via Something Awful in the their TG section:
"May as well drop some rumours here.
40k will get a new edition in September. It is a minor clean up of the
current rules, they won't even be changing the cover art, and they will put
an FAQ that covers the changes online. It's basically an amended reprint.
There will be two new campaign books this year, covering Blood Angels, Grey
Knights, Tyranids and Orks, and will include formations for all of them.
This is because they are the pre-formation codexes.
The studio knows there are problems with the Ork book, but there is no
clear direction as to where they want to go with it in balancing it with
the current codices beyond minor rewrites and adding formations. Ork Clan
formations are very likely.
GW are married to formations now, and will give the studio a brief of
things like do some formations for an army and how much the formation
should cost to buy the models for, ie a £200 formation.
On fantasy there will be a tournament format for AoS with points. The sales
plummeted for AoS but the current fantasy range sales look healthier than
before the change (though how much this is people buying stuff to finish
their collections I wasn't told). Feedback on the rules was incredibly
poisonous, and GW want to move past it and heal.
Bretonnians were going to be in the next WFB starter before it was scrapped
in favour of AoS, meaning there are some lovely plastics that made it to
prototyping that will likely never be seen now, including a hero on
hippogriff better than the Elf Prince from Island of Blood.
Lord of the Rings will include both the Strategy Battle Game and a new
version of War of the Ring where it is possible to play a ranked up fantasy
game, because Forgeworld know there is a gap in the market.
Forgeworld will have finished their new production facility at some point
next month, though they will not be available to order to store until the
production quality issues are solved and they can produce in the volume and
quality required.
GW will be launching an anonymous feedback system for staff next month, for
a number of reasons. Such as 50% of staff not passing 3 month probation and
25% of staff left not finishing the year, which is an eye watering turnover
even for retail. These will be gone through for action points, and followed
up at monthly meetings.
Kirby is now gone, and everyone is rejoicing because the new CEO plays the
game, won't force people out for telling it to him like it is (as Kirby did
to Alessio Calvatore after his presentation to the board where he told them
they were pricing out kids, which meant Jervis came back from holiday to
find out Alessio had resigned rather than be fired) and actively wants to
listen to people.
Forgeworlds star has been rising because of Horus Heresy and Betrayal at
Calth, and there are behind the scenes discussions about FW being delivered
to store and the Specialist Games range being available through the store.
The new store planograms are here to stay, though some stores don't have
enough shelving units.
Kirby in his new adviser to the board hasn't attended a single meeting now
the reins of power have passed to Kev Rountree, because they always seem to
be held when he is unavailable. Kirby also once loudly and publicly
announced no one played games and rules didn;t matter in a Throne of Skulls
tournament."
I am highly dubious of this. From what I understand the end times and age of sigmar was in planning for years, so why start to make a new starter set. The stuff about scheduling meetings to avoid Kirby also sounds like nonsense. Didn't they already talk about plans for the Lotr game which did not include war of the ring? They haven't even don't the second part of war zone Fenris yet. How will there be time for two more this year?
On fantasy there will be a tournament format for AoS with points. The sales plummeted for AoS but the current fantasy range sales look healthier than before the change...
There are several things in this rumor which sound like an angry kid making stuff up and because of that I don't buy it.
Until someone reliable chimes in and can help us sorting which parts of this (if any) are legit information, I do not see why we should trust these rumors.
Kirby is now gone, and everyone is rejoicing because the new CEO plays the
game, won't force people out for telling it to him like it is (as Kirby did
to Alessio Calvatore after his presentation to the board where he told them
they were pricing out kids, which meant Jervis came back from holiday to
find out Alessio had resigned rather than be fired) and actively wants to
listen to people.
Interesting, hadn't heard that before, I wonder if its true?
You can imagine it as part of that popular meme, with the exec saying "I wonder what we can do to increase sales?", the first couple of answers saying "release a new edition" or "get rid of force org restrictions" and the voice at the back saying "make things affordable for kids", before he goes bouncing out of the window.
via Something Awful in the their TG section:
...
