The implementation of AOS, the game itself is a good idea but it should have been released alongside WHFB instead of totally replacing it in my opinion.

I feel sort of similar to this. IMO, they clearly needed to do something about Fantasy. By most accounts, it wasn't making them money and was showing all downward trends (again - that's just according to what we've all "heard" on the internet but it kind of makes sense), so yeah, something needed to give.

Many felt that the issue with Fantasy was that it was, in fact, Fantasy as opposed to a sic-fi setting like 40k. However, if you look around at other places in the industry, there are multiple examples of Fantasy based, non-sc-fi games doing fairly well. Admittedly the companies making those games don't have the overhead of a GW, nor the stock holders to please but they are successful non-the-less. On top of that, Fantasy's replacement is still ... basically a "Fantasy" bad setting so that whole theory is out the window.

That leaves what I think are the real reasons. First there's cost; cost in terms of actual money, cost in terms of time spent building/painting, and cost spent in rules that many seemed to dislike. Add to that how high the barrier to entry could be for Warhammer Fantasy and you just have a recipe for disaster.

The End Times campaign showed that, when done right, the existing players will buy new Fantasy merchandise. They also showed that when GW puts it's mind to it, it come up with some cool stuff (the ultimate destruction of the Old World not withstanding). In my opinion, what they should have done was this:

1. Use the End Times campaign to put an end to the current edition. Kill off some characters if you must. Make some dramatic changes to the typography of the setting if you need to, but ultimately, use it to bring in a new edition. Do NOT destroy the setting.

2. Keep everything in Fantasy on "square bases"

3. Make sure everything in "AoS" fits in the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy

4. Introduce AoS as an introduction game to the new edition: "Here's the intro set of rules for free", and "you can start a force for very little cost and play AoS rules until you have enough models to play the full "Warhammer Fantasy Battle Rules" which can be found in this rulebook for purchase at your local LGS".

5. Fix all the rules issues players had with the latest edition

6. Profit.

This solution would have given them an avenue to significantly lower the barrier for entry into Fantasy while also allowing them to not have to completely scrap everything. It would also have given them a skirmish style version of Fantasy that could quickly scale up to work in actual Fantasy. So yeah, I feel like the way they implemented AoS was the biggest flub.

I feel that people are giving GW a bit too much credit, even in saying that AoS was a good idea, badly implemented. WFB may have been on the ropes, and...

Tycho wrote:
something needed to give

... but that was a no-brainer. It was not a 'good idea' in itself to fix the dying WFB, it was obvious. And even though all evidence points to GW collectively having no brain anyway, in terms of market research specifically, it somehow filtered down to them that folk wished they would reduce the startup costs for the game. (That being just one problem with the last couple of editions of WFB)

That would be a good thing, but it wasn't a good idea, existing in a vacuum. It was only one part of an overall idea. The other parts? The 'implementations'?

They implemented the destruction of the old world. Someone had the idea to destroy the old world.

They implemented the tossing out of points values or any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces. Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

They implemented the replacement of the core rules with four pages of bupkis, to be padded out with yet more special, arbitrary rules. Someone had the idea of replacing the core rules with four pages of bupkis, to be padded out with yet more special, arbitrary rules.

And so on, and so on, etc. You know the words. See where I'm going with this? In the whole bad idea morass of AoS, how does one solitary, almost neutral point, turn it into a good idea?

A smaller game, with smaller startup costs, could've been a good idea. AoS was not it.

 Vermis wrote:
Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

£10 on that someone being Jervis.

I think the way Age of Sigmar was handled was the problem. If it released as a separate game and was there as a skirmish alternative to Fantasy as opposed to its sole replacement, that would have been really nice. You'd get Fantasy players trying AoS, AoS players trying Fantasy, and you'd still be able to channel sales of WHFB related products (such as the upcoming Total War game) back into Fantasy sales.

I would say the biggest mistake wasn't one mistake but a combination of them.

Killing Fantasy
Age of Sigmar
Less options in some new kits and making them mono pose (looking at you space marine commander)
Increased kit prices
limited edition kits with special rules
not balancing the game
lack of support for certain armies
No new Sisters of Battle
Cult Mechanicus and Skitarii not a single codex/army (and no CAD or formation with objective secured)

 Vermis wrote:

They implemented the tossing out of points values or any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces. Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

with the exception of organising ahead of time, and discussing and coming to terms with your opponent as to what would be cool to put down in the context of a cool and thematic scenario. And then run with it from there. Its about diy gaming. It's a shift in perception for sure, but it's not necessarily bad, in and of itself. Hidtorical players have been doing this for decades.The problem is with this approach, while it can be immensely fun and rewarding, and while it can work with like minded folks in a 'basemeant' setting, it's value for pick up games and tourneys is a lot less. But then, one can argue that gw isn't interested in tourneys, and players should organise themselves a bit better. I do think the biggest problem however is that it's a style of gaming that a lot of people aren't familiar with, and because of that, aren't interested in.

As an aside, do forces 'need' to be balanced? Don't get me wrong - it definitely helps, and it's definitely a good thing (and something that I will look for in a Wargame, before you get any ideas ), especially in pick up games, but I'm just as interested in an 'interesting' scenario as I am in a perfectly balanced scenario. A game based on thermopaly will result in the Spartans dying regardless. 'Winning' for them is academic, they're all dead after all. But you can still build it and run it as an 'interesting' scenario and see how well you can hold off the Persians for a time.

 Vermis wrote:
I
They implemented the replacement of the core rules with four pages of bupkis, to be padded out with yet more special, arbitrary rules. Someone had the idea of replacing the core rules with four pages of bupkis, to be padded out with yet more special, arbitrary rules.

Those four pages of rules are a huge plus to people too though. Don't get me wrong, I like my wargames to be intricate, and with lots of moving parts, but this same thing will make others run a mile. Some people like the simplicity of it, along with thr war scrolls and whatnot.

 Vermis wrote:

And so on, and so on, etc. You know the words. See where I'm going with this? In the whole bad idea morass of AoS, how does one solitary, almost neutral point, turn it into a good idea?

What's bad to you or I isn't bad to someone else though.

 Vermis wrote:

A smaller game, with smaller startup costs, could've been a good idea. AoS was not it.

I dunno. I think Aos has game. It's not a game for me, personally and I'll explain my reasonings if you wish. But I think it caters to very 'specialised' tastes, and while it has merit, isn't necessarily a good replacement for the game that it replaced, and the people who that game appealed to. It certainly isn't the gsme that s lot of people were looking for, but considering that, it has drawn its adherents. Whether Aos can grab enough of a player pool to become somewhat self sustaining in the long term however, or whether it doesn't, and gw takes it out the back, and puts a bullet in it and buries it next to wfb is anyone's guess.

It was not a 'good idea' in itself to fix the dying WFB, it was obvious.

It was, apparently not so obvious as we may have wished though. GW didn't actually even try to "fix" the dying WFB. They killed it. Gone. Dead. Buried. That's the thing. As you say, "A smaller game, with smaller startup costs, could've been a good idea." It certainly would have been, and AoS COULD have been it. AoS in and of itself, the "idea" of AoS, is not what was bad. The fact that they annihilated a gaming legend in WFB, and replaced it with a sad, strange, half-thought of a game in AoS was the mistake.

 vipoid wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

£10 on that someone being Jervis.

That... would not surprise me.

The other thing about getting rid of points is that it drastically cuts down on the time GW might otherwise have to spend on balancing forces... or at least get rid of the folks growling that GW wasn't spending the time needed to balance those forces.

The Auld Grump

TheAuldGrump
The other thing about getting rid of points is that it drastically cuts down on the time GW might otherwise have to spend on balancing forces... or at least get rid of the folks growling that GW wasn't spending the time needed to balance those forces.

Wow. I never even stopped to think about that, but you're right. With points values they at least had to pretend to try and keep things within a certain range. There was at least an incentive/precedent to keep things semi-balanced, and even with all that, they still botched the balance horribly on a few things. Now they've removed the one mechanic that forced them to even THINK about balance. Ugh.

With that in mind, it will be really interesting to see where AoS ends up in the next year or two ...

Not calling AoS "Warhammer Fantasy: Age of Sigmar"

This would have been enough to appease the masses into thinking that warhammer fantasy wasn't thrown in the trash bin.

Also, I would have started warhammer fantasy: Age of Sigmar on a smaller scale. I'm still not sure what the struggles of the comman man are in this new age which makes it hard to relate to the setting.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

£10 on that someone being Jervis.

That... would not surprise me.

The other thing about getting rid of points is that it drastically cuts down on the time GW might otherwise have to spend on balancing forces... or at least get rid of the folks growling that GW wasn't spending the time needed to balance those forces.

The Auld Grump

If it wasn't for the massive number of fiddly little special rules, it would be simple to design an algorithm to calculate the points value of an AoS unit.

The special rules are increasingly a problem. Like at the new Dwarfadin FyreSlayers. They have a couple of rules like if they are within 12 inches of a leader and roll a 3+ on To Hit, then one hit becomes Mortal, or something. (The details are too tedious to bother to remember.)

This kind of "Gotta Catch 'Em All" approach is fantastic for 10 year old boys who delight in Top Trumps cards and the like. And to be fair, there are a lot of 10 year old boys in the world. It's just that everyone isn't a 10 year old boy and maybe a game could actually not have to primarily appeal to them by its peripheral mechanisms.

Tycho wrote:

TheAuldGrump
The other thing about getting rid of points is that it drastically cuts down on the time GW might otherwise have to spend on balancing forces... or at least get rid of the folks growling that GW wasn't spending the time needed to balance those forces.

Wow. I never even stopped to think about that, but you're right. With points values they at least had to pretend to try and keep things within a certain range. There was at least an incentive/precedent to keep things semi-balanced, and even with all that, they still botched the balance horribly on a few things. Now they've removed the one mechanic that forced them to even THINK about balance. Ugh.

Yup.

From one PoV, it makes sense: let the players decide, and let them play the game they want to play. Whatever we do is going to be wrong to some people. So let them do it.Let them make the 'balance' in their games that they are so earnest about. We should not interfere. (And by the way, we save on development costs and wasted time, and put all our effort into productive use of our minions in designing toy soldiers!) at first glance, kind of fair enough. I suppose.

The problem with this approach is not very one wants to deal with the the newly designed and unofficial 'negotiation phase' of the game. Not everyone wants a game where the basic tenet is 'compromise with your opponent, and give him a veto over your stuff in terms of what's acceptable or not'. Not everyone wants a game where what they can put on the tabletop depends almost entirely on their opponent acquiescing and enabling them and saying 'yeah that's cool'. Thry might not even be the villains in the story either. I enjoy diy gaming immensely, love building my scenarios and crafting a story into the objectives and building 'appropriate' army lists that act as good match ups with each other and connect and fit in with the story, but it takes a lot of effort, and frankly, I don't want to do it all the time as a basic requirement of my games.There is great value in being able to play 'right out of the box', and if this isn't catered to, people won't 'deal with' or 'adapt' the product, they'll just say 'nah, this gsme isn't for me' and walk away.

