So ive been looking at the GW releases for the past few months. Seems they are putting out more AoS than 40k. So, do you think this is enough to show that AoS has picked up steam and is starting to outsell 40k or is it that GW is pushing a sinking ship harder in hopes itll catch on? I still have a very very very hard time finding pick up play for AoS in the Los Angeles area. But perhaps everyone is playing at home? I really dont know. And why im asking here.

Releases are planned months in advance, sometimes up to a year out.

AOS is picking up at my store. Enough interest now that the store will be hosting a campaign. Different types of players too. Some are into the whole scenario just for fun games and others are more competitive in spirit. I suppose if you can get regular games, it is fun to play.

Multiple years, from what I've heard. If AoS wasn't doing well, I wouldn't expect that to actually be reflected in GW release patterns until 2017, at the earliest.

Its pretty much extinct here, not carried or played anywhere but the 1 GW and even there its not played, 30k and 40k are doing really well at the gw but nowhere else.

It's picked up a lot here and in our area back home in US. But it's spotty reporting all over the place and I can see why.

If anyone has an AoS plastic sprue, it should have a copyrighted date on it, which will show how long ago it was tooled.

I think the lead time runs from about 2-4 years, so it could be well into next year when we see the AoS kits run out if they've already given up on it.

If you believe Sad Panda, the lead time is extreme:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/671862.page#8456527

It's about four years for something like this. At events they stated that Matt Ward was the brains around End Times and this project as been in the works for four, though longer from the conception stage. When I interview the authors they mention how far back commissions come and those only come later in the process.

I have no idea if AoS is doing well because to whose standards? soem other forums it seems like want GW to go under and naturally all we can do is speculate because we have no internal numbers or any idea of what the expectation, planning, tent and design and even budget for this. Or any other game.

Its not played at all at any of our FLGS stores but it has a sizable following at the GW store.

auticus wrote:
Its not played at all at any of our FLGS stores but it has a sizable following at the GW store.

This kind of thing more than whether or not AoS is a fun game ( thats opinion) but its not a good game (4 pages of unclear rules and loads of scrolls with special rules) but the animosity towards gw at flgs and the outright bannig of their games and not carrying them, that is what will drop gw from titan to regular joe, their 1 man shops are pretty lousy to play in, they are usually very small with maybe at best 3 small tables. gw is doing itself no favors by antagonizing flgs.

The lead time is about two years so they had all this stock made and ready to ship long before they knew AoS was a flop.

I very much doubt that. One of GW's strengths is that they can do everything in house apart from printing. That means if the boss rushes downstairs, screaming that WHFB is a disaster and they need to replace it, the design team can drop whatever new 40K model and fluff they are working on, and thrash out a bunch of ideas for a completely new game.

As soon as a basic direction is set: Make it like a simplified 40K and make the main faction fantasy Space Marines, the sculpting team can be briefed. The Sigmarines have one basic computer model that can quickly be given minor variations of helmet, weapon and shield. (I know there is a the Dracoth, the flying Sigmarines and some Sigmarines with trumpets and stuff too.)

Once it is clear that Sigmarines are going gangbusters, management can demand more of them, and the sculptors quickly change the axe to a spear, or the spear to a mace, or the mace to a or whatever, and export a new CAD file. The factory cuts a tool, and the new kit can be in production in a few days.

Suddenly management rush down and demand a new shipment of Sigmarines with hammers. The factory finishes its current Sigmarines with Swords run, and puts the Hammers Siggies tool on the production line. Within a few hours, 10,000 new kits are stamped out and waiting for boxes.

The print work is the problem, because it has to be scheduled in with external suppliers. Even so, practically anything can be done with a three month lead time.

I can't say for others, but I've had a wonderful time building and painting the new AoS models. Recently picked up some extra Sigmarines on eBay and two of the new scenery sets at my local GW.

grumpy_newenglander wrote:
I can't say for others, but I've had a wonderful time building and painting the new AoS models. Recently picked up some extra Sigmarines on eBay and two of the new scenery sets at my local GW.

Love this post! I love painting up my dwarves!

AoS had an initial burst of interest at my local store, then died down nearly completely. However, more recently there are a small handful of people interested in getting it moving again, and one of the staff wants to push it, so there have been some games played in the store, and an event is scheduled later in the month.

I get the distinct impression that there was just under the threshold needed to have a small but regular group playing it, and my return after graduation (my last semester was killer and I didn't make it into the store at all) put it over that bar.


In terms of personal opinion, I enjoy Age of Sigmar - comped or otherwise - a lot more than 40k right now, which just feels like a mess. I hate what formations have become in that game, and the fliers and knights and battle brother super units and superheavies and megaweapons and first turn charges have really killed that game for me. It doesn't help that I play CSMs, and their rules have been a blend of bad and boring for going on a decade now.

AoS, by comparison, is a lot simpler, a lot cleaner, and the 'monsters get weaker as they get more hurt' mechanic makes the big stuff feel a lot more in-scale with the rest of the game. It's got bugs and problems galore, don't get me wrong, but it's problems don't feel as frustrating or all-consuming as the problems in 40k feel.


Malifaux's been the real winner of the WHFB exodus in my area. The second edition of that game saw a huge jump in model quality, and it has a competitive balance that the more hardcore gamers enjoy. I like it too, but the more competitive players occupying that game at the local shop kind of keep a casual, narrative guy like me from getting too deep into the game.

 womprat49 wrote:

grumpy_newenglander wrote:
I can't say for others, but I've had a wonderful time building and painting the new AoS models. Recently picked up some extra Sigmarines on eBay and two of the new scenery sets at my local GW.

Love this post! I love painting up my dwarves!

Àgree ! My dwarfs and lizards are in storage back home while I study abroad but scene here is so great then Fyerslayers came out and despite th meh at first,this dwarf collector bought them, assembled the, into an elemental army, like that iconic art of flaming Grimnir with fire hair from the pic used everywhere online. Played them and love them more each time. Been using them as contained army but depending on what duardin factions Come later maybe we might ally up.

So yeah, making the most of it and loving AoS games and experience each game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Malisteen wrote:
AoS had an initial burst of interest at my local store, then died down nearly completely. However, more recently there are a small handful of people interested in getting it moving again, and one of the staff wants to push it, so there have been some games played in the store, and an event is scheduled later in the month.

I get the distinct impression that there was just under the threshold needed to have a small but regular group playing it, and my return after graduation (my last semester was killer and I didn't make it into the store at all) put it over that bar.


In terms of personal opinion, I enjoy Age of Sigmar - comped or otherwise - a lot more than 40k right now, which just feels like a mess. I hate what formations have become in that game, and the fliers and knights and battle brother super units and superheavies and megaweapons and first turn charges have really killed that game for me. It doesn't help that I play CSMs, and their rules have been a blend of bad and boring for going on a decade now.

AoS, by comparison, is a lot simpler, a lot cleaner, and the 'monsters get weaker as they get more hurt' mechanic makes the big stuff feel a lot more in-scale with the rest of the game. It's got bugs and problems galore, don't get me wrong, but it's problems don't feel as frustrating or all-consuming as the problems in 40k feel.


Malifaux's been the real winner of the WHFB exodus in my area. The second edition of that game saw a huge jump in model quality, and it has a competitive balance that the more hardcore gamers enjoy. I like it too, but the more competitive players occupying that game at the local shop kind of keep a casual, narrative guy like me from getting too deep into the game.

are you only playing at Titan? Maht Haverstock is the Wyrd Minion and hopefully he's still enjoying Malifaux. If you see him say hi from Kenny

I've been playing Age of Sigmar at least once a week at a local GW store.

my son has taught his ADHD friend to sit and play it, its the only game that kid can play but he seems to be enjoying it.

I will freely admit that I was very bitter about the destruction of the Old World. I went through the phases of grief and now I have joined a campaign that is starting at my not-so-local GW for AoS using Azyr comp and their campaign rules. There are six of us so far, and man is it nice to not have a bunch of negativity in the air when I go there.

 VeteranNoob wrote:
are you only playing at Titan? Maht Haverstock is the Wyrd Minion and hopefully he's still enjoying Malifaux. If you see him say hi from Kenny

I don't personally know him, most of my limited Wyrd gaming has been with Adam Atencio. I will ask around for Maht, though, and let him know you said hi.

 Coldhatred wrote:
I will freely admit that I was very bitter about the destruction of the Old World. I went through the phases of grief and now I have joined a campaign that is starting at my not-so-local GW for AoS using Azyr comp and their campaign rules. There are six of us so far, and man is it nice to not have a bunch of negativity in the air when I go there.

Awesome are you on our facebook group for Azyr Empires? With the dragon coming out I'll be putting together the next career paths (stormcast) and appendix: city fight for Empires

 thekingofkings wrote:
my son has taught his ADHD friend to sit and play it, its the only game that kid can play but he seems to be enjoying it.

If that's a sly dig at AoS being for children, it's incredibly insensitive to children with learning disabilities and I'd go so far as to say trolling.

My local GW finally started leagues for AOS and 40k. I went in for a game both days last weekend. I assumed the tables would be dominated by 40k players but to my surprise only 1 out of 5 games going was 40k. Went in at lunch to get paints yesterday played a quick pickup game and found out 4-5 others were coming for games all afternoon. Seems alive here

 monders wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
my son has taught his ADHD friend to sit and play it, its the only game that kid can play but he seems to be enjoying it.

If that's a sly dig at AoS being for children, it's incredibly insensitive to children with learning disabilities and I'd go so far as to say trolling.

Obviously it is not, but to keep it civil I will say no more to you about it, but for sure I will be putting you on ignore,I have been quite clear on how I feel about the game, I have never shied away from calling it trash openly, but felt it was worth mentioning the other side since they had such a good time with it over the weekend, try not looking for offense where there is none.

I don't think AoSi s for children but it's certainly pitched at a low level of complexity, like X Wing

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think AoSi s for children but it's certainly pitched at a low level of complexity, like X Wing

Whether intended or not, it can be a good benefit in the long run, my kid and his friends are loving it, so grudgingly I am shelling out to get them armies. IF it gives them something other than sitting in front of a video game all day, then I am all for it. I may hate it, but its a good game to do together, it may even lead to better games down the road.

auticus wrote:

 Coldhatred wrote:
I will freely admit that I was very bitter about the destruction of the Old World. I went through the phases of grief and now I have joined a campaign that is starting at my not-so-local GW for AoS using Azyr comp and their campaign rules. There are six of us so far, and man is it nice to not have a bunch of negativity in the air when I go there.

Awesome are you on our facebook group for Azyr Empires? With the dragon coming out I'll be putting together the next career paths (stormcast) and appendix: city fight for Empires

I am not, but I will go find it right now.

AoS seems to at least be doing well enough at my GW store. The manager does push it quite a bit, but he is also working on some unofficial store rules to make it less broken at times. Undead seems to be selling pretty well. I am sure it will take off more once stuff like High Elves come out.

How your local store does isn't relevant one store can't prop up the company.