Forgeworld will have finished their new production facility at some point
next month, though they will not be available to order to store until the
production quality issues are solved and they can produce in the volume and
quality required.
I'm curious about this one. Anyone heard anything about a new Forgeworld facility? If they were preparing for the ability to ramp up production, then why did they suddenly drop a lot of product from their lines? Or was that a case of needing to clear space for this facility or what?
via Something Awful in the their TG section:
...
Forgeworld will have finished their new production facility at some point
next month, though they will not be available to order to store until the
production quality issues are solved and they can produce in the volume and
quality required.
I'm curious about this one. Anyone heard anything about a new Forgeworld facility? If they were preparing for the ability to ramp up production, then why did they suddenly drop a lot of product from their lines? Or was that a case of needing to clear space for this facility or what?
Well more space, more of the same molds, more focus on casting the same gak over and over?
it kinda makes sense in that they are focusing on a few lines instead of a LOT of different items.
Turns out that voice was Rountree! And now he's running the show. If he ever happens to come to CT, I'd like to buy the guy a beer for bringing about changes that brought me back to a company I used to love. I'm starting to really like them again, and it's mostly through things that have happened during his leadership.
via Something Awful in the their TG section:
...
Forgeworld will have finished their new production facility at some point
next month, though they will not be available to order to store until the
production quality issues are solved and they can produce in the volume and
quality required.
I'm curious about this one. Anyone heard anything about a new Forgeworld facility? If they were preparing for the ability to ramp up production, then why did they suddenly drop a lot of product from their lines? Or was that a case of needing to clear space for this facility or what?
Well more space, more of the same molds, more focus on casting the same gak over and over?
it kinda makes sense in that they are focusing on a few lines instead of a LOT of different items.
A relocation or reorganization often acts as a catalyst for these sort of things.
When faced with packing up dozens, if not hundreds of different moulds/masters, it might make sense to look and see that you didn't sell X product since you sold 1 back last August and decide it isn't worth the effort of relocation and just stick it in a box, or, given GW's history with this stuff, the bin.
via Something Awful in the their TG section:
...
Forgeworld will have finished their new production facility at some point
next month, though they will not be available to order to store until the
production quality issues are solved and they can produce in the volume and
quality required.
I'm curious about this one. Anyone heard anything about a new Forgeworld facility? If they were preparing for the ability to ramp up production, then why did they suddenly drop a lot of product from their lines? Or was that a case of needing to clear space for this facility or what?
Well more space, more of the same molds, more focus on casting the same gak over and over?
it kinda makes sense in that they are focusing on a few lines instead of a LOT of different items.
Remember that Forge World will be responsible for all of the Specialist Games line.
I know that generous amounts of salt should be applied, but some of this definitely sounds quite legit:
1. Screw Orks - they don't need good rules because, "punching bag"!
2. 0 mention of Chaos, because, "screw Chaos!"
iirc, one of the main rumor gurus did mention that Warzone Fenris Part II would contain updates & a new Decurion style detachment for Grey Knights.
Looks like actual codex books are going the way of the dodo, unless you're either a Smurf, Tau or Eldar though...
zamerion wrote: Bretonnians were going to be in the next WFB starter before it was scrapped in favour of AoS, meaning there are some lovely plastics that made it to prototyping that will likely never be seen now, including a hero on hippogriff better than the Elf Prince from Island of Blood.
Thanks for kicking me while I'm down. Here, let me smile broadly so you can get all of my teeth, why don't you?
So 40k is staying in the mire of crap that it is currently in lol. 7th has destroyed 40k. It is a mess. Minor tweaks wont fix it. Hopefully gw will see sense and fix it before it dies out
It feels like a combination wishlist and taking current activities and extrapolating.
Do I think Kirby has much interaction anymore in the day to day. Nope. It FEELS like an almost different company that produces the same models. Or like how the company used to be run in some cases.
The rest is meh with liberally applied salt but I don't hate any of it. But that's kinda the point of made up stuff
There will be two new campaign books this year, covering Blood Angels, Grey
Knights, Tyranids and Orks, and will include formations for all of them.