Another big mistake with the AOS release, as I'm noticing it today with the first images of the Fireslayers (I'm not using the "kewl" misspelling), is the upsizing of the range as a whole. I just don't see the value in separating out the game's scale from the existing Fantasy stuff. It almost seems like an attempt to drag people into buying new miniatures- not because they look better, but because they're out-of-sync with everything else.

This is certainly not the biggest issue with AOS, but I think it compounds with all the others to give off a "...why?" impression of the game overall.

Tycho wrote:

TheAuldGrump
The other thing about getting rid of points is that it drastically cuts down on the time GW might otherwise have to spend on balancing forces... or at least get rid of the folks growling that GW wasn't spending the time needed to balance those forces.

Wow. I never even stopped to think about that, but you're right. With points values they at least had to pretend to try and keep things within a certain range. There was at least an incentive/precedent to keep things semi-balanced, and even with all that, they still botched the balance horribly on a few things. Now they've removed the one mechanic that forced them to even THINK about balance. Ugh.

With that in mind, it will be really interesting to see where AoS ends up in the next year or two ...

Well, it's not like they have made a huge effort to balance things since around 5th ed WFB or 3rd ed 40k.
Anybody who played WFB in 7th edition with its super-imposed tiers shows just how wonky their army books get.
40k 3rd power crept special codexes to a ridiculous level with Blood Angels and Space Wolves going over the top as prime examples.
And that repeated in 4th and 5th. Skaven in Mordheim were OP out the gate despite their points values.
I don't think GW have put serious effort into balancing things points-wise for at least 15 years.

The biggest mistake was GW not fully committing to the AoS concept by radically streamlining unit rules. AoS Battlescrolls are about 3x more complex than they should be. Had GW simplified the units like the core rules, AoS would be truly outstanding, instead of merely the best idea GW's had in a long time.

Age of Sigmar might have been better received if it had been a supplement to, instead of a replacement of Warhammer. A sort of revised Mordheim instead of replacement for a mass battle system.

So yeah, blowing up the old World ranks as their #1 cock-up. Hasbro/WotC did the same exact thing with 4E, and White Wolf with their World of Darkness line.

Not having some army building system in AoS. Not having a standard army of some kind makes it harder to play pick up games, play outside of your group or to build a new group.

I think we'll see WFB back in 2017 at the latest. Biggest reason is that KoW is stealing long time WFB players rather than them converting to AoS as planned.

AoS is just completely the wrong step for somebody with decades invested in their army and the WFB rules. I'd wish they'd just punted the WFB rules to FW or FFG rather than kill it.

The fact that Total Warhammer exists suggests that the move to kill WFB came out of nowhere, otherwise it'd be Total AoS.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The biggest mistake was GW not fully committing to the AoS concept by radically streamlining unit rules. AoS Battlescrolls are about 3x more complex than they should be. Had GW simplified the units like the core rules, AoS would be truly outstanding, instead of merely the best idea GW's had in a long time.

Well, I think the battle scrolls are fine. We didn't have problems using them so far.
The real issues are the lack of balancing and lack of proper missions. Just throwing the units into the centre into a grand melee isn't enough.

Wouldn't AoS be perfect as an introduction or expansion to WHFB? Like someone before me said, why not just go forward in time or something?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

£10 on that someone being Jervis.

That... would not surprise me.

The other thing about getting rid of points is that it drastically cuts down on the time GW might otherwise have to spend on balancing forces... or at least get rid of the folks growling that GW wasn't spending the time needed to balance those forces.

The Auld Grump

If it wasn't for the massive number of fiddly little special rules, it would be simple to design an algorithm to calculate the points value of an AoS unit.

The special rules are increasingly a problem. Like at the new Dwarfadin FyreSlayers. They have a couple of rules like if they are within 12 inches of a leader and roll a 3+ on To Hit, then one hit becomes Mortal, or something. (The details are too tedious to bother to remember.)

This kind of "Gotta Catch 'Em All" approach is fantastic for 10 year old boys who delight in Top Trumps cards and the like. And to be fair, there are a lot of 10 year old boys in the world. It's just that everyone isn't a 10 year old boy and maybe a game could actually not have to primarily appeal to them by its peripheral mechanisms.

I really really disagree with this - one of the strengths of the new AOS rules was the idea of synergy which has been successfully proved by a variety of systems from Heroscape (which is IMO a better version of AOS), through Warmachine/Hordes and Malifaux.

Unless you feel that those games also "only appeal to 10 year old boys."

I love the Warhammer background and continue to do so - I hoped that AOS would be great and it was nearly so but just isn't good enough - I feel there were lots of good ideas but the lack of points system has really crushed it - along with the usual GW lack of FAQs etc and the price of new models.

 Matthew wrote:
Wouldn't AoS be perfect as an introduction or expansion to WHFB? Like someone before me said, why not just go forward in time or something?

If WHFB would be restored, it would be a system competing with AoS and provide a total mess. I think (and this has been said elsewhere a few times) GW is more into three systems AoS, 40k, and HH (combined with FW).

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The biggest mistake was GW not fully committing to the AoS concept by radically streamlining unit rules. AoS Battlescrolls are about 3x more complex than they should be. Had GW simplified the units like the core rules, AoS would be truly outstanding, instead of merely the best idea GW's had in a long time.

I agree with this and I would argue that by streamlining the scroll and the combat sequence down to two rolls, GW would have saved time, space and comlexity that could have been used to add more of a command and control aspect, giving more tactical interest.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

£10 on that someone being Jervis.

That... would not surprise me.

The other thing about getting rid of points is that it drastically cuts down on the time GW might otherwise have to spend on balancing forces... or at least get rid of the folks growling that GW wasn't spending the time needed to balance those forces.

The Auld Grump

The removal of Jervis and his acolytes from the design studio would turn around GWs fortunes far more than anything else they can do.

In view of JJ, I complete agree that a new head of the ''game'' design unit could be an improvement. How about getting back Andy Chambers?

 vipoid wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Someone had the idea of tossing out points values and any other discernable, balanced method of structuring forces.

£10 on that someone being Jervis.

Most likely. Jervis always was against points and balanced, competitive play for whatever reason, likely his own experiences as a wargamer; he seems old enough to have been part of the old grognard historical crowd, which is amusing because so was Rick Priestly and others who used to be with GW (Nigel Stillman springs to mind, who actually WROTE historical books for the WRG, and apparently is/was an archaeologist, sounds like a freaking awesome dude all around) and they seemed to want a balance between the two, even if Nigel had some "odd" views of army construction (his "Stillmania: Questing for the Grail" trilogy on collecting a Bretonnian army is one of my most tresured White Dwarfs, to the point I tracked it down years after losing my own copies). It was always Jervis alone who had the idea that one should trump the other and that in-game randomness was a good, wholesome thing that made the battle more "enjoyable" for everyone involved. It begs the question of just what kind of wargaming experiences he must have had as a lad...

The decision not to have points was taken by Alan Merrett. A number of points systems were created for AoS by Jervis et al, but Alan Merrett would not move on that position.

Personally I don't think it needs points. There are points in 40k, and that is a complete joke, a total illusion. However, I think it might have been helpful to give things 'Ranks' so there was a rough sense of comparability when trying to work out what to field.

Bartali wrote:
The removal of Jervis and his acolytes from the design studio would turn around GWs fortunes far more than anything else they can do.

If he isn't replaced by someone worse. Or at all...

GW is the kinda company I could see tasking customer service with game design if they really wanted to, because it seems GW is under the belief that the game doesn't matter at all and the models sell themselves anyway.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Bartali wrote:
The removal of Jervis and his acolytes from the design studio would turn around GWs fortunes far more than anything else they can do.

If he isn't replaced by someone worse.

I'm not sure that's even possible.

 vipoid wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

Bartali wrote:
The removal of Jervis and his acolytes from the design studio would turn around GWs fortunes far more than anything else they can do.

If he isn't replaced by someone worse.

I'm not sure that's even possible.

JJ should switch places with ye ol' SM statue. Stick him under the stairs.

Is Jervis the current whipping boy then?

Gav Thorpe>Matt Ward>Jervis?

Blame the company, not the individuals, I reckon.

Jervis Johnson created Blood Bowl, Advanced Heroquest and Epic Armageddon amongst others.

I think they call that pedigree.

Is Jervis the current whipping boy then?

Gav Thorpe>Matt Ward>Jervis?

Blame the company, not the individuals, I reckon.

notprop

Jervis Johnson created Blood Bowl, Advanced Heroquest and Epic Armageddon amongst others.

I think they call that pedigree.

QFT. Jervis has done some pretty cool things over the years. While I also have to admit to occasionally having a laugh at some if the things he wrote in those Standard Bearer articles, we don't REALLY know who is doing what over there so it's probably a bit unfair to lay all the blame at the feet of a single person just because they're the most visible.

Tycho wrote:

Is Jervis the current whipping boy then?

Gav Thorpe>Matt Ward>Jervis?

Blame the company, not the individuals, I reckon.

notprop

Jervis Johnson created Blood Bowl, Advanced Heroquest and Epic Armageddon amongst others.

I think they call that pedigree.

QFT. Jervis has done some pretty cool things over the years. While I also have to admit to occasionally having a laugh at some if the things he wrote in those Standard Bearer articles, we don't REALLY know who is doing what over there so it's probably a bit unfair to lay all the blame at the feet of a single person just because they're the most visible.

While it's true that we don't really know who is responsible for what at the moment in GW's decision making, it is also true that one should never excuse someone's contemporary blunders based on previously successful endeavours, just like one can't do the reverse.

The irony is that AOS not having points makes it interesting from a narrative standpoint (if the game itself wasn't complete gak, of course). It makes it slightly easier to come up with weird, themed scenarios with unique victory conditions. That, in and of itself, is a good thing, although I strongly disagree with the fact it's the only "official" way to do things, as games also need to have a balanced way to just throw down (e.g. pick-up games).

While it's true that we don't really know who is responsible for what at the moment in GW's decision making, it is also true that one should never excuse someone's contemporary blunders based on previously successful endeavours, just like one can't do the reverse.

I agree with that and I'm certainly not excusing him any of his blunders either. Like I said, I found many (if not most) of his Standard Bearer articles to be real head scratchers. "Really Jervis? You're going to spend two whole pages of this fairly expensive magazine telling me how you once pouted through a game and that we shouldn't act that way?" Yeah. No.

The way I look at it is like this:

Look at the "Matt Ward Era" of codex writing. Many people hated it. They thought his books were over-powered and his fluff silly and out of place. I actually really liked his books. A lot. The reminded me of 2nd ed when the game had a twist of Grimm Dark, but wasn't taking itself so seriously. For me, the issue wasn't the codexes Ward wrote. It was the codexes he DIDN'T write. So you have the people who liked him and the people who didn't.The thing about that is, both groups of players were right in their own way. The real issue was the company itself. You can't have your writers/designers all taking such radically different philosophies on things as vital as actual rules writing. You need to create some form of institutional control on things so that everyone is free to write to their own styles while still keeping the rules within a certain set of parameters. So ultimately, that era was the company's fault. Not Matt Ward. He just got slammed so hard because he was a visible name. That's more the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
it is also true that one should never excuse someone's contemporary blunders based on previously successful endeavours, just like one can't do the reverse.