Global numbers are the only deciding factor and we know those are bad.

hobojebus wrote:
Global numbers are the only deciding factor and we know those are bad.

Evidence, please.

We don't know global numbers as GW don't report sales per game.

Their revenue was almost static in the previous six monthly report that covers the first few months of AoS. It's possible that 40K utterly collapsed, and AoS sold like gangbusters, or that AoS was a total failure, and 40K increased sales 20%, and we could not tell that from this report.

hobojebus wrote:
How your local store does isn't relevant one store can't prop up the company.

Global numbers are the only deciding factor and we know those are bad.

Except, we don't really 'know' this. Folks might suspect, and folks might be right to an extent, especially considering how traumatic aos's birth screams were (slannesh had nothing on this baby, and slannesh killed the eldar empire when it was born!).

For example, there is the argument that considering how poorly wfb was doing for years, one can assume that 40k was carrying the lions share of the cash generating side of the business and that wfb, was to all intents and purposes irrelevant to the situation. By this, any reductions in profits or sales will land squarely on 40ks shoulders, for the most part. Aos, under this argument, essentially gets off Scott free, and only has to sell 'more than zero' to be cash positive and to be a net contributor to the company. It's development costs were not massive. It doesn't have to be the number two in the industry, it just has to make enough to be positive, and carve out a niche that that expand in the future.

I don't think this scenario is entirely true myself, but I think there is some truth in it.

Aos will never be the number two game in the industry. I even question if it will be a very 'visible' game, especially on the flgs front. considering that it is not really suitable for tournaments and pugs that represent a lot of the actual table top gaming that flgs's do. But I do think it's the kind of game that gets played by folks at home with their mates, or by parents with their kids. And this non-flgs gaming is, despite what some people believe, or want to believe, quite common. It's just not visible. I do think Aos is aimed it squarely at a particular niche, and while it is a rather 'specialised' niche, I think it does have potential to grow. But this will be a more long term thing, which is why I think go are playing the long game with this. But that could just be the optimist in me. The cynic says that if gw sees it struggling, they'll take it out the back and shoot it, and bury it next to wfb with a marker that says 'here is our fantasy range. It came, it did well for a while, we're not gonna bother any more'.

As far as the FLGS front goes, AOS can never succeed because on the FLGS front the games that are demanded are tournament games and pick up games leaning toward a competitive bend.

The pattern that emerged a few months ago is that Age of Sigmar is absolutely not failing, but its not being played at FLGS stores (at least in the states).

Because its not being played at FLGS stores, a lot of people feel its failing, because that is to many people the majority of exposure that they get to games.

Its being played quite a bit at GW stores. Maybe not all GW stores, but all the instances on the facebook groups that are active are almost exclusively played at GW stores, and never played at FLGS stores.

Home and club play seems to be the norm in the UK, while shop based play seems to be more common in the USA. I am judging by the comments of DakkaDakka members.

The thing is that GW can control the play in their shops, while home and clubs are prone to the heresy of playing games that aren't from GW, so in one way it's a bit silly for GW not to encourage pick-up games.

Maybe they feel a points system isn't necessary for PUG.

Well, AOS isn't making the ICv2 list.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/33912/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2015

40K is also no longer on top.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Well, AOS isn't making the ICv2 list.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/33912/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2015

40K is also no longer on top.

This excludes all of GWs store/web sales, right?

"...we interviewed distributors, manufacturers, and retailers, then aggregated the information into a single ranking."

 ShaneTB wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Well, AOS isn't making the ICv2 list.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/33912/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2015

40K is also no longer on top.

This excludes all of GWs store/web sales, right?

"...we interviewed distributors, manufacturers, and retailers, then aggregated the information into a single ranking."

Yes, but it also means that GW is losing ground outside of their own stores (web or physical). Now, if this is actually what they want... we don't know.

auticus wrote:
As far as the FLGS front goes, AOS can never succeed because on the FLGS front the games that are demanded are tournament games and pick up games leaning toward a competitive bend.

The pattern that emerged a few months ago is that Age of Sigmar is absolutely not failing, but its not being played at FLGS stores (at least in the states).

Because its not being played at FLGS stores, a lot of people feel its failing, because that is to many people the majority of exposure that they get to games.

Its being played quite a bit at GW stores. Maybe not all GW stores, but all the instances on the facebook groups that are active are almost exclusively played at GW stores, and never played at FLGS stores.

When you consider that in most states there is maybe 1 or 2 gw and literlly dozens of FLGS, not having a presence there is a big deal, especially since GW's are also usually tiny little 1 man stores. GW has removed themselves from that competition, I seriously doubt the bulk of mini gamers would be "At home only" * not that anyone has stated such* but this is whats unhealthy for the game in the short and long run. as for the game being a failure, to the world at large maybe, in my home state it absolutely is a failure, in some places its doing ok, but the bar is actually set by GW, if they feel its doing great, then it is, even if it leads them to close their doors or get bought out.

It is a "deal" to the extent that 40K used to be higher up the ranking, and GW used to have higher sales revenues.

It's true that ICV2 only surveys indie shops and distributors in the USA.

That said, GW have spent several years trying to take sales away from such outlets and concentrate them in their own outlets. The result of this is that 40K used to be higher in the ICV2 ranking and has dropped. GW's reported sales revenues also have dropped. This seems to indicate that GW just lsost sales by trying to cut Indies out of the picture.

None of this means that AoS is doing well or badly. We don't even have an objective or metric to tell us what "doing well" means, let alone data on how AoS is tracking.

GW's plan might be;
Year 1: Lose £10 million launching the game.
Year 2: Break even.
Year 3: Make a £10 million profit.
Year 4: Make a £20 million profit now the setup costs for the moulds have been amortised.

That might be their plan, but they might roll a one

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We don't know global numbers as GW don't report sales per game.

Their revenue was almost static in the previous six monthly report that covers the first few months of AoS. It's possible that 40K utterly collapsed, and AoS sold like gangbusters, or that AoS was a total failure, and 40K increased sales 20%, and we could not tell that from this report.

You know it was licensing not model sales that kept them static, they've stopped caring about their IP and are selling it to anyone without care for quality.

Bols reports all their sources say the same thing AoS isn't selling, icv2 doesn't even have it on their radar.

Shops across the US have mountains of the starter marked with massive discounts some up to 50% and they can't get rid of it.

At stock holders meetings they don't talk about how well it's selling instead they mention how many white dwarfs people bought and refer to it as a "long term investment" which is double talk for it being a failure.

They can't even sell 1000 limited edition books for any army.

Seriously the picture can not be clearer.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because GW really does view AoS as a long term investment. I don't know, but I find it a little silly when people are essentially saying, "Your anecdotal information isn't true, because the anecdotal information of my three mates and I is true. . .because there are more of us talking about it." Squeeky wheel gets the grease, or in this case the thread topics and articles.

I really think that GW could do well in the US with their current strategy if they actually manned their stores properly and made them a little bit bigger. No, I don't think every gaming store needs 8+ gaming tables, but 4 would be nice.

 Coldhatred wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, it's because GW really does view AoS as a long term investment. I don't know, but I find it a little silly when people are essentially saying, "Your anecdotal information isn't true, because the anecdotal information of my three mates and I is true. . .because there are more of us talking about it." Squeeky wheel gets the grease, or in this case the thread topics and articles.

I really think that GW could do well in the US with their current strategy if they actually manned their stores properly and made them a little bit bigger. No, I don't think every gaming store needs 8+ gaming tables, but 4 would be nice.

yeah, I think that last part is key, GW isnt doing well because their stores are in bad spots, poorly manned, and tiny.

AOS is doing alright in my local group, its the perfect sit around have a beer on and push some plastic across the table kind of game with great accessibility, heck even my wife is getting into it.

Using wounds as a point system is fine and free rules without needed to lug around a book is nice, couple printable pdfs and call it a day.

hobojebus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We don't know global numbers as GW don't report sales per game.

Their revenue was almost static in the previous six monthly report that covers the first few months of AoS. It's possible that 40K utterly collapsed, and AoS sold like gangbusters, or that AoS was a total failure, and 40K increased sales 20%, and we could not tell that from this report.

You know it was licensing not model sales that kept them static, they've stopped caring about their IP and are selling it to anyone without care for quality.

Bols reports all their sources say the same thing AoS isn't selling, icv2 doesn't even have it on their radar.

Shops across the US have mountains of the starter marked with massive discounts some up to 50% and they can't get rid of it.

At stock holders meetings they don't talk about how well it's selling instead they mention how many white dwarfs people bought and refer to it as a "long term investment" which is double talk for it being a failure.

They can't even sell 1000 limited edition books for any army.

Seriously the picture can not be clearer.

Royalties income went up about £900,000. That was enough to turn a small downturn into a small upturn, until constant currency turned it into a small downturn anyway. However, the total of royalties was pretty negligible compared to the rest of the revenue which derives mainly from game sales and isn't split into 40K versus AoA. In other words, revenue from game sales was about static and we can't tell how well the two main game systems are doing individually.

In GW's business model, any new game system is a long term investment. The AoS rules and starter box are a bit like a PS4. GW don't expect to make a profit if you buy that and stop. They expect you to go on buying more units and books for several years to come, and to get your friends involved as well. (Network gaming.)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I very much doubt that. One of GW's strengths is that they can do everything in house apart from printing.

They can do that now too, they bought the equipment last year.

The success of the game needs longer than a year to determine. It needs time for the resentment of whfb ending to clear, to establish it's own range of miniatures, to fully address and revamp the range of factions etc. When more work is done, and more of the old factions have been addressed and everything is clearer, we will start to get a better idea of it's success. Something like this isn't a failure just because it isn't immediately successful.

That said, from a person pov, I think that, once it has had that time, it won't be the success that was hoped for.

You sell the most in the first 2-3 months of a products life, if it's not selling well then it never will.

The idea that GW wants slow build up is ridiculous AoS was meant to be a smash hit that had people spending cash on any big monster they wanted.

Eight months in its selling less than the game it replaced and is mocked across the internet.

They won't even demo the game at convention's they attend.

It's a flop and it'll be abandoned like lotr before it once they have released the stuff already made.

How much AoS is being played is only ever a proxy for how well it is doing from a GW financial perspective.

If everyone is just using existing models to play AoS (or buying old models) and don't pick up the new ones then that is disaster for GW given that they seem to be incapable of bringing significant new blood into the game. It means the investment into the new moulds, design, books etc won't claw back their costs for a long period of time.

As a rule I generally use the number of painting blogs as an indication as to how well sales of certain miniatures have gone. The more popular models will have more plogs etc. Most of the AoS painting I have seen are all of older miniatures and much fewer of the newer miniatures. This might also imply that people could be converting previously purchased models for WFB (or ebay models) rather than shelling out on the more expensive new models.

A big test is going to be how well the rumoured next boxed set sells. The initial starter set sold well because of the unknown and the game was new. If as rumours suggested sales of AoS tanked after the initial early flurry and that continues with the new boxed set then I expect we will see some repercussions. Realistically the recent move away from Ltd editions to soft back army books (which were shown in hardback form on the website) might be an indicator that GW are scaling back some of their (non-miniature) production of AoS as that is likely to be easier to implement earlier than the miniatures which likely have been planned several years in advance.

