. And because people can't see how it benefits them, personally, right now, they don't have the foresight or patience to wait and see what they could potentially gain from it. So my argument is that whatever you think about AoS as a game, whatever you've lost from it existing, just don't treat AoS players poorly. Their existence can only be a good thing for the hobby.
Yep, we have Stormcast Eternals now, which never existed in WHFB!!!
Team Covenant, for example, basically started with Monsterpocalypse (a board/mini hybrid). And when Monpoc collapsed, instead of going to the more hardcore miniature games, they went with LCGs like Netrunner and Star Wars tCG, and more board/mini hybrids like X-Wing and Imperial Assault.
There is this little interesting story of what happened before they got into LCGs and after monsterpocalypse died. They tried Warmachine and got a royal fething up the behind from PP. They made an online statement/explanation about what happened with their WM scene. It's a nice little video that I give to people sometimes when they complain about GW's trade practices
There is this little interesting story of what happened before they got into LCGs and after monsterpocalypse died. They tried Warmachine and got a royal fething up the behind from PP. They made an online statement/explanation about what happened with their WM scene. It's a nice little video that I give to people sometimes when they complain about GW's trade practices
You know, I vaguely remember that. The video never said what they did wrong to piss off PP, and I've never seen PP act like that towards any other shop or fansite. I remember thinking that there was more to the story than they were telling us. Did they ever say what the cause was?
But I guess they have a reason why they stuck with board games instead of moving into miniatures (though with Asmodee/FFG pulling GW-level moves, they may have back the wrong horse again)
There is this little interesting story of what happened before they got into LCGs and after monsterpocalypse died. They tried Warmachine and got a royal fething up the behind from PP. They made an online statement/explanation about what happened with their WM scene. It's a nice little video that I give to people sometimes when they complain about GW's trade practices
You know, I vaguely remember that. The video never said what they did wrong to piss off PP, and I've never seen PP act like that towards any other shop or fansite. I remember thinking that there was more to the story than they were telling us. Did they ever say what the cause was?
But I guess they have a reason why they stuck with board games instead of moving into miniatures (though with Asmodee/FFG pulling GW-level moves, they may have back the wrong horse again)
IIRC, they stated that they did nothing wrong, but there was another store (or chain) in town that was competing for PP distribution and somehow persuaded hq to completely shut TC down. I'm not 100% sure about this, as it was a long time ago, but the video is still on their channel.
IIRC, they stated that they did nothing wrong, but there was another store (or chain) in town that was competing for PP distribution and somehow persuaded hq to completely shut TC down. I'm not 100% sure about this, as it was a long time ago, but the video is still on their channel.
Some internet searching found this unsourced, unconfirmed commentary. Of the things listed, it seems most likely the selling of items well below MSRP online that got them cut off.
That's very interesting. So they were trying to pull the Wayland trick (as I recall, they also used to list everything as in stock and then order it after you pay them) and got shafted for it
I tried age of sigmar and didnt like it much so i moved to 40k. a couple of weeks ago i heard about 9th age and played a couple of games of it. I enjoyed it alot and it even caused me to buy some whfb models again. what i like most about it is that i can for the most part use models that were considered bad in whfb like my corpse cart or the witch hunters from the empire army.
Khrolek wrote: Is Fantasy dead? Do GW no longer stock Fantasy? I know this one depends on the store, but do GW stores even allow Fantasy anymore? Can someone tell me what's going on?
I share your confusion. I've just now started getting into the lore of the WHFB and now apparently everything is blown up?
Does anybody know where I could get a good overall summary of the new setting?
Khrolek wrote: Is Fantasy dead? Do GW no longer stock Fantasy? I know this one depends on the store, but do GW stores even allow Fantasy anymore? Can someone tell me what's going on?
I share your confusion. I've just now started getting into the lore of the WHFB and now apparently everything is blown up?
Does anybody know where I could get a good overall summary of the new setting?
Yup, everything is gone. the current setting is several thousand years later, although a lot of named characters are still around.
For the background on what happened to destroy the old world, you can purchase the End of Times background without the WHFB rules from BL.
There are a few novels out for AoS, along with the two or three sourcebooks and a few army books. Everything in the current set of writing is pretty sparse, they only focus on what is current model/army releases. (there is no summation on each individual army that hasn't had a re-release yet, and only a few vague hints as to what their status may or may not be.)
from all the reading you can get a rough idea what the following armies are currently doing. Stormcast Eternals, Skaven, Seraphon (lizardmen renamed,) Sylvaneth (dryad and tree faction from wood Elves renamed,) Khorne, Malignants (Undead renamed,) Nurgle, and a smattering of Slannesh, Aelf (Elves renamed,) And Steamhead Duradin (Dwarfs renamed.)
).