Could say the same about GW as a whole really.

I would say the idea of AoS was a bad idea, rebooting the WHFB world was not a bad idea, it was needed to consolidate most of the armies.
The problem was how bad the game is with its unclear rules, poor balance

 Matthew wrote:
Wouldn't AoS be perfect as an introduction or expansion to WHFB? Like someone before me said, why not just go forward in time or something?

In the same way that food poisoning would be the perfect introduction to Taco Bell, yes.

I agree that a smaller scale introductory game would have been a good idea - something akin to Mordheim, with small warbands doing battle.

But AoS?

No.

Taken on its own, even discounting the fact that it represents killing of a setting with decades of fond memories... the game just is not that good.

Not complaining about the length - there are some very good, very short, rules out there. (One Page Bulge, anyone?)

The core rules of Kings of War are very short - and I consider it to be vastly superior to every version of WHFB from fourth onwards. (Though fourth was the version that I actually played the most.)

But AoS... from the lack of balancing units, to the way that movement and bases, and miniatures are handled to the special cases for each and every unit... no, just not a well thought out rule set.

It looked and felt like something written on the back of a trayliner at a fast food restaurant, then never really worked on much past that point. (Hey, I write rules on the back of trayliners... it is an important part of my design process - but I also take a look at them before running with them afterwards.)

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* For the record - I think that Jervis might be the most fun person at GW to play games with - but even during the Blood Bowl days, he would say that winning and losing were not all that important to him - as he fielded an all halfling Blood Bowl team.... *EDIT 2* When somebody tells you that he doesn't care about winning - and fields an all halfling Blood Bowl team - he is telling the truth.

Balance is something better handled by a team (or even a committee) than a single designer - it is what playtesting is for.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Balance is something better handled by a team (or even a committee) than a single designer - it is what playtesting is for.

Also probably better handled by people who DO want to win, so much the better to figure out what the broken things are and get them out of there before it's too late.

 tomjoad wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Balance is something better handled by a team (or even a committee) than a single designer - it is what playtesting is for.

Also probably better handled by people who DO want to win, so much the better to figure out what the broken things are and get them out of there before it's too late.

It's funny, I hear a lot of '40k isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to be fun'. As someone who enjoys thematic and story driven games, I have more fun with Malifaux and Infinity which are pretty well balanced than I ever did with 40k.

Balanced doesn't mean it's no longer fun.

 -Loki- wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Balance is something better handled by a team (or even a committee) than a single designer - it is what playtesting is for.

Also probably better handled by people who DO want to win, so much the better to figure out what the broken things are and get them out of there before it's too late.

It's funny, I hear a lot of '40k isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to be fun'. As someone who enjoys thematic and story driven games, I have more fun with Malifaux and Infinity which are pretty well balanced than I ever did with 40k.

Balanced doesn't mean it's no longer fun.

My thoughts exactly.
I'm a narrative fluff guy, but I also need a fair fight to have fun. One sided either way ruins it for me. Infinity has awesome scenarios and Malifaux's has very story-driven scenarios.

The fact that FFG makes rpgs, card games etc..and other companies still make video games set in the old world and that they are popular should have clued GW in that the problem with warhammer FB wasnt the setting. it was the rules. IMO the problem with AoS is the setting, not entirely the rules ( though if you took off the GW logo and someone else had produced it, AoS would never have had a chance, even kickstarter wouldnt have pulled it off)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

It's funny, I hear a lot of '40k isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to be fun'. As someone who enjoys thematic and story driven games, I have more fun with Malifaux and Infinity which are pretty well balanced than I ever did with 40k.

Balanced doesn't mean it's no longer fun.

My thoughts exactly.
I'm a narrative fluff guy, but I also need a fair fight to have fun. One sided either way ruins it for me. Infinity has awesome scenarios and Malifaux's has very story-driven scenarios.

I'm another that has switched to Malifaux and I agree with you two fully. The game tells a story in a way I didn't feel like 40k did any more, and I think that is largely due to the fact that it is well balanced, well designed, and fun enough that you don't end up bogged down in extraneous messes (like Formations and Tau/Eldar and poorly worded rules) at anywhere near the same rate.

I think it's rather interesting (and slightly amusing) that AoS tops the lists of both the best and worst ideas of GW in the two threads.

Clearly a very divisive subject

The fractured old-world fluff in AOS seems to have been a major foul-up.

Since you brought game designers I feel GW has a serious issue of not having game developers!

From interviews from GW ex game designers Jervis is regarded in high esteem and he might be a good game designer, but he probably cannot develop his designs in a good product.

Nice to see the issue of different approaches in codexes and army books been touched, in various stages of GWs history in all its game systems there was a dominant writer whose armies were overpowered, not exactly because he made the armies he liked overpowered but because the other designers assigned to other books were either more timid, less resourceful, less ambitious, or some other reason.

The studio never had the consistency a game developer would give, nobody to stand see codex A and codex B and say "these two seem to be from a different league, you spice it up, you tone it down".

Andy Chambers mentioned above has always gave me mixed feelings, at the end of second edition and a huge humble pie he managed to develop 2nd edition into something playable, it took him the best part of a decade, a huge amount of balance addressing FAQ, almost a rewrite of some sections of the rules and a complete rewrite of codex space marines, but he managed to deliver in the end a playable system, still the under-powered codexes (the ones he didn't write) needed OP combos to be relevant, but they kinda competed, 3rd and 4th had the same issues all over again, just never had the time to be balanced.

AC work in game design was better as a game designer delivering the fluff of the game, he did good work there and many of his background is still the plinth of the 40k mythos, although the thing I never forgave him was his last work the abomination Necros where (this single codex stopped my enjoying 40k, not because it was op, not because it was game breaking, but because it killed the established fluff in a bad way).

I am waiting to see the work he does in dropfleet to see what his work can deliver.

 Talys wrote:
I think it's rather interesting (and slightly amusing) that AoS tops the lists of both the best and worst ideas of GW in the two threads.

Clearly a very divisive subject

As someone wrote previously, GW's own Schrodinger's cat xD

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I would say the idea of AoS was a bad idea, rebooting the WHFB world was not a bad idea, it was needed to consolidate most of the armies.
The problem was how bad the game is with its unclear rules, poor balance

I have a feeling that AoS would have had more supporters if they at least had kept the Old World alive and kicking. The Old World going kaboom only widened the chasm between pro and anti AoS groups.

By the sheer bitterness it has caused, Age of Sigmar by a country mile.

How about renaming everything, in a vain attempt to have everything as IP?

Commander Baddus Latinus of the Whosimus Wasitosi!

The Auld grump

Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.

FWIW I played WFB from 1st-6th edition, and stopped at 7th because lack of players and honestly boredom with WFB. I have played a few games of AoS, and its a better system in many ways with a few "agreed upon rules" between players.

despite my personal opinion that WFB sales had been bad for so long, and AoS sales are good currently means it was not a bad decision.

The worst decision GW made in 2015 was the idea of detachments with formations within them. The first codex, non-supplement, release in 2015 was Necrons which was the first to see such an army layout. The 'decurion' change the way people wanted army layouts, and brought a new level of power into the game effectively dividing 7th into 7.5 where 5 codexes and 5 more supplements were made using different rules and powerlevels in mind for generating an army and existed in 7th, and everything Necrons and beyond exists in 7.5. This midway change in powerlevel hast hurt army sells for all factions with 7th edition codexes released before 2015 (5 factions, with 5 supplements = 10 armies) because fewer people are going to invest time and money into an army that is inherently worse than the other factions in the current edition. That was a bad decision business wise.

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.

You're allowed to think AOS is a good idea from GW's perspective, you're not allowed to make sweeping assertions about how many new players it has brought in, neither is saying it's different to 40K when WHFB was already different to 40K. Besides, mechanically it isn't that different to what has gone before it, they've just taken to writing it down differently.

FWIW I played WFB from 1st-6th edition, and stopped at 7th because lack of players and honestly boredom with WFB. I have played a few games of AoS, and its a better system in many ways with a few "agreed upon rules" between players.

despite my personal opinion that WFB sales had been bad for so long, and AoS sales are good currently means it was not a bad decision.

Again, to say AOS sales are good is utterly without any sort of foundation, there hasn't been a single financial report since it was released, and even then, the reports don't distinguish sales across systems to allow any sort of conclusion to be drawn. This sort of thing cannot be a matter of opinion, one cannot simply take hold of the elephants tail and declare it is a piece of rope. Equally, a few "agreed upon rules" to you is my reminder that GW have apparently abandoned all pretence at making any attempt to produce a solid gaming product. My one hope is that this is the last big project of the Kirby era and things start to change in the next year or so.

All ways up, it isn't important, in the context of this thread, why people think it is the worst decision of the year, that they do, and apparently in fairly decent numbers, speaks for itself.

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

LOL! What? Have you not been reading? There are pages of reasons why people think AOS was a mistake by GW.

 MWHistorian wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

LOL! What? Have you not been reading? There are pages of reasons why people think AOS was a mistake by GW.

I wouldn't even call it a mistake. Its delivery was a mistake. I've played AOS and had a blast.

~10 people posting on a forum that represents less than 1% of the gaming population itself is not decent numbers.


Although GW has yet to release financials for June2015-May2016 because of course that would be time traveling, and when they do like always it will not include a breakdown of sales of their different product lines.

My observation from the 5 different gaming stores I frequent between two states in the U.S. on two different sides of the country throughout the year since AoS has been released and before.

I have not seen anyone at any of the 5 stores purchase WFB items, nor play WFB in the stores in a period of two years prior to AoS. I often looked at certain packages of Tomb Kings/VK/Orc/Skaven/Dark Elf boxes for conversion bits to order off ebay later and they never moved over those years. I have seen people play and purchase AoS and older WFB models since AoS. Whether these two gaming areas are showing that no one plays WFB, or no one is buying new models/starting WFB is not certain- however what is certain is that no one was buying any significant amount of WFB models in these areas prior to AoS, and now people are to some extent.

WFB was dead. There were a few people here and there into necromancy of it, but it was a dead system. There were no real influx of new players and people were leaving it for other systems. I observed this on my own, and I am going to make the radical assertion that GW as a company knew it based on sales over years. In case you missed it their sales have been bad for the past 4 years compared to 5-6 years ago. 5-6 years ago was around the time WFB pretty much died. I am guessing they made that decision based on actual decent numbers and not a few people who loved WFB and are whining on a gaming forum that makes up a small fraction of that games marketbase.

Other than making a statement based on my real life observations, ant not personal opinion, I actually am allowed to make any assertion I want. That I chose to make one based on studied evidence as well as my opinion is also my choice. The title of the thread does not imply the decision GW made should be considered a mistake by only the poster, but as a company. As a company AoS was not a mistake, continuing WFB would have been. As individual players, to some killing the WFB was a mistake, but that is a different answer than as a company.

blaktoof wrote:
~10 people posting on a forum that represents less than 1% of the gaming population itself is not decent numbers.


Although GW has yet to release financials for June2015-May2016 because of course that would be time traveling, and when they do like always it will not include a breakdown of sales of their different product lines.