I never said they wanted a slow build up, of course they would want a smashing success. Doesn't mean that not getting one equals long term failure.

And it isn't universally true about selling more of a product in the first three months. GW would have sold more space marines last year than they did when released in the 80's (not that I'm trying to suggest AoS should be given 30 years to achieve 'success').

 JamesY wrote:
I never said they wanted a slow build up, of course they would want a smashing success. Doesn't mean that not getting one equals long term failure.

And it isn't universally true about selling more of a product in the first three months. GW would have sold more space marines last year than they did when released in the 80's (not that I'm trying to suggest AoS should be given 30 years to achieve 'success').

From the data that was presented in the chapterhouse lawsuit we know that a huge proportion of every new kits sales are in the first month. Tactical marines are an exception I'm sure, but things like those new space wolf werewolves, I wouldn't find it hard to believe that in the next year they will sell less than 10% of the number sold the week they hit shelves.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
I never said they wanted a slow build up, of course they would want a smashing success. Doesn't mean that not getting one equals long term failure.

And it isn't universally true about selling more of a product in the first three months. GW would have sold more space marines last year than they did when released in the 80's (not that I'm trying to suggest AoS should be given 30 years to achieve 'success').

From the data that was presented in the chapterhouse lawsuit we know that a huge proportion of every new kits sales are in the first month. Tactical marines are an exception I'm sure, but things like those new space wolf werewolves, I wouldn't find it hard to believe that in the next year they will sell less than 10% of the number sold the week they hit shelves.

Did the chapterhouse numbers ever have actual kits on it? The charts I've seen only had codices, army books and rule books, not kits.

Granted, I believe they *probably* are biased toward their release, but I didn't think that was something we knew so much as guessed.

Uh... I thought it did but my memory not as reliable as I'd like it to be at 1am .....

I'd be surprised if that amount of information was made public. I'm not arguing that new products don't perform best whilst new though, I just mean that the game needs time to grow, if it is going to. The fact that many players haven't needed to buy anything at all to play it won't have helped its initial sales performance.

I find interesting the fact that people come here and claim its not going well as much as those saying its doing great... all based in pretty much just personal opinions.
yes you can have an educated opinion about things if you look closely into patterns and GW reports but even those are totally inaccurate since they do not specify product lines or trends etc.

So in short no one, outside a small group inside GW, knows the real factual numbers and for that all we do here is - wild speculation... sometimes loaded with biased personal beliefs.

Makes a fun read though.

So let me start and say that I have no clue if its doing well or not and to be blunt, it does not affect me slightly, it does not put food on my table I have no shares so the success/failure of this product does not concern me. I love the minis and Im totally on top of AOS, love it and 20 years ago it would be more problematic, but today? Nopes... Seen to many good minis and games vanish only to be replaced with something else, sometimes better.
As long as Im having fun with this today I really do not care how things evolve outside my little enjoyment bubble. Example: soon enough I will start some projects with my Rackham minis and will have fun with a product from a decade extinct game/company. You may say wouldn't it be better if they carried on doing what you like? Thats not how things evolve in time and rackham was an already mutated beast ( doing PPP crap). Things changed and things are changing with GW too.

Which brings me to my own personal wild speculation regarding GW and AoS.

GW is changing in bits and drabs, still making huge mistakes but unlike a few years ago they are adapting to a changing fanbase. It looks like with the proliferation of skirmish ventures on the market, the closed box boardgames Kickstarter success, the casual gamers having multiple systems the consumer never ending search for the bargain and above all the fast pace news in the internet age when news today are old tomorrow are making an impact at GW.

We have seen GW adapting to some of these things, AoS is not a massbattle game and I would say you do not need the silly amount of minis WFB did, so its a clear approach to skirmish level gaming... GW is releasing closed boardgames to go with their minis and reeditions of oldies to ride the boardgaming wave... GW is selling you bargains today with start collecting range, I never remembered such deep discount before... they know this will probably tempt you to buy lots of small armies rather than just one massive one and AoS with alliances flexibility does accentuate that direction, we also have freeee rules. FInally the weekly WD and new releases keeps GW on top of the news for a full month. All these are clear changes and AoS accentuates them perfectly.

So yeah I see gw doing these things and also doing huge fails too, price creep on the non boxed set deals does not help keeping people interest, not using the internet to its full potential delays their market penetration, dumping WFB fluff was unnecessary/risky, lack of communication, no presence in the industry events... and I could be here all day

Fact is AoS is a huge change from WFB and I believe that its GW answer to their ever changing fans. I also believe that it was a venture SO BADLY handled that its landing faced avalanches of critiques and rage. I dont think it sold well at all, would be surprised otherwise, but the new start collecting armies, free rules, new factions etc will make this slow burner spark in the future.

Either way I will continue with my figmentia for many years to come, regardless of company success or demise.

We could speculate/debate that why is GW suddenly changing? is it because they are being proactive or rather that losing sales is no longer sustainable?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
I never said they wanted a slow build up, of course they would want a smashing success. Doesn't mean that not getting one equals long term failure.

And it isn't universally true about selling more of a product in the first three months. GW would have sold more space marines last year than they did when released in the 80's (not that I'm trying to suggest AoS should be given 30 years to achieve 'success').

From the data that was presented in the chapterhouse lawsuit we know that a huge proportion of every new kits sales are in the first month. Tactical marines are an exception I'm sure, but things like those new space wolf werewolves, I wouldn't find it hard to believe that in the next year they will sell less than 10% of the number sold the week they hit shelves.

I don't remember anything like that in the Chapter House docs, but, however, GW are releasing a new kit and book practically every month for AoS.

I have seen some games at the local GW, but pretty much everywhere else around here its dead. Mostly, because of the rules and the backlash from killing off WFB.
I played one game, and its not my cup of tea. I stay with Warhammer. Thats it.

The handling was horrible and the pricing for the Stormcast boxed units is stupid. Some of the new start collecting sets--nearly a year later--for established armies are good value assuming you are a fan of GW and want to play AoS with them. The recent dwarves also seem like a bad presentation.

Had they introduced the rules (with points and non-points options) and not killed off the WFB world, it would have gone orders of magnitude better for them. The rules themselves are as serviceable and solid as 5th editon 40k or 6th or 7th edition WFB. Lots of people won't see that because of the non-pointed army building and the admittedly goofy base measuring thing---and the whole bad handling of the WFB ending that pissed them off in the first place.

I've managed to convince one other player to play the starter box with me, using both full armies included with the box. His conclusion was that the armies felt pretty balanced and that the rules were as good as what's been offered before/currently. Battleshock, in itself, is a pretty cool mechanic that helps speed games along.

I dont know, it kinda feels AoS is a bit on the upswing, just a bit. Vets like me are SLOWLY coming over. The sad thing is, GW could easily bring AoS up WHFB numbers by simply catering to a very large group (at least here in the states) that is the pick up gamers. Most of us dont have time to devote to a gaming group and pick up games were huge in Los Angeles California. And I mean HUGE. We had the biggest bunker stateside and it was always packed up until they shut it down. What the pick up gamer wants is points. We dont need tourney level rules or point structures. But what we do need is a quick way to set up a fairly balanced game vs a stranger. The whole talking it out bit just doesnt work in a pick up game. Ive yet to see it work anyhow.

So points. AoS needs it even if just to recapture the pickup market stateside. The point haters could still not play with them. Everyone wins.

What the pick up gamer wants is points. We dont need tourney level rules or point structures. But what we do need is a quick way to set up a fairly balanced game vs a stranger.

You don't need points then, you just need a set scenario that is reasonable balanced. Just as points are based around a set scenario (usually the battle line on a clear table) and don't balance other scenarios.

I haven't tried it properly yet, but the scenario that GW seem to be using at some of their events or for the school league may work, or be the basis of such a 'standard' scenario, limited turns and max model count, with only a few turns to make victory points, but with the weaker side having extra ways of making victory points, and to a larger amount the weaker he is.

Worry less about having 'equal' armies and more about how you win the game, and whether that has some mechanism for not wanting to deploy every awesome model you can lay your hands on.

Even if you have a scenario based system, points are still good. Like Aeronautica Imperialis, it came with a bunch of scenarios but also had points values so it was easy to modify the scenario to the models you actually have on hand.

Scenarios are good. But without points you're still eyeballing it. And when you're eyeballing it, things go off the rails quick because most people are horrible at eyeballing game balance. It is a very difficult thing to do properly.

auticus wrote:
Scenarios are good. But without points you're still eyeballing it. And when you're eyeballing it, things go off the rails quick because most people are horrible at eyeballing game balance. It is a very difficult thing to do properly.

To be fair, points are a very difficult thing to do properly as well. Poor points system (like, say, 40k 'goes off the rails quick' for precisely the same reasons)" A well engineered points system is however, pretty damned effective at helping to balance games. But you need a huge amount of initial input along with a lot of playtesting and continued readjustments, feedback and updates to make sure it is maintained.

Eyeballing it, in a similar vein, can go off the rails quickly, as you correctly point out, but then again, with a bit of practice and experience, it gets easier to adjust and 'judge'.

Neither is necessarily 'better' per se, (or rather 'preferable' to me, I enjoy both) if you ask me.

I like the fan point systems, but I don't want a GW one. The 40k forum here revolves around under/overpowered armies etc, and a lot of the posts from players who like the min/maxing stuff are downright cringeworthy.

I would rather GW perhaps lay out more guidelines for each force in scenarios and in the 4 page rules than institute an across-the-board point system.

coldgaming wrote:
I like the fan point systems, but I don't want a GW one. The 40k forum here revolves around under/overpowered armies etc, and a lot of the posts from players who like the min/maxing stuff are downright cringeworthy.

I would rather GW perhaps lay out more guidelines for each force in scenarios and in the 4 page rules than institute an across-the-board point system.

Or suggestions on how to create thematic and interesting armies as well as how to 'match up' against someone beyond 'shrug... Just eyeball it'.

Point-less games can be fun, but it takes the right attitude and a co-operative approach to the game to get the most out of it. The biggest failure of Aos isn't the lack of points, it's the lack of suggestions as to 'how' to play point-less games since for so many folks, playing with points is all they know. Gw chucked their players into the wilderness and they expected them to survive and thrive and just 'get it', but they didn't give them any tools, or compasses or even a 'how to skin a rabbit for dummies' book. White dwarf would have been the perfect vehicle for pushing this 'attitude' and 'style' of gaming but as far as I'm aware, gw haven't really done it much yet. Maybe it'll change though

Deadnight wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
I like the fan point systems, but I don't want a GW one. The 40k forum here revolves around under/overpowered armies etc, and a lot of the posts from players who like the min/maxing stuff are downright cringeworthy.

I would rather GW perhaps lay out more guidelines for each force in scenarios and in the 4 page rules than institute an across-the-board point system.

Or suggestions on how to create thematic and interesting armies as well as how to 'match up' against someone beyond 'shrug... Just eyeball it'.

Point-less games can be fun, but it takes the right attitude and a co-operative approach to the game to get the most out of it. The biggest failure of Aos isn't the lack of points, it's the lack of suggestions as to 'how' to play point-less games since for so many folks, playing with points is all they know. Gw chucked their players into the wilderness and they expected them to survive and thrive and just 'get it', but they didn't give them any tools, or compasses or even a 'how to skin a rabbit for dummies' book. White dwarf would have been the perfect vehicle for pushing this 'attitude' and 'style' of gaming but as far as I'm aware, gw haven't really done it much yet. Maybe it'll change though

I agree. I think the basic rules could use a whole page of "How to Build Your Army" and then some indication of how to play your first games and where to go from there. The scenarios in the starter box book do lead you through how to build up an army and get familiar with the rules, but the base rules could use a similar thing.

The thing is that a lot of people LIKE building busted armies. With a point system, they find the cracks and exploit them.

These people are not a stark minority either. They are everywhere.

Points can work if the company doing the points actually cares about making them work. THe problem with 40k and WHFB is that they never really worked and GW never really cared about making them work.

I agree eyeballing it and bad points lead to the same place... a bad experience where one side blows out the other. The problem is that a lot of people love that.

The people that exploit cracks in a point system are the same people that will ensure that their armies with no points are obviously overpowering the opposition as well.

They know, for example, that a 1 wound model that has 3+ to hit 3+ to wound -1 rend and 3+ save is vastly superior to a 1wound model that has a 4+ to hit 4+ to wound, no rend and a 4+ save, but will argue that both sides have similar wounds so its balanced.

A fan made point system that cares about balance (pick one, there are several options, all of which provide roughly the same experience IMO) or if GW made points that cared about balance would reflect that the first model costs more because its better.

Eyeballing it remains in the abstract though.

I think the root of issues here is that many people are so used to the non balance of GW points that the same outcome of steamrolling someone comes with no points as well, but no points is easier because you just pick up models.

I'm not going to say thats wrong, I'm just going to say for me thats not how i want to spend my limited freetime. (hence why i spent so much of my time developing azyr and why i will do my best to keep it updated, because it works!)

While I think fan made point systems are great and I appreciate the work put into them. They dont work for PuGs. They CAN. But they dont. Its not the fault of the system. The thing is people put a large emphasis on things being "official". And I kinda understand that.

As I said, I dont think people are expecting a tight balance. But they are expecting a semblance of balance in a official light. Scenarios are ok, for people who like to play them. But once more, it just doesnt work for PuGs. For many reasons.

If GW wont put forth the effort of a point system for the PuG's then they shouldnt get the marketshare.

Well, the discussion about points if off topic but I see arguments for both sides.

I think what GW should have done is give each war scroll a power rating, say 1 for a unit of 10 Skinks, 3 for a unit of 20, and so on. This would not be too hard to work out since each war scroll is a set of mathematical stats plus a couple of special rules. The basic stats could be very quickly calculated in a spreadsheet. The special rules would need to be worked out "by hand". Synergies between war scrolls could be ignored, as this would tend to lead to fluffy, faction based armies being more powerful.

Then GW could make a scenario with power rating 8-12, rating 18-22 and so on, giving players a reasonable idea of the size of army they should use.

puree wrote:

What the pick up gamer wants is points. We dont need tourney level rules or point structures. But what we do need is a quick way to set up a fairly balanced game vs a stranger.

You don't need points then, you just need a set scenario that is reasonable balanced. Just as points are based around a set scenario (usually the battle line on a clear table) and don't balance other scenarios.

I don't see why people see scenarios and points as almost exclusive.

Infinity is the ultimate scenario game, awfully boring to play straight kill-the-enemy stuff but really shines in scenario play and there are a ton to choose from)

.... And it has a point system that works rather well despite there being a ton of stats and special rules.

Table wrote:
So points. AoS needs it even if just to recapture the pickup market stateside. The point haters could still not play with them. Everyone wins.

How does everyone win? Point haters would be stuck out in the cold. Try and find a game without points. That would be like trying to find a game of 40K that is Unbound. Yeah you can't have it both ways. GW has tried it and us Geeks and Nerds have shown GW we will not use 2 systems. So GW went one way. Just look at the hate for Unbound. You can't have it both ways. Case closed.

Davor wrote:
How does everyone win? Point haters would be stuck out in the cold.

People who hate points are very, very easily served by...playing without points. It's not that hard.

In reality, I doubt there are many people out there who actually hate points, full stop. What you find are people who like AoS, and have latched onto the idea of no points as a good thing as an overall defense of the game. Put a good points system in front of nearly any gamer, and they'll be fine with using it.

Davor wrote:

Table wrote:
So points. AoS needs it even if just to recapture the pickup market stateside. The point haters could still not play with them. Everyone wins.

How does everyone win? Point haters would be stuck out in the cold. Try and find a game without points. That would be like trying to find a game of 40K that is Unbound. Yeah you can't have it both ways. GW has tried it and us Geeks and Nerds have shown GW we will not use 2 systems. So GW went one way. Just look at the hate for Unbound. You can't have it both ways. Case closed.

Can't any game be played without points? It's not AoS is especially designed well to support pointless list comp.

I don't use points in any of the games I play. I just bring what I think is right

Davor wrote:

Table wrote:
So points. AoS needs it even if just to recapture the pickup market stateside. The point haters could still not play with them. Everyone wins.

How does everyone win? Point haters would be stuck out in the cold. Try and find a game without points. That would be like trying to find a game of 40K that is Unbound. Yeah you can't have it both ways. GW has tried it and us Geeks and Nerds have shown GW we will not use 2 systems. So GW went one way. Just look at the hate for Unbound. You can't have it both ways. Case closed.

If you have trouble finding a game with people who don't like points then maybe, just maybe, that is because people who don't like points are a tiny minority outside of the Historical gaming side of the hobby?

If people have the option to do both (as they did with WHFB and 40k), and people choose to play with points, does that not suggest that games should be made with points because that's what the community wants?

Considering their sales numbers and what we know from court cases, it seems AoS is selling a little less or maybe the same (at best) as WFB was selling. Was it really worth it to blow everything up, piss off a bunch of veteran customers and revamp an entire model line to have about the same amount of sales? Ive talked to some FLGS owners here and AoS starters aren't selling. The models that are selling are being used for KoW and frostgrave when I see them being used in stores. The new kits are widely mocked for their prices, the rules are mocked for their simplicity and goofiness, I just haven't seen a lot of excitement around any part of AoS locally.

AoS isn't being played or sold at FLGS for the most part it seems. Its being played and sold primarily at GW stores.

FLGS players seem to be primarily competitive bent as well as pick up game inclined, both things that AoS does not cater to.

I think the GW suits seriously underestimated the animosity they would instill in their audience by pushing this change and seriously overestimated the appeal of 'fantasy space marines'. It seems like they though this would get 40k players to buy the fantasy line, but from my limited perspective it caused more 40k players to quit then to cross over.

Beyond that, the idea that competitive games, pick up games, and points values are 'badwrongfun' was ludicrous, and the designers (I don't blame the suits for this at all), really showcased a rather ugly mentality when they decided the problem with their game's sales wasn't that they had written bad rules for their game, or that the company had employed terrible business practices in selling the models for it, but rather that their audience was 'doing it wrong', and needed the new game to force them to 'do it right'.

I don't think AoS is wholly terrible, and I don't think it's beyond saving, but it would take a pretty serious change in attitude and practice from both the business types and the design types at GW, changes of a nature that neither seem particularly adept at.

 jonolikespie wrote:

If you have trouble finding a game with people who don't like points then maybe, just maybe, that is because people who don't like points are a tiny minority outside of the Historical gaming side of the hobby?

Or maybe it simply shows that many people have simply not been introduced to that style of play, and more importantly, shown that it can be a valid way to play and enjoy your wargames. similarly, if you can't find them it might suggest that folks who don't play with points simply don't frequent Facebook groups or Internet forums or simply game in other circles. My experience of diy gamers suggests to me most of them just aren't visible and don't go to where the hardcore players like to hang out. Doesn't necessarily make them a tiny minority...

 jonolikespie wrote:

If people have the option to do both (as they did with WHFB and 40k), and people choose to play with points, does that not suggest that games should be made with points because that's what the community wants?

Not necessarily. Henry Ford had a famous quote – ‘if I had just given people what they’d wanted, I’d have built a faster horse’. ‘What the community wants’ can be very intertwined with ‘this is all the community knows’. People played with points because quite often, it was all they have been exposed to and all they knew, hence anything else is often regarded as beyond the pale and scoffed at as somehow ‘unworkable’ – gamers can be surprisingly conservative and downright hostile to alternative ways of playing wargames, different thinking as well as being proactive about their hobby. I think one good thing with AOS is that is has started a conversation amongst players and opened their eyes to alternative ways to match forces and ‘game-building’ and the hobby is not necessarily a worse place for opening people up to a parallel way of playing games. Id personally like to see this conversation mature and evolve and see where it goes.
Similarly, I think it's dishonest to talk about 'the community' as a hive mind that wants one thing - it's a very fractured, schitzofrenic community at the best of times, and while some want points, others don't and some probably aren't all that bothered.
The problem with the argument about people having the choice to do both is that with points, with an ‘official’ and defined ‘way’ of playing a game, that ‘choice’ is often illusory, since its quite simply taken out of your hands and people will not step out of the narrow confines of ‘officialdom’, will only play a narrow slew of scenarios and will only build armies for a narrow spectrum of what's potentially available. (and this is not meant in any way to discredit a top-down ‘defined’ way of playing games – part of the success of warmachine/hordes is because of its universality and strength of its ‘organised play’ for example, but I do think it's important to acknowledge the limitations and consequences of that style of Wargame).

There's a difference between trying to sell cars to people who asked for horses to ride around on and trying to sell sieves to people who asked for a bucket to carry water.

For casual pick up games, an underlying structure for force organization is necessary, for the same reason that you can't carry water in a sieve. Points systems may be imperfect, they may have leaky holes, but AoS's 'no system' is nothing BUT holes, and to the extent that I've seen it played at all in the local store that's only thanks to community efforts stepping forward to fill the gap.

 Malisteen wrote:
I think GW seriously underestimated the animosity they would instill in their audience by pushing this change and seriously overestimated the appeal of 'fantasy space marines'.

Beyond that, the idea that competitive games, pick up games, and points values are 'badwrongfun' was ludicrous, and the designers (I don't blame the suits for this at all), really showcased a rather ugly mentality when they decided the problem with their game's sales wasn't that they had written bad rules for their game, or that the company had employed terrible business practices in selling the models for it, but rather that their audience was 'doing it wrong', and needed the new game to force them to 'do it right'.

I don't think AoS is wholly terrible, and I don't think it's beyond saving, but it will take a pretty serious change in attitude and practice from both the business types and the design types at GW, changes of a nature that neither seem particularly adept at.