My observation from the 5 different gaming stores I frequent between two states in the U.S. on two different sides of the country throughout the year since AoS has been released and before.

I have not seen anyone at any of the 5 stores purchase WFB items, nor play WFB in the stores in a period of two years prior to AoS. I often looked at certain packages of Tomb Kings/VK/Orc/Skaven/Dark Elf boxes for conversion bits to order off ebay later and they never moved over those years. I have seen people play and purchase AoS and older WFB models since AoS. Whether these two gaming areas are showing that no one plays WFB, or no one is buying new models/starting WFB is not certain- however what is certain is that no one was buying any significant amount of WFB models in these areas prior to AoS, and now people are to some extent.

WFB was dead. There were a few people here and there into necromancy of it, but it was a dead system. There were no real influx of new players and people were leaving it for other systems. I observed this on my own, and I am going to make the radical assertion that GW as a company knew it based on sales over years. In case you missed it their sales have been bad for the past 4 years compared to 5-6 years ago. 5-6 years ago was around the time WFB pretty much died. I am guessing they made that decision based on actual decent numbers and not a few people who loved WFB and are whining on a gaming forum that makes up a small fraction of that games marketbase.

Other than making a statement based on my real life observations, ant not personal opinion, I actually am allowed to make any assertion I want. That I chose to make one based on studied evidence as well as my opinion is also my choice.

And the problem is that there are just as many people that will say the opposite.
The financial report will tell us some things, but like you said, no break down. We probably won't know the success or failure of AOS for quite a while.

Killing Warhammer Fantasy Battle off completely, no question.

Release AoS - fine. But, removing a game that had a buzzing tournament community (at least here in the UK) was questionable on multiple levels.

On a personal level, I think it genuinely upset people as well, and shows precisely what kind of people are in charge of GW and what they think of their veteran community.

 MWHistorian wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
~10 people posting on a forum that represents less than 1% of the gaming population itself is not decent numbers.


Although GW has yet to release financials for June2015-May2016 because of course that would be time traveling, and when they do like always it will not include a breakdown of sales of their different product lines.

My observation from the 5 different gaming stores I frequent between two states in the U.S. on two different sides of the country throughout the year since AoS has been released and before.

I have not seen anyone at any of the 5 stores purchase WFB items, nor play WFB in the stores in a period of two years prior to AoS. I often looked at certain packages of Tomb Kings/VK/Orc/Skaven/Dark Elf boxes for conversion bits to order off ebay later and they never moved over those years. I have seen people play and purchase AoS and older WFB models since AoS. Whether these two gaming areas are showing that no one plays WFB, or no one is buying new models/starting WFB is not certain- however what is certain is that no one was buying any significant amount of WFB models in these areas prior to AoS, and now people are to some extent.

WFB was dead. There were a few people here and there into necromancy of it, but it was a dead system. There were no real influx of new players and people were leaving it for other systems. I observed this on my own, and I am going to make the radical assertion that GW as a company knew it based on sales over years. In case you missed it their sales have been bad for the past 4 years compared to 5-6 years ago. 5-6 years ago was around the time WFB pretty much died. I am guessing they made that decision based on actual decent numbers and not a few people who loved WFB and are whining on a gaming forum that makes up a small fraction of that games marketbase.

Other than making a statement based on my real life observations, ant not personal opinion, I actually am allowed to make any assertion I want. That I chose to make one based on studied evidence as well as my opinion is also my choice.

And the problem is that there are just as many people that will say the opposite.
The financial report will tell us some things, but like you said, no break down. We probably won't know the success or failure of AOS for quite a while.

I am sure there is a possibility that some areas had decent WFB sales still, I did not see them- so yeah some people may say that.

I am also certain that anyone saying GW is not aware of their own sales, and them axing WFB was a mistake is completely slowed. GW knew how WFB was doing overall in all regions they sell to. It was doing bad, they axed it. They did not kill it because it was doing good, or even mediocre, they killed it because it was doing bad for many years. They are GW, they like money. They are not keeping something around that is doing bad for half a decade or more.

Of course killing it upset people, but as a company it was not a mistake.

WHFB was doing poorly. That didn't require blowing up 30 years of fluff.

Well technically they did not blow it up, events happened which rapidly created an abrupt difference in the WFB-verse

But remember, GW is a model company not a fluff company.

Which is why my Rhinos and Land Raiders fire multilasers.

TBH this is not the most drastic of their fluff changes. It is the most drastic of their rules set changes though. There has been multiple times in 40k where entire factions have been completely revamped and major backstories of them, or heroic models from their faction have been completely retconned or removed from happening. WFB to AoS was just a change of the setting by advancing the setting in a way some players don't like. All the factions are still there, what happened before still happened...

Good God, AoS. The worst part? Ignoring the BS of nuking the old fluff, I LIKED what they were going for. This summer I finally played the starter set at my local GW with a friend. We loved it, it was simple and fun. The warscrolls for each model was so easy to understand with the 4 part pie chart. Everything so intuitive.

But no points? No balance of any kind? After the play test I talked with the store manager and after some prodding he admitting that outside of play testing with the starter set, not a single AoS game played at the store didn't have some form of house rule balance of some kind.

Not a single game.

The lack of an effective balancing mechanism for AOS means that the game has a sincerely difficult time existing outside of a group of friends who arbitrarily agree to self-imposed limits. Getting to those limits and having everyone agree on the game can be quite a trick. Beyond that, however, it seems like AOS is popular in its game simplicity- it's something I know I personally enjoy (in theory).

However, there isn't a good position for AOS to be played in the pick-up environment, so that the entire audience is lost. The same problem occurs with tournaments. These are two (arguably) large groups that AOS can't draw in effectively compared to WHFB.

I think the question then becomes- what is AOS going for? As many have said with balancing 40k, the close group of gamers will play the games regardless of the balance, but it's the rest of the audience that needs to be drawn in by an equitable experience. With AOS, those friends can continue to have a great time, but the other groups don't find a satisfactory place with the game. I don't know if GW is just banking on people interested in a simpler experience outnumbering/out-purchasing the tourney players? I sincerely doubt that- the competitive aspect of Warhammer draws massive amounts of sales, while players interested in a straightforward experience wouldn't necessarily correlate with large investments in the game.

I guess if GW was going for a game that can have a smaller audience along with a smaller investment (in rules, maintaining army ranges, etc), then they might be successful in that respect. However, I think the problems that were ailing WHFB never even got close to being addressed. Had GW simply dealt with the concerns of its audience, the game could have become more popular like in its 6th edition days, and we might still see it in places like the ICV2 (something I doubt we'll *ever* see with AOS).

 Accolade wrote:
I guess if GW was going for a game that can have a smaller audience along with a smaller investment (in rules, maintaining army ranges, etc), then they might be successful in that respect. However, I think the problems that were ailing WHFB never even got close to being addressed. Had GW simply dealt with the concerns of its audience, the game could have become more popular like in its 6th edition days, and we might still see it in places like the ICV2 (something I doubt we'll *ever* see with AOS).

To do this, they actually have to do two things they have continuously scorned:

1) Communication with their customer base;
2) That "otiose" market research.

Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

No balancing and no proper missions. All games seem to end up in a grand melee in the centre of the board.

The worst part about no balancing in AoS is that it literally becomes a contest to see which player has a bigger wallet. The last time I was in my GW I walked into a game where some neck beard WAC dude was fielding 3 bloodthirsters and and several bloodcrushers against some poor kid and his starter set Stormcast Eternals.

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.
... ...

I disagree with that point. One of my gripes with AoS is that combat and movement is too similar to 40K. GW should have been a lot more ambitious in writing a new rule system.

That's my opinion as a wargamer and customer.

Whether it was a bad decision in terms of company performance, I don't think we'll know until the end of year financial statement next July.

Killing Fantasy.

If AoS had been released alongside 9th edition Fantasy, it would still be a puddle of vomit, but at least players would have the option of a proper (supported) ruleset to use instead.

And, AoS could be something to use to give new players an idea of the game, without needing to buy the rules.

 Accolade wrote:
The lack of an effective balancing mechanism for AOS means that the game has a sincerely difficult time existing outside of a group of friends who arbitrarily agree to self-imposed limits.

I think the bigger problem is that even self-imposed limits are virtually impossible to balance. I mean, what exactly do you limit yourself to? You can't really do it by models because that gives a huge advantage to elite armies over horde armies (not to mention the possibility of bringing character models). I mean, without points to work with, what exactly do you base your limits on?

There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

And if the group doesn't come to an agreement as to which should be used, what then?

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

Needing to houserule the most important element of a wargame is asinine, to put it mildly.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested. Well, I have half of the rules here, but GW couldn't be bothered actually putting points on them, so first we'll need to look online to find them. Yeah, this is pretty path of the course for GW but... Hey, where are you going?"

 vipoid wrote:
"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested. Well, I have half of the rules here, but GW couldn't be bothered actually putting points on them, so first we'll need to look online to find them. Yeah, this is pretty path of the course for GW but... Hey, where are you going?"

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"



And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

Well, having rules written by a chicken with ADHD doesn't help.

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

Well, having rules written by a chicken with ADHD doesn't help.

It's almost like they completely forgot how to make a moderately acceptable gaming system and went to the extremes - either overcomplicated or oversimplified.

I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

To replace a game that did have a definate structure with one that did not however, was idiotic.
The fact that we have been making lists for years did not help either, heads were bound to explode.

They totally ignored the fact that people are playing pick up games with strangers as well, and these people need some sort of structure, maybe not strict points costs, but somewhere to start at least.

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

So, why not give units point values and then the people who don't care about balance can just ignore them?

It isn't Starting Age of sigmar it was killing off Warhammer fantasy.
Those two should not have been mutual exclusive, fantasy certainly had its nice

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested. Well, I have half of the rules here, but GW couldn't be bothered actually putting points on them, so first we'll need to look online to find them. Yeah, this is pretty path of the course for GW but... Hey, where are you going?"

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"

And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

This just in..

New player enters GW store and leaves with all literature necessary for a demo game.




More at 11...

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

1. That's nice. Now play a pick up game in a rule set that has no balancing or army construction rules.
2. No one said that a game has to be 'perfectly balanced'.
3. That actually doesn't matter, because a balanced game benefits everyone, whether you care about it or not.

Take BattleTech. That game is not balanced. Somewhere in the 90's (I believe) they introduced the Clans to the game. Clan 'Mechs run faster, with less heat, have longer ranged guns that weigh less, take up less space and do more damage. They were just objectively better at everything and there were literally no downsides to virtually all their technology. And I've never cared about that. I play the game regardless of this issue. However, not everyone plays BTech like me. Some people wanted more balance, so the writers eventually created the "Battle Value" system, a monolithic labyrinth of formulae that I've never bothered to learn that assess a 'Mechs relative value based upon its equipment, weapons, armour, how much heat it generates and so on. The system has gone through two versions now, and a lot of people use it to balance the game. Does that impact the way I play at all? Nope. Does it impact the people who only play historical scenarios/battles? Probably not. But it does allow for anyone to pick up and play the game using a rough BV total (like tournaments do). It doesn't perfectly balance BattleTech - imperfect balance is really the aim here - but it does add some much needed structure to the game.

blaktoof wrote:Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

Reading comprehension fail. Plenty reasons were given.

blaktoof wrote:
AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

If by 'certain', you mean a very large proportion of the active, and dormant(they might not currently play, but there are plenty who want to get involved again) wfb players, then yes you are right. But if Aos isn't doing terribly well, then it wasn't a 'good' decision, is it?

blaktoof wrote:
AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.