100% spot on. Im seeing alot of the "you are doing wrong" GW mantra bleeding into the pro-AoS online community. The fact is, at least in SoCal and im betting in the wider states, is that PuGs are far far far more frequent (or was) than clubs. GW has been trying to act like this isnt the case, and they have paid heavily for it in lost sales in the wider SoCal area. GW and a few fans like to make out that our play style was what was wrong with the scene. That all PuGamers are filthy net list WAAC guys. That if they introduce points, we will just break the game and WAAC all the "real hobbyists" away. This is asinine. Very few people ive played in my 10 year stint have been TFG. And as ive said, GW has thrown out this demographic as unwanted. The problem with that is many of us will have moved on to better systems for our playstyle when GDubs figures out they need us back.

The debate around AoS quickly became highly polarised, with the anti- people making statements like it was literally unplayable, the worst game ever, not even a game.

It's not surprising that this caused a reaction from people who actually like AoS, and the line chosen was to defend the features of AoS -- especially no points -- as being a huge positive move, so people who opposed it were negative, backwards-looking bullies, in effect.

I don't think either position is tenable, and they certainly have done nothing to help the discussion, so I suggest we keep off those points in this thread.

I can say pretty surely that AoS is basically dead in NoVA. On of the FLGS in my area quit stocking GW altogether (HordesMachine & X-wing exclusively), and the other only has any because he has to in order to sell 40k. Kings of War took over in the vacuum, and the books are conveniently placed right next to the AoS stuff in a sort of "I'm an option, too" way.

Me? I grabbed some Stormcast minis on ebay to paint. A game would be welcome, but I can take it or leave it.

I imagine AoS is doing better now then it's release once the vets finally said so long and moved on to other systems. The main issue that AoS will have to deal with now is whether or not there is a market for a game like AoS. A fun, casual narrative game with a Magic: The Gathering balancing mechanic of "if everything is OP, nothing is OP".

I'll stand by things I've said in the past with regards to the switch. If GW had put out a 9th edition with all the army books in it, called it "Warhammer: The End", and charged 200 bucks for the thing along with a goodbye message to vets this whole thing would have been received better. The lack of communication for half a year waiting for any idea of what was coming was a really poor decision on GW's part. Frankly I think that helped to create the animosity most Vets have about the game.

As for the points I am of the opinion that the free form nature of the game makes makes points...pointless. All you are doing with points is buying wounds anyway so why not cut out the middle man. A high point model is a high point model because of killing power, and killing power has so many external factors that play a part in whether a model is "worth it" or not I think just going by wounds just makes things easier.

Wounds is a horrible balancing mechanism.

A goblin has 1 wound. A sword master has 1 wound. One is significantly better than the other, but by wounds they are equal.

Malisteen wrote:There's a difference between trying to sell cars to people who asked for horses to ride around on and trying to sell sieves to people who asked for a bucket to carry water.

For casual pick up games, an underlying structure for force organization is necessary, for the same reason that you can't carry water in a sieve. Points systems may be imperfect, they may have leaky holes, but AoS's 'no system' is nothing BUT holes, and to the extent that I've seen it played at all in the local store that's only thanks to community efforts stepping forward to fill the gap.

Malisteen, I don’t actually disagree with what you are saying here at all. In fact I’ve probably said it myself that AOS is a truly terrible game for PUGs and tournaments. But the thing to remember is that it’s not really designed for either, so why are we judging it based against those criteria? AOS isn’t a ‘casual, pick up game’. AOS isn’t anything new, but it harkens back to the old-school ways of playing wargames before things were ‘hard-coded’ with a top down ‘defined’ way of playing. It harkens back to a more co-operative approach to game-building, and draws on a lot of the same energy, and the same attitudes that you’d see amongst folks that successfully run pen and paper RPGs. Bear in mind, I have no issue with points whatsoever and am not advocating against them in any way– I actually see great value in a robust points-based system, and my favourite wargames are in fact points-based (warmachine/hordes and infinity fyi) and will happily support and shout the merits of a well-built points based game. The thing is, I have no issue with point-less games either – we often play flames of war in this manner for example, and I can’t recall any personal examples where eyeballing it in this way has led to such a poorly balanced game that we had to walk away from it – generally, it worked out and ended up as quite a tight game. I simply try to acknowledge the limitations and the consequences involved in both styles of play.

That said, I can’t fully agree with your ‘sieve’ analogy. The thing with analogies is that anything else can also be used as an analogy– you call AOS a sieve for carrying water, someone else will call aos an open-ended sandbox. ‘no system’ might be ‘nothing but holes’ to you (and you’re not wrong for feeling that way), but I just see it as open-ended, and someone else might see a game based on ‘structure’ or ‘with a system’ as being akin to a straight jacket that stifles creativity and open-ended games by forcing a specific way of playing that isthen seen as ‘right’ or ‘default’ and any deviation from that ‘norm’ becomes something to get angry and hostile to. They’re not wrong for feeling that way either and to be honest, there is some justification behind that argument. The fact that some amongst the community are stepping up to the plate and organising and building their games, and trying to be proactive and empowered about their hobby and how they play their games is something that I see as a good thing. But then again, I believe in self-responsibility and self-empowerment as a means to improving oneself.

auticus wrote:Wounds is a horrible balancing mechanism.

A goblin has 1 wound. A sword master has 1 wound. One is significantly better than the other, but by wounds they are equal.

then don't just use wounds?

I've made the point before but 'points' on their own are not necessarily a good balancing mechanism either - even in well crafted points based systems, like warmachine you get issues and hard counters and cases where two points of x isn't equal to two points of y. What makes games like warmachine balanced isn't just it's use of a robust points system though it helps enormously. As well as use of points, it uses two, or three-list formats, frequent errata, a huge reliance on 'soft' counters (essentially everything can kill everything else, so things'll probably work out) it uses sideboards (advanced duty roster), it uses multiple victory conditions (scenario and assassination) and it uses a very comprehensive (and arguably restrictive) set of scenarios that all essentially boil down to variations of 'grab the geometric shape in the centre of the board'. And please, before you go off on me, this is not me having a go at warmachine - for the record, warmachine is my favourite setting and Wargame.

No one thing balances games. It's as true for 'wounds' in Aos as 'points' in warmachine.

auticus wrote:
Wounds is a horrible balancing mechanism.

A goblin has 1 wound. A sword master has 1 wound. One is significantly better than the other, but by wounds they are equal.

But all the points do is measure a units killing power vs another and there are many more factors that are involved in a game. yeah a sword master is better at killing then a goblin in CC, but how long until the Swordmaster gets into combat? one turn? two? Paying those points for a model that spends the first two turns doing nothing is silly. I mean to offset the fact that a goblins suck they are cheap...and when you have a cheap model the best way to run them is by running a LOT of them. So what do you end up spending your points on in the end?

more wounds...always just wounds. So why not just cut out the middle man?

Wounds can be an all right balancing mechanism, and even models can. It sounds very wrong coming from the old WFB mindset, and is not going to work for competitive play. But AoS has a different mindset I find. It's more of a cooperative game than a competition. You're not really trying to prove your "generalship" above the other person. You don't really care if you win or lose. You're just trying to have a fun game that tells a story. This as has been said doesn't so easily lend itself to pick up games. But I think a lot of gripes people have with the lack of balance comes from the old mentality.

Most people who had been playing WFB for years and looked at the AoS ruleset reacted in shock and horror. Even I did. But if you can change your frame of reference (and particularly try the game out with a different perspective), you might find there's a lot about the design that works.

There are gamers of all types. GW would do well to make pickup games easier. People enjoy that aspect of the hobby and building lists. The difficulty is marrying everything they want to do under one official system.

coldgaming wrote:
Wounds can be an all right balancing mechanism, and even models can. It sounds very wrong coming from the old WFB mindset, and is not going to work for competitive play. But AoS has a different mindset I find. It's more of a cooperative game than a competition. You're not really trying to prove your "generalship" above the other person. You don't really care if you win or lose. You're just trying to have a fun game that tells a story. This as has been said doesn't so easily lend itself to pick up games. But I think a lot of gripes people have with the lack of balance comes from the old mentality.

Most people who had been playing WFB for years and looked at the AoS ruleset reacted in shock and horror. Even I did. But if you can change your frame of reference (and particularly try the game out with a different perspective), you might find there's a lot about the design that works.

There are gamers of all types. GW would do well to make pickup games easier. People enjoy that aspect of the hobby and building lists. The difficulty is marrying everything they want to do under one official system.

I've had a similar sentiment myself. For what AoS is and for what it is trying to do it is fine as is. If I want to get my Mass Battle fix I'll play 9th age (Which, in less then a year have managed to create an interesting game system and balanced rules, something GW has failed at for as long as I have played WHFB).

If you are playing a narrative game with the scenarios in AoS I have never felt that a game has been lopsided or not fair with just wounds.

If GW is doing an organized play like WMH that would be worth seeing. GW bringing back some older practices way faster than I expected, I'm hopeful now that before the summer they will bring back Outriders or some form of PrssGanger since from what I hear and see AoS active areas seem to usually have a local community "organizer" or whatever you call that person who organized game nights, test games, weekend events and championing which ever game. While not the case everywhere I think that's quite fair and would be helpful to at the very least try and get some new blood or gamers that still have their Fantasy armies to try AoS out.

Really, anything is possible. Yeah, it would have been great to have had this kind of support at launch but oh we'll.

 VeteranNoob wrote:
If GW is doing an organized play like WMH that would be worth seeing. GW bringing back some older practices way faster than I expected, I'm hopeful now that before the summer they will bring back Outriders or some form of PrssGanger since from what I hear and see AoS active areas seem to usually have a local community "organizer" or whatever you call that person who organized game nights, test games, weekend events and championing which ever game. While not the case everywhere I think that's quite fair and would be helpful to at the very least try and get some new blood or gamers that still have their Fantasy armies to try AoS out.

Really, anything is possible. Yeah, it would have been great to have had this kind of support at launch but oh we'll.

GW bring back outriders has been a rumor since they ended the program. My buddy was an outrider back in the glory days, he would probley do it again if GW brought the program back.

GW have done a U turn on a number of policies that have been unpopular in the past 10 years. It's at least possible they will U turn on Outriders too.

 Chute82 wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:
If GW is doing an organized play like WMH that would be worth seeing. GW bringing back some older practices way faster than I expected, I'm hopeful now that before the summer they will bring back Outriders or some form of PrssGanger since from what I hear and see AoS active areas seem to usually have a local community "organizer" or whatever you call that person who organized game nights, test games, weekend events and championing which ever game. While not the case everywhere I think that's quite fair and would be helpful to at the very least try and get some new blood or gamers that still have their Fantasy armies to try AoS out.

Really, anything is possible. Yeah, it would have been great to have had this kind of support at launch but oh we'll.

GW bring back outriders has been a rumor since they ended the program. My buddy was an outrider back in the glory days, he would probley do it again if GW brought the program back.

Actually, the outriders part is my own addition. Now that you mention it its one of the few things I haven't seen included in a rumor.
I know lots of ex-Outties and they got a bum deal:( press Gangers seem to go well for PP and anything's possibile

 Kilkrazy wrote:
simplified 40K
Space Marines
Sigmarines
flying Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Hammers Siggies

Hey RiTides, you're right!

 judgedoug wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
simplified 40K
Space Marines
Sigmarines
flying Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Hammers Siggies

Hey RiTides, you're right!

We don't have a 'tag' function on dakka, perhaps it would be better in future for you to put things that have no discernible content in PMs to people you want to see them instead. Thanks

 thekingofkings wrote:


yeah, I think that last part is key, GW isnt doing well because their stores are in bad spots, poorly manned, and tiny.

I'm going back to this old quote from the topic to add my two cents.

We need to keep in mind that GW's direction has changed recently and we're starting to see those changes in action just now (reopening of social media interaction, organized play, older game franchises, etc). What you guys said about the stores is true, and here is something:

I'm very close to the GW store's manager in my hometown, and I will most probably work for him in May. That store is layed out this way: a small to medium sized front room with 2 gaming tables and 4 painting desks. There's a storage room in the far back, for stocks, and an other room in the middle, which used to be a gaming room maybe 10 years ago, and which became an unused garbage dump in dire need of repairs that HQ forbid the managers to use anymore because stores were not meant to be community places, but toy stores.

Two weeks ago, the manager said this to me: "We're re-opening the back room, we got a new budget for it and no restrictive guidelines, do you have ideas what to do with it, I'm thinking a tournament room."
I gave him a few ideas of my own, including large figurines displays and dioramas, and even a reading corner, which is the only one he dismissed.

Anyway, I think we can assume all GW politics are going to change however slow it is, and while AoS might be the child of poor corporate decisions, GW seems to be heading towards the right direction again, and under that condition, I am absolutely convinced AoS will come out as a success.

That's good for the stores with closed rooms. There are a lot more stores that moved into tiny units with no expansion options. I'd estimate that no more than 1 in 10 have room to expand to their former size without moving (and no doubt breaking leases)

until they reduce price or include more models for the current cost nothing will turn around for GW.

The barrier to entry is too high compared to competitors.

They are in 2016 but refuse to communicate in a meaningful manner, a face book page that deletes negative comments is exactly how not to do it they need to face the music and apologise.

Their negative image amongst gamers and retail will ensure they keep shrinking opening a few game rooms won't change that.

hobojebus wrote:
until they reduce price or include more models for the current cost nothing will turn around for GW.

The barrier to entry is too high compared to competitors.

They are in 2016 but refuse to communicate in a meaningful manner, a face book page that deletes negative comments is exactly how not to do it they need to face the music and apologise.

Their negative image amongst gamers and retail will ensure they keep shrinking opening a few game rooms won't change that.

Really, as someone eyeing AoS (I like the Stormcasts and the "Do what you want" approach seems like it would be amazing for actual, smaller-style narrative campaigns), the barrier to entry is and always will be the biggest deterrent. The rules I can at least deal with if I have regular people and we are doing narrative stuff (seems more common to find this in AoS than 40k, anyways). But having to pay as much a they charge for everything is the nail in the coffin, because it has always felt like you aren't getting your money's worth on whatever you buy. AoS at least seems to somewhat mitigate this with the notion that you can buy a box of something and expand your force with just it, instead of having to "plan" buying a box of this, a box of that and a transport or whatever for 40k, but it's still pretty daunting unless you want to only play smaller scale games.

AoS at least seems to somewhat mitigate this with the notion that you can buy a box of something and expand your force with just it, instead of having to "plan" buying a box of this, a box of that and a transport or whatever for 40k, but it's still pretty daunting unless you want to only play smaller scale games.

Its only daunting if you only want to play larger games, that means the benefit of starting small is irrelevant.

I don't only want to play large games, But I equally don't only want to play small games so the fact that you can start small and still have decent games is one of AOS big plus points to me. I can buy a box here and a box there and play games whilst building up. Then I can play small or large as the desire strikes me. With the likes of WFB or KOW where the games don't really work well at small numbers of models then there is much larger barrier to entry.

Plus don't think it is only cost. Mantic maybe (or were when I last looked) a lot cheaper then GW, but I have no desire to buy some humongous amount of stuff just because it is cheap. Whilst there are of course plenty of people who are like robots and make/paint/base stuff rapidly, there are also those like me who in a case like that would just have a pile of stuff that takes months to work through (even just doing them unpainted). Number of models for decent game can be as much a barrier to entry in its own right even when they are cheap.

The fact that AoS can work with a box here and there helps encourage you to buy what you can afford, and then spend some time and effort on the 10 models or whatever whilst you wait another month for another box.

puree wrote:


The fact that AoS can work with a box here and there helps encourage you to buy what you can afford, and then spend some time and effort on the 10 models or whatever whilst you wait another month for another box.

I agree and I've painted more since AoS came out than I did in my life for WFB before. I don't need to hit any sort of minimum army size to play, so I never want to play with unpainted models.

I was just watching a YT video with similar thoughts. Back in the day I felt encouraged to buy more than I could commit myself to painting any time soon just to have a full list and be able to play. Most of my models were grey or spray coated. It can be very hard to work up the motivation to paint when you have such a huge pile of shame. It's made even harder if you realize you hate painting Troop X but have 39 more of them to do. Painting always felt like trying to rush out a complete army and not something I enjoyed methodically.

But with AoS, I buy one box at a time, and even the start collecting boxes are almost too many models for me at once. I buy a box, spend about three weeks or a month painting it, buy the next one. I like this cycle and I feel like I'm getting great bang for my buck in terms of hobby time. The mentality is totally different, but somehow I've ended up with more than a WFB army size of painted models in this relaxed manner, whereas I never had a fully painted WFB army before.

coldgaming wrote:

puree wrote:


The fact that AoS can work with a box here and there helps encourage you to buy what you can afford, and then spend some time and effort on the 10 models or whatever whilst you wait another month for another box.

I agree and I've painted more since AoS came out than I did in my life for WFB before. I don't need to hit any sort of minimum army size to play, so I never want to play with unpainted models.

I was just watching a YT video with similar thoughts. Back in the day I felt encouraged to buy more than I could commit myself to painting any time soon just to have a full list and be able to play. Most of my models were grey or spray coated. It can be very hard to work up the motivation to paint when you have such a huge pile of shame. It's made even harder if you realize you hate painting Troop X but have 39 more of them to do. Painting always felt like trying to rush out a complete army and not something I enjoyed methodically.

But with AoS, I buy one box at a time, and even the start collecting boxes are almost too many models for me at once. I buy a box, spend about three weeks or a month painting it, buy the next one. I like this cycle and I feel like I'm getting great bang for my buck in terms of hobby time. The mentality is totally different, but somehow I've ended up with more than a WFB army size of painted models in this relaxed manner, whereas I never had a fully painted WFB army before.

As someone who buys way too much to paint, I agree. But for those of us with Fantasy armies we already have models to start our new faction. Even TK and Brets still have the free scroll lists online and you could always proxy them as something similar if you wanted to use skeletons for Undead current book, for example. Personally, I think a chunk of the players who have stayed away from AoS are steadily starting to try it out with their existing models or armies they got on ebay in the exodus. Not jumping into any internal sales GW numbers crap because none of us have the actual truth there. Yeah, it's expensive and won't be changing anytime soon, but the start collecting boxes are a nice effort.

21 naked dwarves £100, mantic dwarf starter 72 models £50.

3x the models half the price.

Now like or dislike the models the difference in value is undeniable.

That's what's killing GW, greed.

hobojebus wrote:
21 naked dwarves £100, mantic dwarf starter 72 models £50.

3x the models half the price.

Now like or dislike the models the difference in value is undeniable.

That's what's killing GW, greed.

Yeah, but IMO for this matter, you get what you pay for. I wish the Fyreslayers are cheaper as well but these are two different things. I also play KoW and as a dwarf collector took the super cheap deal compared to GW but the models are such crap I couldn't even use them and be happy putting them on the table, let alone painting them. For KoW with the footprint unit sizes it's fine since a diorama and heavy converting might make this tolerable over two army boxes but for AoS I need less models and I'm quite happy with the value I get. So KoW dwarfs cheaper but no desire to use them = wasted money.

Fyreslayers are fun to build, paint and play and I will play them over and over again for a good investments getting much more than my money's worth. Indeed, there is an undeniable difference in value. The GW models have value for me aesthetically and practically to use them. Like or dislike, as you say, it doesn't mean something is better if it's cheaper. I know you think GW is greedy. Maybe they are. I would be ecstatic if GW models came down in price even 15-20% but most gamers in my experience and I very much believe want to be happy with their purchase and continued use, otherwise it's just wasted money.

hobojebus wrote:

Now like or dislike the models the difference in value is undeniable.

Except that sentence doesn't actually make sense, as value is more of a qualitative assessment than a quantitative one.

Cost per individual 'wound counter' is undeniably lower in Mantic's case, but there comes a point where it's not simply about cost of the minis.
This is, after all, a luxury hobby. It is not an essential expense. It's not like having to go with economy store-brand food out of necessity rather than choice.
It's all equally pointless and ephemeral.
I know plenty of people who wouldn't buy Mantic minis at half the price, just as I know people who would probably carry on buying GW stuff at twice the price.

I wouldn't buy the soulless cad models AoS has released so far for free they are seriously bad.

I'm a gamer I use the models as wound counters when they are not on a board they sit in a box not in a display case.

So gw prices are beyond a joke offering no value for money where mantics by comparison fantastic.

hobojebus wrote:
I wouldn't buy the soulless cad models AoS has released so far for free they are seriously bad.

Yet you expect people to buy Mantic's product when they have the same opinion of them that you do of GW's product

 Ghaz wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I wouldn't buy the soulless cad models AoS has released so far for free they are seriously bad.

Yet you expect people to buy Mantic's product when they have the same opinion of them that you do of GW's product

I never said I expected people to buy mantic models I mearly pointed out they were a much better deal.

If mantic can make plastic infantry that cheap there's no reason GW can't , I'm using mantics stuff to illustrate how much AoS stuff is inflated in price.

No. They're not a better deal, just like you said that you wouldn't buy GW's models "for free". You expect us to use Mantic's models because they're a better 'deal', yet you won't use GW's models if they're free, therefore making them an unbeatable 'deal'? You're contradicting yourself.

Mantic's models are only a better deal if your primary concern is that the models are mere "wound counters" that sit in a box when not being used.

From that perspective, I would 100% agree that Mantic's models are a great deal.

From the perspective of wargaming as a visual spectacle, and that the visuals are just as important as the game itself, I would say mantic's models fall well short and what you save in money you take a hit in visuals, and from that perspective at least from my own ... I would never buy a mantic model over GW model unless I just really liked the mantic model.

That has happened a couple of times, mainly abyssal dwarves for my chaos dwarf army, but overall I feel Mantic's models are very sub par.

I also don't see models as wound counters though and the game is only part of the whole thing to me.

auticus wrote:
Mantic's models are only a better deal if your primary concern is that the models are mere "wound counters" that sit in a box when not being used.