Has it though? I don't think the update is as big on the big picture scale as you imagine. And how is it divergent from the basic concepts of its sci fi counter part - it uses the same core Dna in its mechanics along with a 'co operate with your opponent for fair games' ethos. It is very much s stripped back version of the typical gw games.

blaktoof wrote:
I am also certain that anyone saying GW is not aware of their own sales, and them axing WFB was a mistake is completely slowed. GW knew how WFB was doing overall in all regions they sell to. It was doing bad, they axed it. They did not kill it because it was doing good, or even mediocre, they killed it because it was doing bad for many years. They are GW, they like money. They are not keeping something around that is doing bad for half a decade or more.

Of course killing it upset people, but as a company it was not a mistake.

Incorrect. You are barely scratching the surface Blaktoof. Gw saw 'poor sales' and ended analysis at that point, followed by killing it. They treated the symptom with amputation at the neck, rather that's looking at the underlying causes and treating those. That's what people are criticising and angry about. Wfb was failing for a combination of reasons, including poor balance, poor game design and direction (random charges on their own drove so many people away) along with a refusal to address its bloated nature, which drove away the veterans, and killed the player base, whilst simultaneously jacking up prices and halving the contents of the box sets, whilst also increasing the sizes of games, thus making it an extremely unappealing choice to new players just buying in to it, hence why no one bought in. Which is why people are angry. A long litany of previous mistakes, compounded with taking it out the back and killing it with a bullet to the back of the head, rather than addressing the legitimate grievances of the community, and following this, offering Aos as a replacement, and as a replacement, it does a very poor job of replacing what came before it.

Don't get me wrong, Aos has game. But it carers to very specialised tastes. And it isn't the game that a lot of people wanted to play.

It's nowhere near as simple as 'game is selling poorly. Axe it'. If gw did, you know, market research, thry might have understood this.

 vipoid wrote:

I think the bigger problem is that even self-imposed limits are virtually impossible to balance. I mean, what exactly do you limit yourself to? You can't really do it by models because that gives a huge advantage to elite armies over horde armies (not to mention the possibility of bringing character models). I mean, without points to work with, what exactly do you base your limits on?

'Points' don't necessarily balance things Either. There is a difference between 'points', and 'a well designed points system'. And even then, points work as part of the answer, and not the full response. Warmachine is often heralded as a paragon of balance. And it is. It's balance is excellent. But the points system, whilst robust, doesn't work on its own. Bor can it. It is coupled to things like sideboards, steamroller scenarios and multiple list formats, for example. Even then, 'balance' isn't necessarily necessary (for tournaments - yes. For pugs - yes. For a story driven game, or a specific scenario - maybe not), and often, an 'interesting' game/scenario is just as appealing to me as a perfectly balanced Wargame.

But I'll answer your question vipoid because we often play those games. Self imposed limits can work, but again, it's only the start of the discussion, rather than the answer. Generally though, the answer is more based in adapting a different perception to your gaming than anything else. What do we base our limits on? Well, With us, we would firstly Approach a game in a co-operative manner. Also, take a step back from being a 'participant' and seeing the game as a duel between you and your opponent with the sole aim to win and take a step forward as a 'spectator' seeing the gsme like a scene in a movie. Sure, cheer on one side or the other, but don't get over involved in pushing it. This is key. (And yes, I am fully aware of the limitations and requirements- it required like minded individuals, lots of organisation etc. I just don't mind dealing with these things personally. Maybe not all the time mind - I embrace tourneys and pugs as much as the next guy!).
Our approach is to construct a scenario first. What's the hook? What's the story behind the engagement? What makes sense to be involved, given the context of the mission narrative, and the 'bigger picture' limitations that would exist within the game world. A hook I'd be tempted with, for example is 'skirmish between reconnaissance elements of armies'. Sure, you could field your five Knights and a bane blade, but it's not really appropriate, is it? Same with having an all plasma 'power list' that would be so rare in the fluff it should really be a thing. I think it's far more interesting to deal with the Chaff that inhabits the universe, and which would represent a greater proportion of what actually exists, than focusing over-exclusively on units that would be considered the 'pinnacles' and exceptions in their universe ie I think a game between a rag tag pdf army of conscripts agains an infantry focused chaos war and is far more interesting than decurion v scatter bike eldar. Grass league football, not premier league.

I approach it from the point of view that each player involves should be able to be an 'active participant' - if one players role is simply to remove all his models off the board while he can't do anything to you in turn, you've failed spectacularly at creativity, empathy and interesting scenario design. I also would argue that everyone should be allowed to 'run' a game - so I bring my scenario to the table based on what we have, and then it's your turn to cook up something interesting.

Beyond that, I would say it's important to not have 'universal' restrictions and limits. Like, I don't think it's fair, or interesting to straight up ban certain things for all time. I think whatever limits you take should be appropriate and unique to each scenario itself, with the scenario chosen defining the rosters, rather than an over arching set of restrictions 'to rule them all'. And change things up to make things interesting.

I think it's an approach you have to experience, rather than talk about though. For what it's worth it's fun, and if you were based in Scotland I'd give you a game and show you what I mean.

 vipoid wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

So, why not give units point values and then the people who don't care about balance can just ignore them?

Because they totally misjudged how important having points values or even just some sort of basic structure was to a lot of its customers ?
They were just hoping that players just bringing what they like was going to remove the barriers to getting a game rather than the opposite ?
Im not really sure tbh, the only thing I am sure of is that they were aiming at a simple ruleset with less barriers of entry, and made some changes to try and reflect that,
whether or not that worked depends on who you speak to.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

1. That's nice. Now play a pick up game in a rule set that has no balancing or army construction rules.
2. No one said that a game has to be 'perfectly balanced'.
3. That actually doesn't matter, because a balanced game benefits everyone, whether you care about it or not.

Take BattleTech. That game is not balanced. Somewhere in the 90's (I believe) they introduced the Clans to the game. Clan 'Mechs run faster, with less heat, have longer ranged guns that weigh less, take up less space and do more damage. They were just objectively better at everything and there were literally no downsides to virtually all their technology. And I've never cared about that. I play the game regardless of this issue. However, not everyone plays BTech like me. Some people wanted more balance, so the writers eventually created the "Battle Value" system, a monolithic labyrinth of formulae that I've never bothered to learn that assess a 'Mechs relative value based upon its equipment, weapons, armour, how much heat it generates and so on. The system has gone through two versions now, and a lot of people use it to balance the game. Does that impact the way I play at all? Nope. Does it impact the people who only play historical scenarios/battles? Probably not. But it does allow for anyone to pick up and play the game using a rough BV total (like tournaments do). It doesn't perfectly balance BattleTech - imperfect balance is really the aim here - but it does add some much needed structure to the game.

I agree that a balanced game is better for everyone on the whole, I never really argued otherwise, I just think its relevance is over estimated if anything.

Many of us really enjoy to play unbalanced games often and I fully understand that you could better create an unbalanced fight with a balanced rule set.

We used to ignore the battle value in BT as it happens, and that was probably my first introduction to the balance argument as well, long before it become the obsession it now is !!

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

And if the group doesn't come to an agreement as to which should be used, what then?

Then the minority must either submit or leave the club.

A semi-local store owner described the local reaction to AoS as 'like they discovered a burning bag of dog poop on their porch, and decided not to stomp on it'.

I would love to say that Kings of War has replaced WHFB, and on some levels it has... people are buying/downloading the game, but not too many of the figures - but he has already sold out of Uncharted Empires, even though he hasn't even gotten his books in yet. (He has already placed a second order - doubling the number.)

People want to play their Warhammer armies - and are willing to buy another company's game, just so they can play the army that they already have.

Mind you, the reaction that people have when they discover that the Kings of War rulebook contains the main army lists of the game... and that the book that lets them use their existing armies costs half as much as a single Army book for Warhammer... that never gets old. They can get the Gamer's Edition of KoW and Uncharted Empires for about the same amount as just that one Warhammer army book, and have all of the current army lists for the game.

It doesn't hurt that games run so much faster, and with fewer rules arguments.

Mantic is aiming at the community that existed for third edition Warhammer, not what some would think of as the 'Golden Age of Warhammer' - and it shows. (I liked 3rd ed. Warhammer best - but I think that 4-6 was the Golden Age - I bought the boxes, for the minis as much as the rules. I didn't bother with 7 or 8.)

GW really needs to look at why the game did so well during that Golden Age, and why that Golden Age has ended.

On the flip side - I was not a fan of End Times - but there was a big resurgence in the Fantasy scene because of it. (Which means that there are new people now playing Kings of War because the Warhammer armies that they had just bought were obsolete within a year.... End Times helped boost the KoW scene - but would have boosted the WHFB scene if GW had played their cards right.)

A term that I might use is 'GW saw that Fantasy was sinking, so they threw it an anchor'.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Changed a 'could' to a 'would'... I am nigh certain that End Times would have been a large permanent gain for Warhammer, if they had handled the aftermath better.

I bought KoW gamers' edition even though I don't have a fantasy army, because it's cheap enough a book to buy just for a look at the rules.

As a company?

First, AoS seems like its working well. KoW made some rules that seem to attract enough people. Every game I see of KoW, 90% of the models are GW ones. There is also an active AoS night around here.

I would say their continued streak of leaving many fans in the dust. This is to say, not updating some codex. Without numbers, for all I know, the second updated to Eldar made big big bank, and CSM has never been a popular selling army (like sisters). However, giving their poster children (which seem to be shifting from Marines/Chaos, to Marines/Xenos pretty fast) second and third helpings, before giving others a first, would be my suggestion for biggest flub.

Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree with that point. One of my gripes with AoS is that combat and movement is too similar to 40K. GW should have been a lot more ambitious in writing a new rule system.

That's my opinion as a wargamer and customer.

Whether it was a bad decision in terms of company performance, I don't think we'll know until the end of year financial statement next July.

I totally agree with KK here, and note that perfect is the worst enemy of good. I accept AoS as a revolutionary (half-)step forward in GW gaming, whereby the core rules and concepts were (finally!) cleaned up for the 2000s, but the unit rules and detail are still too fiddly.

I hope that the next 40k incorporates lessons and feedback from AoS, because Age of the Emperor (with points!) would basically solve the primary heartache. I assume that GW will use Mordheim and Necromunda and such to refine the AoS concept before moving 40k to AoE.

GW has already shared that AoS is outperforming Fantasy, and I have no doubt this is true. It's not (and wasn't expected to) bringing AoS on par with 40k. But if it's a +50% bump, a 2x or 3x increase against a small base, it's still positive.

 gwarsh41 wrote:


Every game I see of KoW, 90% of the models are GW ones. There is also an active AoS night around here.