From that perspective, I would 100% agree that Mantic's models are a great deal.

From the perspective of wargaming as a visual spectacle, and that the visuals are just as important as the game itself, I would say mantic's models fall well short and what you save in money you take a hit in visuals, and from that perspective at least from my own ... I would never buy a mantic model over GW model unless I just really liked the mantic model.

That has happened a couple of times, mainly abyssal dwarves for my chaos dwarf army, but overall I feel Mantic's models are very sub par.

I also don't see models as wound counters though and the game is only part of the whole thing to me.

alot of the competitive players in my area dont even use models...they uses pieces of papers that counts as the unit...and they just mark off how many wounds that piece of paper took

They are releasing models but also discontinued a couple armies so far.

 Ghaz wrote:
You're contradicting yourself.

Yeah, you'll get that a lot...
With one exception, the nicest thing I've ever been able to say about a Mantic sculpt is that I could see what they were going for.
Even the already maligned Stormcast Stormdrake - *what* the model should look like is up for debate, but at least you can be sure it's been realised exactly how GW wanted.
Whether you think it's worth it, or whether you like how it looks, is a whole other discussion.
The other point that keeps coming up is that GW aren't a safe bet because anything could be 'squatted' at any time.
Well, yes. But then if you're prepared to put your faith in a company that appears to be living hand to mouth and can't even fulfil kickstarters properly, well you run the risk of everything being squatted.
If you're going to compare companies, then PP is the only real valid comparison - in terms of technical product quality, range of products etc. - and they still fall behind on sheer volume of output.

GW are going to hammer AoS (no pun intended) for the next 12-18 months. At that point they'll start judging whether to bin fantasy completely, I'd imagine.

We know those are bad? Sorry but that is nothing but conjecture, bias, and opinion.

Global numbers are made up of the sales from gw stores, online stores, and flgs. In that sense, the sales from each flgs matter. The store's I have visited around here all say that aos has raised their fantasy sales quite a bit (from almost none to hard to keep in stock due to sales). They have said that 40k sales are falling though, which has balanced their decreasing 40k sales to what overall sales used to be.

If you are basing your opinions off gw's corporate health, well, their profits and losses are not posted by game. There is no way to decipher this. Any posts about that or global sales is... opinion. No one had global facts. The only varifiable facts we can get are our flgs sales.

No varifiable facts = no proof = not true = rumors = conjecture = personal bias

 Ghaz wrote:
If you're going to compare companies, then PP is the only real valid comparison - in terms of technical product quality, range of products etc. - and they still fall behind on sheer volume of output.

A couple years ago, I'd agree, but right now I'd put Wyrd up there instead. While assembly is sometimes a pain, the jump in model quality between first edition pewter Malifaux models and the modern, second edition plastic kits has been enormous. I didn't give their stuff the time of day before, but these days their materials and sculpts are both considerably superior to Privateer Press's stuff, and I'd point to them as the number one example of a minis company that succeeds in all the ways GW fails in terms of game design and community support, without sacrificing model quality.

 Malisteen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
If you're going to compare companies, then PP is the only real valid comparison - in terms of technical product quality, range of products etc. - and they still fall behind on sheer volume of output.

A couple years ago, I'd agree, but right now I'd put Wyrd up there instead. While assembly is sometimes a pain, the jump in model quality between first edition pewter Malifaux models and the modern, second edition plastic kits has been enormous. I didn't give their stuff the time of day before, but these days their materials and sculpts are both considerably superior to Privateer Press's stuff, and I'd point to them as the number one example of a minis company that succeeds in all the ways GW fails in terms of game design and community support, without sacrificing model quality.

You might want to edit the tags on that, Ghaz was quoting me.

I'm not too familiar with Wyrd stuff as Malifaux was DoA at our club due to being pushed by a couple of insufferable neckbeards who cheated persistently, but I got the impression they don't operate at a scale even approximate to PP/GW. Happy to be shown otherwise though! I'd agree that their output is good, but I'd mentally classed them at Corvus Belli' level - single system, low release frequency.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. They're not a better deal, just like you said that you wouldn't buy GW's models "for free". You expect us to use Mantic's models because they're a better 'deal', yet you won't use GW's models if they're free, therefore making them an unbeatable 'deal'? You're contradicting yourself.

That's a strawman no where have I said I expect people to use mantic models, repeating it won't make it true.

I compared one plastic dwarf to another by price and by volume, that is separated from my personal opinion that all the new AoS stuff is ugly.

There's no contraction one is a fact the other is an opinion.

Mantic starter set is cheaper and does give you more stuff than GW's 21 dwarves for £100 pounds, that's a fact it's incontrovertible.

My not thinking the AoS stuff is worth anything in an opinion that's subjective.

And please stop trying to put words in my mouth it's a wasted effort I don't respond to strawman arguments.

 motyak wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
simplified 40K
Space Marines
Sigmarines
flying Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Sigmarines
Hammers Siggies

Hey RiTides, you're right!

We don't have a 'tag' function on dakka, perhaps it would be better in future for you to put things that have no discernible content in PMs to people you want to see them instead. Thanks

Oh, sorry - this was in reference to the moderators only selectively moderating Age of Sigmar, not moderating each other, and even participating in flame-baiting and trolling. It was interesting to see such a shining example of that.

hobojebus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No. They're not a better deal, just like you said that you wouldn't buy GW's models "for free". You expect us to use Mantic's models because they're a better 'deal', yet you won't use GW's models if they're free, therefore making them an unbeatable 'deal'? You're contradicting yourself.

That's a strawman no where have I said I expect people to use mantic models, repeating it won't make it true.

I compared one plastic dwarf to another by price and by volume, that is separated from my personal opinion that all the new AoS stuff is ugly.

There's no contraction one is a fact the other is an opinion.

Mantic starter set is cheaper and does give you more stuff than GW's 21 dwarves for £100 pounds, that's a fact it's incontrovertible.

My not thinking the AoS stuff is worth anything in an opinion that's subjective.

And please stop trying to put words in my mouth it's a wasted effort I don't respond to strawman arguments.

No. You're the one making strawman arguments claiming Mantic's models are a 'better deal' and then go on to claim GW's models wouldn't be a 'better deal' even if they're free just because you don't like the sculpts.

I must say that I really despise mantic models. Especially their elves are in my opinion the worst models in existence.

As for the argument about the two companies one must choose either expensive quality (GW) or cheap quantity (Mantic).

Everything else is subject to what part of the hobby one enjoys most...

 Siegfried VII wrote:
I must say that I really despise mantic models. Especially their elves are in my opinion the worst models in existence.

As for the argument about the two companies one must choose either expensive quality (GW) or cheap quantity (Mantic).

Everything else is subject to what part of the hobby one enjoys most...

I do worry about people who reduce their leisure activities solely to a bottom-line exercise...

Its economics.

I know a lot of guys that play wargames with chess pieces or paper they cut out. There is now a lego fad where lego pieces are being used to represent models.

I can't get into that but its a pretty fairly common thing I've noticed.

RoperPG wrote:

 Siegfried VII wrote:
I must say that I really despise mantic models. Especially their elves are in my opinion the worst models in existence.

As for the argument about the two companies one must choose either expensive quality (GW) or cheap quantity (Mantic).

Everything else is subject to what part of the hobby one enjoys most...

I do worry about people who reduce their leisure activities solely to a bottom-line exercise...

I worry about people who throw good money after bad "to finish their armies"

Horse>Courses.

RoperPG wrote:

I do worry about people who reduce their leisure activities solely to a bottom-line exercise...

Here's your top-line, premium priced model:

And here's your discount price model:



I wouldn't buy either of them. Each manufacturer has their stinkers.

Yea, ok, that's not really a fair comparison of what gw had to offer (esp when listed as gw's top of the line premium model). Here is a fair and unbiased comparison of each companies top of the line, most expensive, best premium sculpt:

Owning both models, gw wins big time in quality, aesthetic, etc. Now aesthetic will vary from person to person, and paint jobs can make or break some minis, but no other wargames compare to gw's latest plastic kits. I don't agree with their pricing, but that's why I don't buy everything they make.

 Ghaz wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No. They're not a better deal, just like you said that you wouldn't buy GW's models "for free". You expect us to use Mantic's models because they're a better 'deal', yet you won't use GW's models if they're free, therefore making them an unbeatable 'deal'? You're contradicting yourself.

That's a strawman no where have I said I expect people to use mantic models, repeating it won't make it true.

I compared one plastic dwarf to another by price and by volume, that is separated from my personal opinion that all the new AoS stuff is ugly.

There's no contraction one is a fact the other is an opinion.

Mantic starter set is cheaper and does give you more stuff than GW's 21 dwarves for £100 pounds, that's a fact it's incontrovertible.

My not thinking the AoS stuff is worth anything in an opinion that's subjective.

And please stop trying to put words in my mouth it's a wasted effort I don't respond to strawman arguments.

No. You're the one making strawman arguments claiming Mantic's models are a 'better deal' and then go on to claim GW's models wouldn't be a 'better deal' even if they're free just because you don't like the sculpts.

That's not a strawman argument, a strawman is when you claim someone said something they did not then argue against that instead of what they actually said.

You did that I did not.

It's now painfully clear you don't have a valid counter argument or really a sound grasp on the basic difference between a fact and an opinion so I'm going to stop this pointless dialogue.

Ghaz wrote:And here's your discount price model:

I wouldn't buy either of them. Each manufacturer has their stinkers.

I wouldn't either. But I'll be more willing to forgive the one with the more modest price tag, than the one from the company that boasts about making "the best toy soldiers in the world" then charges you a ridiculous premium price for them regardless if they're that good or not.

Regarding previous comments in this thread, I heavily disagree about the whole Mantic product line being gak. As you say, every manufacturer has their stinkers. Mantic's line overall is hit-and-miss. They have some pretty decent models for an affordable price (less affordable since their recent price rise though), a bunch of 'meh' models, and also some gakky ones. They have shown serious issues at turning promising concept art into proper models. Still it's mostly a matter of subjective taste. I've seen their elves over a table with a decent paintjob, and they're not half as bad as most people in the internet will tell you. They have quite a peculiar aesthetic that departs from more canonical elves and they're obviously not for everyone (i.e. I don't want them).

455_PWR wrote:Yea, ok, that's not really a fair comparison of what gw had to offer (esp when listed as gw's top of the line premium model). Here is a fair and unbiased comparison of each companies top of the line, most expensive, best premium sculpt.

Owning both models, gw wins big time in quality, aesthetic, etc. Now aesthetic will vary from person to person, and paint jobs can make or break some minis, but no other wargames compare to gw's latest plastic kits. I don't agree with their pricing, but that's why I don't buy everything they make.

You'd be surprised of what you can find out there if you pay enough attention. Also aesthetics depend a lot on personal tastes. I truly loathe the new Archaon model. It's an oversized, overbloated mess that doesn't even deserve to lick the boots of his previous, decade-old, metal model. I concede it's quite neat from a technical point of view (and probably the pinnacle of plastic tech nowadays) but I don't like the design nor the execution. Then again I'm not really into models that big. The Mantic one looks pretty poor and I wouldn't buy it even at 90% discount. I'm pretty happy with the resin "drake" I got from Reaper, it provides my dark elf army with a dragon option when needed... and it fits into my shelf too!