Almost as if there was a release of a game that caused a mass exodus of players to this system....

I don't get your point. A lot of WHFB players migrated over to KoW to continue playing a mass battle game. Of bloody course they're going to port their exiting collections over. Mantic even wrote the lists for them in a KoW expansion.

Well, with the half-year report in now, I think we can safely say that AoS was not a horrible thing for GW -- to the contrary, it probably did quite well.

Or GW sold so many Smaug models that it didn't matter

blaktoof wrote:
Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

Incorrect. House rules are a fine addition to any Wargame, and can often be great fun, and can really scratch that creative itch, but let's be clear - playing that way often requires like minded opponents and has other hurdles to overcome.

Gw might require house rules, due to their wooly nature, but part of the success of the young punks in the industry, like Corvus belli (infinity), privateer press (warmachine/hordes), Wyrd (malifaux) and so on is because they built their game on a foundation of tight rules that focus on organised play and universal approach. Clear cut, defined universal structures that mean I can go to America or Australia, and play the same game with no fuss. For these things, you need top-down defined standards and approaches. Professional sports have governing bodies that enforce a similar approach. It's needed at the higher level, where you need to organise more people and define your direction and approach. You really shouldn't just look at gw in these kind of evaluations.

Requiring various player-based house rules (and the infinite modified versions thereof) often does nothing but fracture the community and can lead to various groups playing what amount to different games. 'We don't play super heavies' is one prime example of an oft-toted house rule. Utterly sucks for the guy who loves his Knights and built an army around them. The problem is that you turn gaming Round from having a 'universal common ground' and turn the various groups into cells that can often be at odds, and often, organising things beyond the very local level becomes problematic.

It helps for playing the game you want to play, assuming your mates want to play the exact same game. It doesn't necessarily help playing at another flgs. Or allowing bigger events. It doesn't necessarily facilitate pick up games, or tournaments.

So let's be honest here. House rules certainly have their place. They also have their problems and limitations.

Deadnight wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

Incorrect. House rules are a fine addition to any Wargame, and can often be great fun, and can really scratch that creative itch, but let's be clear - playing that way often requires like minded opponents and has other hurdles to overcome.

Gw might require house rules, due to their wooly nature, but part of the success of the young punks in the industry, like Corvus belli (infinity), privateer press (warmachine/hordes), Wyrd (malifaux) and so on is because they built their game on a foundation of tight rules that focus on organised play and universal approach. Clear cut, defined universal structures that mean I can go to America or Australia, and play the same game with no fuss. For these things, you need top-down defined standards and approaches. Professional sports have governing bodies that enforce a similar approach. It's needed at the higher level, where you need to organise more people and define your direction and approach. You really shouldn't just look at gw in these kind of evaluations.

Requiring various player-based house rules (and the infinite modified versions thereof) often does nothing but fracture the community and can lead to various groups playing what amount to different games. 'We don't play super heavies' is one prime example of an oft-toted house rule. Utterly sucks for the guy who loves his Knights and built an army around them. The problem is that you turn gaming Round from having a 'universal common ground' and turn the various groups into cells that can often be at odds, and often, organising things beyond the very local level becomes problematic.

It helps for playing the game you want to play, assuming your mates want to play the exact same game. It doesn't necessarily help playing at another flgs. Or allowing bigger events. It doesn't necessarily facilitate pick up games, or tournaments.

So let's be honest here. House rules certainly have their place. They also have their problems and limitations.

your statement of incorrect doesn't really seem to say anything about what you are replying to.

My point is that any major tournament, and often FLGS and even people playing 7th edition 40k are not playing the game without house rules on how you build armies, and how certain things work that are completely not in the rules or counter to what the rules actually state.

I stand by my statement that GW does not have a flagship product that is played without rules from outside GW (house rules) in any major capacity.

You would be hard pressed to find a tournament anywhere in the world right now that does not use house rules for a game of 7th edition 40k.

I agree with all of your statements, however the truth is AoS needing house rules to play is no different than the current state of GW other actual main product-40k. If you want to play it, you will be using house rules most of the time you play it. Yes you can play 40k as is, but you can also play AoS as is. However this is not how the majority of the gaming community for either product plays the game.

You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

You are full of absolutes, with comments like "you can't play AoS without houserules" you can play AoS without houserules, just like you can play 40k without houserules. You however most likely wont regularly find anyone to play with for either game using non-house rules.

any statement that having to use houserules for AoS makes it a mistake is the same as saying 40k is a mistake. They both will be/are played with house rules. I also stand by it, because the statement that you require house rules to play is false, you know just as well as anyone else that you can play AoS out of the box just as you can play 40k out of the box. That people do not, and instead use houserules may be a fact- but saying its a barrier for one game system when the other game system also will have you playing with houserules is disingenuous.

So I -know- with proof that houserules are not a barrier to play, because people play both of GWs systems 40k and AoS which use houserules to play.

If house rules were a barrier to play, 40k would be as close to death as WFB was dead for the past half decade.

I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

I think that it's likely true that for the category of player that Age of Sigmar seems to target, house rules are a lot less of an issue than the type of player that WMH targets.

That's assuming that PP is targeting the tournament and pickup crowd with WMH, and GW is targeting the casual and play with friends crowd with AoS. And, I guess, the "build models for collections and occasionally play them... or not" crowd for GW.

Incidentally, personally my experience is that the people who play 40k that I've encountered generally don't have a problem with house rules as a concept. That's not to say that there can't be disagreements about them, and people who don't like certain house rules. Just take the most basic: "your models must be painted," something that is not anywhere in the rulebooks... I don't think, for any game that I can think of.

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

This is just plain incorrect.

There are a lot of arguments, and several tournament groups dropped out with the most recent release of WH40K.

It is a barrier, merely not a completely insurmountable one - the question is whether the effort required is worthwhile - and for many people, the answer is HELL NO!

On the flip side, I have been tagged to help run a Kings of War tourney... and I am thinking about it. (But I would not want to run a Warpath tourney....) The problem is that it pays in merchandise, and I have an ever growing mountain of unpainted shame.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* In the past I have helped organize WH40K tournaments, but not since... 1998?

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

.

False analogy is false. Tournament rules are in no way synonymous with house rules.

Whilst there are some similarities, tournament packs are known in advance to all the parties. Unlike say, going into a new FLGS with your army to find they've banned Lords of War and you've got a LoW in your army. At a tournament that would be cheating. As far as you're aware taking LoW in your army is allowed. You've made your list and packed it to go to the FLGS for the first time only to be told "sorry guv, we don't allow LoW aroud here".

See the difference?

Tournaments, are also (usually) populated by established players. This is not just true for wargames. It's true for everything.

No, there is no difference. If you play at the store / house, you should know the rules before you start bring your toys.

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

You are full of absolutes, with comments like "you can't play AoS without houserules" you can play AoS without houserules, just like you can play 40k without houserules. You however most likely wont regularly find anyone to play with for either game using non-house rules.

any statement that having to use houserules for AoS makes it a mistake is the same as saying 40k is a mistake. They both will be/are played with house rules. I also stand by it, because the statement that you require house rules to play is false, you know just as well as anyone else that you can play AoS out of the box just as you can play 40k out of the box. That people do not, and instead use houserules may be a fact- but saying its a barrier for one game system when the other game system also will have you playing with houserules is disingenuous.

So I -know- with proof that houserules are not a barrier to play, because people play both of GWs systems 40k and AoS which use houserules to play.

If house rules were a barrier to play, 40k would be as close to death as WFB was dead for the past half decade.

So, what you're saying is house rules aren't a barrier to play for some people.

Which is, in essence, exactly what I'd already said.

Also, I've never said AOS can't be played without house rules, so kindly don't straw man my arguments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

Shock! Horror! Talys adopts contrary position to others in a discussion!

I wasn't just referring to just this, but also several posts he/she's already made in other threads making sweeping declarations as factual without any evidence to support them.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, there is no difference. If you play at the store / house, you should know the rules before you start bring your toys.

Maybe so, but why do you assume that should be a requirement to play at an FLGS? It certainly isn't at my local.

Because that's how it works. House rules are what they are, and if you're going to play somewhere, that's what it is.

 Azreal13 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

You are full of absolutes, with comments like "you can't play AoS without houserules" you can play AoS without houserules, just like you can play 40k without houserules. You however most likely wont regularly find anyone to play with for either game using non-house rules.

any statement that having to use houserules for AoS makes it a mistake is the same as saying 40k is a mistake. They both will be/are played with house rules. I also stand by it, because the statement that you require house rules to play is false, you know just as well as anyone else that you can play AoS out of the box just as you can play 40k out of the box. That people do not, and instead use houserules may be a fact- but saying its a barrier for one game system when the other game system also will have you playing with houserules is disingenuous.

So I -know- with proof that houserules are not a barrier to play, because people play both of GWs systems 40k and AoS which use houserules to play.

If house rules were a barrier to play, 40k would be as close to death as WFB was dead for the past half decade.

So, what you're saying is house rules aren't a barrier to play for some people.

Which is, in essence, exactly what I'd already said.

Also, I've never said AOS can't be played without house rules, so kindly don't straw man my arguments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

Shock! Horror! Talys adopts contrary position to others in a discussion!

I wasn't just referring to just this, but also several posts he/she's already made in other threads making sweeping declarations as factual without any evidence to support them.

You are correct that -you- did not say house rules are a barrier to play.

however it was stated that one of the reasons AoS was a mistake within this thread was "you need house rules to play AoS" which is what I was responding to, which was not directed at you- However you personally chose to take the statement and defend it as if you backed up it. In effect defending the position that "aos requires house rules to play".

The fact that to play AoS as a tactical game requires an undocumented house rules phase when joining the play group, and a negotiation phase before the game - The ruleset is not just sloppy... it's fething incomplete.

-stated in this thread, and echoed by multiple people.

then further you decided to claim I made sweeping absolute statements. When I did not.

In this thread the only "absolute sweeping statements" I have seen have actually come from the people with a deep vitriolic hatred for AoS because of whatever reason.

Saying house rules are not a barrier to play AoS is not an absolute, it means you can play AoS without house rules. Or that house rules are not a significant barrier, as opposed to cost, being able to find someone to play with, dyslexia, being in a wheelchair, etc.

Saying you cannot play AoS without houserules, which is a statement someone in this thread made you and felt the need to essentially defend- Is an absolute statement.

A very large amount of wargamers play 40k and do so with houserules, and do not seem to find it an issue to play. IN fact many of them find it removes barriers to play and makes the game more enjoyable, as shown by the many people who desire things such as limits on detachments, army selection methods that disallow things allowed in ther ules, etc because they do not want to play against an unbound list of 6 wraithknights in a game of 40k for example.

Also I am not sure you are using the term straw man correctly, as I was replying directly to a comment about AoS needing house rules to even play- and then stated that's not really a true barrier, because 1) there are already houserules for GWs main game, 2) there are other real barriers, and 3) You can play AoS without houserules out of the box.

A strawman would be if I threw up something barely related and said something silly then claimed because it was correct therefore I was correct, which is not what happened.

Grimtuff-

Tournament rules are houserules, they are houserules generated by a tournament group and then told to people before the game begins. Those people then have the option to say "gee that sounds fun, I will play!" or "That doesn't sound very fair, but I will play" or "fek this, not playing"

Showing up with a LoW and being upset you cannot play it is the same as showing up with 1850pts to a FLGS and finding out they only play 2500pts. There is no agreed upon points value for 40k, so showing up with a certain army list built for any points is assuming house rules. Obviously making it not a significant or reasonable "barrier" to playing a game.

There is no difference between the idea of house rules and tournament rules, or FLGS x rules. They are all modifications to the rules not supported by GW used by a group of people.

There is equally nothing stopping two players at a tournament saying "hey this rule for this mission is dumb, lets do this instead" other person says " sounds good"

I wasn't defending anyone, I was criticising you for using absolute statements.

Say what you like in retrospect, but "house rules are not a barrier to play" is, definitively, an absolute statement.

It is also incorrect.

Saying "you need to house rule AOS to play it" is equally incorrect but as I never said it, wasn't responding to it or using it in my argument, by using it in a post where you were ostensibly responding to what I said and arguing against it, you were apparently strawmanning. A straw man argument is where you misrepresent someone's argument and then argue against the point you've misrepresented. This, by apparently putting words in my mouth, is a perfectly acceptable use of the term, IMO.

If that wasn't your intent, we'll chalk up to poor expression and move on.

so you simply chose to jump in on a topic that you had no intention of discussing to come down on someone because you perceived something in their expression you did not actually want to comment on or care about.

You realize that is trolling.

No, I had something to say in a topic I've been reading since the day it was created because I saw someone making arguments I disagreed with and felt were flawed.

I've said my piece on the topic, it's probably somewhere on page one.

blaktoof wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

Incorrect. House rules are a fine addition to any Wargame, and can often be great fun, and can really scratch that creative itch, but let's be clear - playing that way often requires like minded opponents and has other hurdles to overcome.

Gw might require house rules, due to their wooly nature, but part of the success of the young punks in the industry, like Corvus belli (infinity), privateer press (warmachine/hordes), Wyrd (malifaux) and so on is because they built their game on a foundation of tight rules that focus on organised play and universal approach. Clear cut, defined universal structures that mean I can go to America or Australia, and play the same game with no fuss. For these things, you need top-down defined standards and approaches. Professional sports have governing bodies that enforce a similar approach. It's needed at the higher level, where you need to organise more people and define your direction and approach. You really shouldn't just look at gw in these kind of evaluations.

Requiring various player-based house rules (and the infinite modified versions thereof) often does nothing but fracture the community and can lead to various groups playing what amount to different games. 'We don't play super heavies' is one prime example of an oft-toted house rule. Utterly sucks for the guy who loves his Knights and built an army around them. The problem is that you turn gaming Round from having a 'universal common ground' and turn the various groups into cells that can often be at odds, and often, organising things beyond the very local level becomes problematic.

It helps for playing the game you want to play, assuming your mates want to play the exact same game. It doesn't necessarily help playing at another flgs. Or allowing bigger events. It doesn't necessarily facilitate pick up games, or tournaments.

So let's be honest here. House rules certainly have their place. They also have their problems and limitations.

your statement of incorrect doesn't really seem to say anything about what you are replying to..

Read the bolded part. Claiming that Having to play with house rules is not a barrier is incorrect. House rules have their own problems and limitations. So, yeah.

blaktoof wrote:

My point is that any major tournament, and often FLGS and even people playing 7th edition 40k are not playing the game without house rules on how you build armies, and how certain things work that are completely not in the rules or counter to what the rules actually state.
I stand by my statement that GW does not have a flagship product that is played without rules from outside GW (house rules) in any major capacity.
You would be hard pressed to find a tournament anywhere in the world right now that does not use house rules for a game of 7th edition 40k.

So? 40k isn't the only horse in town though, and the strength of plenty other games derives from their universality and the strength they derive from organised play and a structured, universal and organised approach, and not from the often chaotic and home brewed nature of player designed 'fixes'* and tweaks. Having to play with house rules is fine, with the right people, and with the right attitude behind it, but often, it's not the best way forward.

*which, to be fair are often anything but.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I had something to say in a topic I've been reading since the day it was created because I saw someone making arguments I disagreed with and felt were flawed.

I've said my piece on the topic, it's probably somewhere on page one.

I don't want to argue with you. As it seems pointless in many ways.

I said something in reply to someone who actually did make an absolute statement, because they claimed you are REQUIRED to use house rules to play AoS, and that it is a barrier to play.

I said it was not a barrier for play, and then stated because many people seem able to play 40k and WFB which used house rules at FLGS and tournaments, and among friends that it is not a barrier- if it were a barrier it would keep these people from playing.

I also said it is not a barrier, because YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO USE HOUSE RULES. How can it be a barrier for some people if its something you do not actually need to play.

you then chose to take my statement in whatever way, and defend the counterpoint- but then anything I said is a strawman because you did not actually say the counterpoint instead hiding behind saying I am incorrect, which of course is hypocritically implying that it is indeed a barrier to playing.

House rules are a barrier to play in the same way core rules are a barrier to play, you either like them and are going to play the game, or you do not like the rules for the game and will not play.

AoS does not require house rules, neither does 40k. As such house rules cannot be a barrier to play. Both games can be played out of the box by two people without any house rules.

however in many peoples gaming experiences they will find playing at a FLGS, especially at a tournament event at a FLGS or elsewhere will use houserules. This does not seem to be a significant barrier of any kind for people.

Perhaps you could direct me to the post you were responding to?

Because the post where you write "Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play. " does not have a quote to indicate who you're responding to, and the immediately preceding post bears no relation, which is where I've got the idea you were making an absolute statement.

Technically, one can play AoS straight off the pamphlet. It's just going to be a different sort of game compared to what WFB was.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Perhaps you could direct me to the post you were responding to?

Because the post where you write "Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play. " does not have a quote to indicate who you're responding to, and the immediately preceding post bears no relation, which is where I've got the idea you were making an absolute statement.

Apparently I keep too many windows up and cut and paste from the wrong ones, as I replied in this thread to a quote from another thread ' why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent'.

So my original response was to another thread, making the wording significantly less relevant here. Apologies.

It is possible to play AoS without house rules, just as it is possible to play 40k without house rules. Some people seem to suggest that having to play AoS with house rules is a flaw, but it is a flaw carried by 40k as well. However neither are necessarily barriers to playing, as you can play both without house rules.

As such I agree with that for some if they felt they had to use house rules to play for whatever reason (FLGS uses house rules, tournament uses house rules) and not the box rules to play AoS it might be a barrier, those same people however would find 40k a barrier as they are not going to play it without house rules most of the time. (FLGS and especially tournaments generally use house rules)

Many people seem okay with playing 40k still and the house rules there invaldiate or flat out change rules as written, the biggest rules gripe many people seem to have with AoS is the lack of points which is a lack of a rules to many people as the statement "use whatever you want!" seems more like a non-rule than rule to many people, as opposed to wanting to change how the rules actually are written to work which is the case of many rules for 40k.

tldr- AoS is disliked by some people and one of the things that may prevent some people from playing it are that you will most likely use house rules to play, which GWs other main game also does. This is a individual player perspective, and does not mean it was a bad decision GW made as a company. Without any evidence supporting they lost money/customers in relation to gaining money customers by changing WFB to AOS there is no way to support AoS as being a bad decision for GW as a company.

blaktoof wrote:tldr- AoS is disliked by some people and one of the things that may prevent some people from playing it are that you will most likely use house rules to play, which GWs other main game also does. This is a individual player perspective, and does not mean it was a bad decision GW made as a company. Without any evidence supporting they lost money/customers in relation to gaining money customers by changing WFB to AOS there is no way to support AoS as being a bad decision for GW as a company.

Especially in light of the report just published, I agree. I still think 3 solid months of AoS was not a mistake (they could have mixed in some 40k!) but I'll be the first to admit I'm biased, because I like 40k more

There was certainly not a measurable negative financial impact based on the data they have provided.

Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

Shock! Horror! Talys adopts contrary position to others in a discussion!

I wasn't just referring to just this, but also several posts he/she's already made in other threads making sweeping declarations as factual without any evidence to support them.

Oh, come on If I take a any position, it's going to be contrary to someone. I do agree with you sometimes, you know, in which case I'm stating a position that's probably contrary to someone else.

Here, I'm just saying that taking a position like the house rules one are no different than comments like, "AoS is junk". Obviously, they're not intended as absolute statements meant to characterize every single person who is a prospective customer. That's not really controversial... is it??

Dude, I've seen you start a post (not to me) with "I agree" or similar, and then write four or more paragraphs on why you didn't agree.

On more than one occasion.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Dude, I've seen you start a post (not to me) with "I agree" or similar, and then write four or more paragraphs on why you didn't agree.

On more than one occasion.

I'm allowed to agree with one part of someone's post, but not another. Also, I may agree in principle, but not on a particular or specific aspect. It's just not all absolutes. My life is filled mostly with shades of grey and mixed feelings about most subjects.

Just like AOS. I actually like it. But I think 3 solid months was a mistake. And I acknowledge I could well be wrong.

GW's biggest mistake in my opinion would be the gross over complication of rules and interactions in 40k.

I haven't played 40k in a couple years, but I've kept my armies and continued to paint, so I keep a finger on its pulse and check the local groups out from time to time. I also travel A LOT, to the point of where my definition of FLGS changes every couple months (I have driven further than the distance between Mosco and Berlin in just one of the many moves I did, and several others were in the 200-400 mile distance range) traveling that much, and seeing that many stores and communities, really puts into perspective how screwy the game is right now. Every store I've been to has had a completely different take on how rules work, army building, "acceptable" playstyles, house rules, and other quirks. No other game that I play has this problem. For example, an X wing group in Flagstaff AZ plays pretty much identically to a group in Fargo ND, and they're both similar to the groups I met in St. George Utah, Denver Colorado, and Salt Lake City. I have a few lists I like to run and can take them anywhere with no issue, only changing it up if I meet a particularly new or particularly good player.

With 40k, one place would have no lords of war, 1500pts max, and 'theme' tourneys that were basically just game days where the winner didn't matter. Then the next one over would be hyper competitive, 2,000pts or whatever the standard was, anything goes, where rules interpretation was considered an art form. Then formations really got out of hand and it all got weirder. There's simply so many confusing wordings, unclear language, and bizarre interactions that the game REWARDS YOU for trying to exploit it. It inspires a toxic community, and leads to an unpleasant experience for everyone as players contort rules into ways that benefit them the most and practically take legal courses so they can shut down the opponents attempts of doing the same.

Simply put, GW's biggest mistake was to not simplify and focus on improving the core of its games. The models are still cool, the background is still cool, they have everything they need to reel people back in, they just need to fix this ungodly mess they've created. Instead of stripping everything down, putting the brakes on for a while, and really analyzing what they need to do to fix it, they have an attitude of just throwing gak at the wall until it sticks, hoping it works itself out.

This in turn forces players to house rule, which can be extremely frustrating for people joining a new group.

Think about it this way. You've dropped $125 on books to play the game. You've studied over them, gotten a good grasp of the rules, and brought an army that, according to your book, is completely legal and good to go.