Need I remind you of what you posted? Obviously I do...

hobojebus wrote:21 naked dwarves £100, mantic dwarf starter 72 models £50.

3x the models half the price.

Now like or dislike the models the difference in value is undeniable.

That's what's killing GW, greed.

hobojebus wrote:I wouldn't buy the soulless cad models AoS has released so far for free they are seriously bad.

I'm a gamer I use the models as wound counters when they are not on a board they sit in a box not in a display case.

So gw prices are beyond a joke offering no value for money where mantics by comparison fantastic.

There is a word for a person who claims to have certain moral principles or beliefs but behaves in a way that shows they are not sincere. You seem to claim that the less expensive Mantic models are a 'better value' but if GW's models were free then they wouldn't be a 'better value'. You can't keep your own position straight. First its use Mantic's models because they're the 'better value' and then its don't use the GW models even if they were the 'better value'.

It's the cost of books more than the cost of figures.

Yup, that's what I was getting at with aesthetics, some people like it while others won't.

I actually thought the same about the new archaon model. I decided to give it a chance (thinking that my dislike may be in part due to the paint schemes). I assembled it and have to say it is one of the nicest, coolest, largest models in my collection. His angles make him look bloated or whatever in gw's pics, but his model is quite muscular, slim, and dynamic. I firmly believe the new stormcast dragon's issues are the same as well, and the model will be much better in person.

I have not painted my new archaon yet, but everyone who has entered my game room has commented on how freakishly awesome his model is regardless (then they gasp when they hear the price lol, good thing I got him on ebay at discount with another $20 off ebay coupon ). He is in a cabinet by every kingdom death model made, every WWX model, many 40k models, mantic models, dust models, CBT models, etc. They all pick his model over the others (although the kingdom death models get the "what the... omg" reaction, and wwx models get the "cool, what game is this!" reaction).

So anyway, I think to summarize the last many posts so we can all get back on topic:

1. Some/you hate gw's aesthetics and think they are overpriced
2. some would rather buy cheaper minis to use even if not up tot the same quality (gamer, not collector)
3. Others like gw's aesthetics
4. Others are willing to spend more to use high quality minis they like, even if they are ridiculously priced
5. Facts are GW's plastics are near the best plastics on the market for QUALITY, maybe not each person's aesthetics

 455_PWR wrote:
If you are basing your opinions off gw's corporate health, well, their profits and losses are not posted by game. There is no way to decipher this. Any posts about that or global sales is... opinion. No one had global facts. The only varifiable facts we can get are our flgs sales.

No varifiable facts = no proof = not true = rumors = conjecture = personal bias

As always when this comes up, I'd like to point out this post from Larry Vela of BoLS:

bigred wrote:
What we've heard from every retailer out there was a strong robust year up until AoS hit on July 4th weekend - followed by the worst 12-week summer for GW sales they had ever seen. (One retailers said is was the worst summer of GW sales in 17 years!), followed by a leveling off and slow regrowth with the arrival of Tau. Still, not back up up to the pre AoS levels.

Several retailers told us they would never treat GW the same after that summer and are strongly diversifying product lines away from them.

[...]

I'm certain GW has felt the pain of AoS behind the scenes, regardless of the public face they are putting out. Not one retailer talked about it in positive terms with us.

It's not a full breakdown of GW's earnings by system, but BoLS has a pretty wide network of games stores that they talk to, and I believe they've at least got some connection to people in the know. Pretty much every publicly-available indicator shows AoS bombed on release. I've heard quite a few people say it's picking up, and maybe that's true (it's certainly true in my area, at least in gameplay if not sales), but that's starting from what very much seems to be a monumentally low floor.

auticus wrote:
There is now a lego fad where lego pieces are being used to represent models.

Lego minifigs are not cheap at roughly $3 each.

If I had to buy an army, Lego would not be my starting point.

 455_PWR wrote:
So anyway, I think to summarize the last many posts so we can all get back on topic:

1. Some/you hate gw's aesthetics and think they are overpriced
2. some would rather buy cheaper minis to use even if not up tot the same quality (gamer, not collector)
3. Others like gw's aesthetics
4. Others are willing to spend more to use high quality minis they like, even if they are ridiculously priced
5. Facts are GW's plastics are near the best plastics on the market for QUALITY, maybe not each person's aesthetics

First of all, I'm glad you're enjoying your new Archaon model. No sarcasm here.

I don't hate GW's aesthetics. It's just that GW's general aesthetic sense, in recent years, simply does not appeal to me in the slightest. Their models keep getting more and more ornate, many times overloaded with tons of details that serve no purpose other than to brag about how advanced their plastic technology is. At the same time their models keep getting bigger and bigger, I could barely stomach their past scale creeps (there was a pretty clear one around 2004), but the current trend has just gone IMO too far.

I also have an issue with the mentality that cheaper always means lower quality and more expensive means higher quality. This is actually what they (blindly) seem to believe at GW, and what they want everyone else to believe. Well, it's not true. Look around the market and here and there you will find models that rival GW's quality for a fraction of the price. The problem is that many people seem to know just Mantic and only Mantic as "The Alternative", hence every other manufacturer that is not GW asks for lower prices because their product is crap.

 Korinov wrote:
I don't hate GW's aesthetics. It's just that GW's general aesthetic sense, in recent years, simply does not appeal to me in the slightest. Their models keep getting more and more ornate, many times overloaded with tons of details that serve no purpose other than to brag about how advanced their plastic technology is. At the same time their models keep getting bigger and bigger, I could barely stomach their past scale creeps (there was a pretty clear one around 2004), but the current trend has just gone IMO too far.

I don't know about you guys, but I dropped $100s on Kingdom Death : Monster specifically for the monsters, which are huge and ornate and freakin' awesome.

If you guys wanna play small, fine. But you don't speak for me, and tiny, crappy, chintzy, gakky stuff like Mantic doesn't speak to me at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 455_PWR wrote:
Owning both models, gw wins big time in quality, aesthetic, etc. .

Wait, stop. You paid real hard-earned money on that lump of gak from Mantic? On purpose, not scammed? Dude, WTF?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

auticus wrote:
There is now a lego fad where lego pieces are being used to represent models.

Lego minifigs are not cheap at roughly $3 each.

If I had to buy an army, Lego would not be my starting point.

No no not minifigs. Legos. Like... the square pieces are a model. They have bags full of them they dump out and then put on a flat rectangle (moving tray). They assign colors for units. So the red unit might be a unit of swordmasters, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
So anyway, I think to summarize the last many posts so we can all get back on topic:

1. Some/you hate gw's aesthetics and think they are overpriced
2. some would rather buy cheaper minis to use even if not up tot the same quality (gamer, not collector)
3. Others like gw's aesthetics
4. Others are willing to spend more to use high quality minis they like, even if they are ridiculously priced
5. Facts are GW's plastics are near the best plastics on the market for QUALITY, maybe not each person's aesthetics

First of all, I'm glad you're enjoying your new Archaon model. No sarcasm here.

I don't hate GW's aesthetics. It's just that GW's general aesthetic sense, in recent years, simply does not appeal to me in the slightest. Their models keep getting more and more ornate, many times overloaded with tons of details that serve no purpose other than to brag about how advanced their plastic technology is. At the same time their models keep getting bigger and bigger, I could barely stomach their past scale creeps (there was a pretty clear one around 2004), but the current trend has just gone IMO too far.

I also have an issue with the mentality that cheaper always means lower quality and more expensive means higher quality. This is actually what they (blindly) seem to believe at GW, and what they want everyone else to believe. Well, it's not true. Look around the market and here and there you will find models that rival GW's quality for a fraction of the price. The problem is that many people seem to know just Mantic and only Mantic as "The Alternative", hence every other manufacturer that is not GW asks for lower prices because their product is crap.

If I found a cheaper alternative that I actually liked visually, you can bet I"d buy those models. To date, that has not happened. I've got some mantic models. My chaos dwarf army has a few of their heroes. I also play frostgrave and the undead are from mantic.

You get what you pay for. I don't think mantic looks like cheap **** because they are cheap. I think that they look like cheap **** because largely most of the models to me look like cheap ****.

auticus wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

auticus wrote:
There is now a lego fad where lego pieces are being used to represent models.

Lego minifigs are not cheap at roughly $3 each.

If I had to buy an army, Lego would not be my starting point.

No no not minifigs. Legos. Like... the square pieces are a model. They have bags full of them they dump out and then put on a flat rectangle (moving tray). They assign colors for units. So the red unit might be a unit of swordmasters, etc.

Oh, I completely misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying. Though I don't quite understand why Lego when that sort of army representation works just as well for the classic wooden blocks used for many Ancients games.

Mantic reminds me of early GW

 455_PWR wrote:

3. Others like gw's aesthetics
4. Others are willing to spend more to use high quality minis they like, even if they are ridiculously priced
5. Facts are GW's plastics are near the best plastics on the market for QUALITY, maybe not each person's aesthetics

Definitely these describe me. I like what I like. I most certainly know that cheaper miniatures exist. My 28mm Napoleonics from Perry Miniatures are staring me in the face, but the historicals market also has a lot more saturation and choice due to the covering of, well, history where a 28mm French Grenadier is going to look pretty comparable (relatively) to another company's 28mm French Grenadier, thus more direct competition. Show me, anti-GW people, where I can get non-GW Nurgle Daemons that fit the AoS aesthetic and are not boutique and can be gotten at a regular hobby shop off the shelf? Oh yeah. . .

Paint jobs for webstore use also don't help models (of any company) sometimes, dear lord I remember one of the newer Bilbo models looked atrocious and there were parts that were unpainted in the 360 degree frames.

auticus wrote:
Its economics.

I know a lot of guys that play wargames with chess pieces or paper they cut out. There is now a lego fad where lego pieces are being used to represent models.

I can't get into that but its a pretty fairly common thing I've noticed.

If it's single lego blocks, that might be more economical.
If it's lego figures, you can afford to buy the most expensive GW stuff and hit the Cheesecake Factory with the savings


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

auticus wrote:
There is now a lego fad where lego pieces are being used to represent models.

Lego minifigs are not cheap at roughly $3 each.

If I had to buy an army, Lego would not be my starting point.

And they're only that cheap if you want random if I understand right.
If you wanted a regiment of like models such as pirates in this unit - you're gonna pay a lot more.

I don't think that they bought them new I think that they had a ton already and that dude just bagged them up and use them for wargaming now so they don't have to buy models.

OK, got it. The funny thing is I totally love the concept of plastic block infantry. I'd just want it with sculpted plastic blocks that were molded to look like dozens of ranked infantry to support a 1:1 figure:ground scale - something that AOS and other 28mm games will never approach.

Did those with historicals. Those are pretty awesome tables but damn if they aren't also a ton of work.