You show up to the FLGS, and are told "sorry, we don't play that way here." This could be something minor, say they play a different points value, to massive issues like they straight up won't play your army or invalidate large parts of it (yes, I have seen this. Little Timmy eldar players get it the most) Imagine how frustrating that is, to have potentially hundreds of dollars of models you put time and effort into being invalidated because that group plays differently. Imagine how a guy like me feels, where its literally pointless for me to try and build an actual 40k army because everywhere I go people are playing different house rules that may as well be a completely different game?

From my understanding, this is the same gak that happened to Fantasy, and if GW doesn't get its head in the game soon, it'll kill 40k the same way. They need to streamline the next edition, trim the fat, cut down on "snowflake" rules for individual units and make use of the massive amount of special rules they already have. Kill the formations, or at least tone them down. Put one guy in charge of overseeing codex production, balance them all together, then release the initial wave all together with a new edition as a clean slate. Realize that a tight and balanced ruleset does NOTHING to limit narrative play, if anything it helps it.

Also, pushing killteam, or even an "age of sigmar" equivalent, but with actually decent rules would be smart too. The arms race of superheavies and GMCs push the game into apoc territory and honestly its just not fun to play for some people. A standard in the 750-1250 pts level that bans superheavies, gmc's, and other really nuts stuff would be a big boon to getting newer players into the hobby as it gives little Timmy a chance to play without having to fight a friggin riptide in a 750 game.

 Talys wrote:

There was certainly not a measurable negative financial impact based on the data they have provided.

Well, December didn't turn out well.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:

There was certainly not a measurable negative financial impact based on the data they have provided.

Well, December didn't turn out well.

Good point!

When I wrote that, I meant, there wasn't a negative financial impact for that half-year, but the December performance being weak is entirely true! And, possibly, Sigmar related.

I agree with someone else's theory -- I think it was AllSeeingSkink's -- that December was negatively impacted by people buying Calth in November. Which could be splitting hairs, because if you move forward income from the next half year, that's the same as doing not as well in the current. Still, the numbers they're talking about are a projection of the whole year's profit of 16m, versus 16.5m for the last whole year (and a forecast by the analysts' of 17.5m). Of course, that's not GOOD, but if they actually hit GBP 16m profits, with so much more product being Fantasy oriented rather than 40k, I think that's some cause for celebration.

In my opinion, GW would be a stronger company being slightly less profitable producing more games, than slightly more profitable, producing fewer games -- especially if fewer means one.

I think this is all splitting hairs, given that the delta is -3% and driven by ForEx rates.

The fact that GW has me caring enough to obtain new GW product (like that new Knight Warden I just picked up), or really, any product at all, that's a level of success that they haven't had in years, when I basically didn't get anything GW.

I bought two Lizard Men starter boxes, because of the keen pricing. I had looked at Lizard Men before, and rejected them on the grounds of expense. This was my first purchase of a GW item since 2012.

One thing I missed in 2015 is the Games Day here in the states, the last one in 2013 was ran like no one was in control or the people in charge are making decisions without talking to anyone. The give away items was buttons, plastic cup and a bag, You would think it would be better to just not make the stuff and reduce the price of admission. Long queues of anything going on, half the time you are waiting in line for the next, next session instead of enjoying other things going on. The forge-world booth was right by the entry doors and when the line quickly filled up it caused the people waiting in line to block the doors making it impossible for the rest of the attendees to even get in..People spoke of the night before having a great time at the battle bunker Memphis where they had BBQ, games and sprue giveaways. Why not add that to the convention instead of the night before. They brought in a catering company to feed the whole convention and it was cheaper and better just to leave the convention to find food else where.Then there the games day figure for purchase only and fine-cast of "marko polo" an empire type figure holding a golden lizard man skull. One thought is to give a figure anyone could use.. Marine.. or more generic fantasy hero. The plastic marine captain when GW rolled out their web page jumps to mind where it is easily converted with simple head swaps.

The leads into another item, I miss the moving away from comparability of the different sets. You could make new models and do crazy conversions with just buying another set and start gluing them together. Now you can't even do simple head swaps in the same set without a ton of green stuff. (I am looking at you Blight kings)

AOS has it problems, but I feel it was a missed chance in 2015. To help compete with X-Wing / Warmahordes they needed to reduce cost and model count to bring in new players, I haven't seen either with any of current GW releases. A number of people complain about balance, I also feel the pre game army building is part of the game it self, that was completely removed. What f they had completely removed another step instead I think they would have gotten the same or worse reaction. Movement.. Just move your model where ever you want... Close Combat you don't roll just who ever has the highest weapon skill wins. It removes the feel of you having a fair game. If they did simple color coding or base cost numbers for each box set, Players would have a start of what was fair instead of the young fellow wondering why no one wants to play him when he only fields Nagash. When I was first getting into gaming, I wanted to prove my self to older players by winning at a game fairly and reading large rule books felt impressive to my young mind.

Yeah, learning a competitive game certainly does add to your investment in the line/world/buying more toys. One of the biggest reasons I feel the lack of balancing mechanic was so obviously a horrible idea.

A friend answered the question with 'Kirby's still with the company'.

The Auld Grump

Overwhelmingly Age of sigmar seems to be the answer here, when i think about war games i'm thinking about a game that simulates battle in one era or another, this is what i want out of a war game and age of sigmar does not deliver it any any shape. How will they have a hope in hell of selling premium priced products for such a poor system. i wonder how many archeons and varangian's they've sold with those mega price tags!

Age of Sigmar was some mistake heh.

Opening its doors on January 1st, 2015.

Well, GW put the IP of WHFB on hold and created an IP by introducing AoS last year. This allowed other games like KoW to fill the space. When WHFB would come back, they would have to compete with KoW more than ever.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, GW put the IP of WHFB on hold and created an IP by introducing AoS last year.

They didn't put it on hold, they axed it. It's a rather important difference.

 vipoid wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, GW put the IP of WHFB on hold and created an IP by introducing AoS last year.

They didn't put it on hold, they axed it. It's a rather important difference.

They axed the game, not the IP. The Warhammer IP is still being licensed for use in video games. It also forms the foundation of the AoS IP, and could further be integrated there. And the IP can always come back. They could, for example, bring back WHFB in all its glory twenty years from now just by setting it before End Times, or even retconning End Times out with time travel shenanigans (see: Star Trek 2009), or make a prequel like 30k. Heck, Blood Bowl is coming out and it will still be in the fantasy setting, and likely Mordheim will be as well. So the IP isn't dead. Heck, it's not even on hold. It's just that the highest profile users of the IP (WHFB and novels) aren't actively using it.

I'm late to the party, but I'll try to be a little more granular than just "Age of Sigmar."

For me, it's not Age of Sigmar itself - the idea of a totally new version of Warhammer on round bases pulled me, a 40k player, into their fantasy world. I discovered how much I loved their fantasy kits for the first time, as the vast numbers needed to play the game had always scared me off before.

So, for me, it's not AoS. It's the AoS fluff. I didn't hate it on sight, I set out to learn all that I could by reading the novels and the expansion books. And, I feel I can safely now say it's:

1. Awesomely over the top

2. Completely impossible to identify with

It's a setting where nothing seems to matter, designed only to keep big burly guys smashing other big burly guys, who will respawn and come back and smash different big burly guys. It's not a game for kids, but the conflict depicted feels just like a story a six year old might tell himself while playing with action figures.

I really wanted to like it, but in my head canon all of my games will continue to be imagined in the Old World, until such time as GW either goes back to that IP, or just shutters this end of the business.

Oggthrok wrote:
I'm late to the party, but I'll try to be a little more granular than just "Age of Sigmar."

For me, it's not Age of Sigmar itself - the idea of a totally new version of Warhammer on round bases pulled me, a 40k player, into their fantasy world. I discovered how much I loved their fantasy kits for the first time, as the vast numbers needed to play the game had always scared me off before.

So, for me, it's not AoS. It's the AoS fluff. I didn't hate it on sight, I set out to learn all that I could by reading the novels and the expansion books. And, I feel I can safely now say it's:

1. Awesomely over the top

2. Completely impossible to identify with

It's a setting where nothing seems to matter, designed only to keep big burly guys smashing other big burly guys, who will respawn and come back and smash different big burly guys. It's not a game for kids, but the conflict depicted feels just like a story a six year old might tell himself while playing with action figures.

I really wanted to like it, but in my head canon all of my games will continue to be imagined in the Old World, until such time as GW either goes back to that IP, or just shutters this end of the business.

I can identify with this, the fluff of a game was almost always the deciding factor for me and this AoS storyline just seems like a teenager could have come up with the entire thing (no disrespect to teenagers or anyone that got into the story ) I just cannot seem to get interested in it.

The same massive mistake they have been making for years.Believing Tom Kirby's view that market research is not needed.

Because market research gives you actual data you could use to arrive at logical and sane decisions, that may be at odds with Tom Kirby's self serving decisions that have made him very rich,with very little effort on his part.And put GW plc on a downward spiral.

GW does constant market research based on web sales and other orders. The big kits sell, up to a point. Smaug was their biggest seller for 2015. The OTT End Times minis put AoS / WFB sales on the map. The biggest seller for 40k was the IKT.

Just because GW's priorities don't align with yours doesn't mean they're not focused. It just means that you are not that important to them. You're mariginal, and GW can do without you.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW does constant market research based on web sales and other orders. The big kits sell, up to a point. Smaug was their biggest seller for 2015. The OTT End Times minis put AoS / WFB sales on the map. The biggest seller for 40k was the IKT.

Just because GW's priorities don't align with yours doesn't mean they're not focused. It just means that you are not that important to them. You're mariginal, and GW can do without you.

Which is clearly the reason why their sales have been positively skyrocketing for the last few years.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW does constant market research based on web sales and other orders. The big kits sell, up to a point. Smaug was their biggest seller for 2015. The OTT End Times minis put AoS / WFB sales on the map. The biggest seller for 40k was the IKT.

Just because GW's priorities don't align with yours doesn't mean they're not focused. It just means that you are not that important to them. You're mariginal, and GW can do without you.

You know that you're stating as fact information when we don't know what they based their top 28 on, right? Without factually knowing the basis for that list, it's just a list. Did they base it on number of unit sold (popular), amount earned from sale of, total margin received from ,etc? If you know for a fact the answer to that question then we can have a conversation, if you don't then your opinion is just as strong as someone else who says the exact opposite.

Just because unknown data doesn't align with your perceived reality doesn't mean that you're correct. It just means that you want to argue. We're all marginal to a company, up until the time that they close the doors because they scared us all off.

GW threw away their customer database from the old web site when they moved on to the new web store.

That is not doing market research based on web site use and orders.

For me the local GW, sorry Warhammer store has a weak following. Their Facebook page is all gak-posts or trying to sell me overpriced plastic.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:

There was certainly not a measurable negative financial impact based on the data they have provided.

Well, December didn't turn out well.

That's more telling that betrayal at calth tanked, and their expected holiday sales were low. Considering how fast their admech/skitarri online bundles sold out i'm surprised they had bad sales.