This is because they are the pre-formation codexes.
The studio knows there are problems with the Ork book, but there is no
clear direction as to where they want to go with it in balancing it with
the current codices beyond minor rewrites and adding formations. Ork Clan
formations are very likely.
If I'm not mistaken, Orks gained their 'decurion' formation with the updated Ghazghkull supplement? And Dark Eldar still lack formations as well.
Motograter wrote: So 40k is staying in the mire of crap that it is currently in lol. 7th has destroyed 40k. It is a mess. Minor tweaks wont fix it. Hopefully gw will see sense and fix it before it dies out
Yeah, Idk how they're forgetting DE here....and Chaos marines...they're both the same age/older than the 4 listed.
but they're not space marines and we're not allowed to have a single release that isn't at least 50% loyalist power armor, so that makes a lot of sense.
I guess DE and CSM can just wait until 8th ed when GW has to make a new codex for all the SM factions again. Or maybe we can just release 2 new loyalist Sm subfactions to pair with those. Black Templars vs CSM and Deathwatch vs DE?
via Something Awful in the their TG section:
...
Forgeworld will have finished their new production facility at some point
next month, though they will not be available to order to store until the
production quality issues are solved and they can produce in the volume and
quality required.
I'm curious about this one. Anyone heard anything about a new Forgeworld facility? If they were preparing for the ability to ramp up production, then why did they suddenly drop a lot of product from their lines? Or was that a case of needing to clear space for this facility or what?
As this would likely be a good thing for their stock price, not hearing about it until now would be odd.
Chikout wrote: I am highly dubious of this. From what I understand the end times and age of sigmar was in planning for years, so why start to make a new starter set. The stuff about scheduling meetings to avoid Kirby also sounds like nonsense. Didn't they already talk about plans for the Lotr game which did not include war of the ring? They haven't even don't the second part of war zone Fenris yet. How will there be time for two more this year?
The Bretonnia stuff reinforces this for me, I think it was Hastings over at Warseer who confirmed laying eyes on these 2-3 years back. If I remember he said they were set for a new army book and a full mini overhaul, then sigmar hit and they got shelved.
On fantasy there will be a tournament format for AoS with points. The sales
plummeted for AoS but the current fantasy range sales look healthier than
before the change...
This part certainly raises an eyebrow.
Without saying anything about the overall veracity of the post, it being Something Awful(ie the bridge under which internet trolls are spawned) via Naffy; that point does match up with what Hastings has heard from GWHQ(that AoS has tanked) and with what we've seen from the LCTB section(ie GW offering limited additional runs because stuff is selling out so quickly).
True or not I like the image of a frazzled Kirby yelling at everyone that people don't even read the rules they just buy the models to HHHHHHOBBY, as security removes him from the board room.
Seems totally legit.
One thing that will never change is that prices will NEVER be rolled back. And that may ultimately doom them regardless of what else they do. Sales have been tanking for what, 3 years now?
No one who shops at Wal-Mart or Toys-R-Us is going to buy their little Johnny little plastic men that require glue and paint for $40. So going retail at this point isn't even going to help them unless they cut their prices by 25% or more.
Yes, Roundtree has clearly turned some things around, but if no-one can afford it it doesn't matter.
On fantasy there will be a tournament format for AoS with points. The sales plummeted for AoS but the current fantasy range sales look healthier than before the change...
This part certainly raises an eyebrow.
Without saying anything about the overall veracity of the post, it being Something Awful(ie the bridge under which internet trolls are spawned) via Naffy; that point does match up with what Hastings has heard from GWHQ(that AoS has tanked) and with what we've seen from the LCTB section(ie GW offering limited additional runs because stuff is selling out so quickly).
It's probably BS, but it is fairly plausible BS.
The first part of that rumored has been thoroughly debunked as seen HERE in this post by Atia. Something that is easily verifiable as incorrect does nothing to help lend any credence to any of the other rumors provided.
The 2 campaign books:
Fenris Part.2 will give the Grey Knight a detachment.
Then you get Blood Angels versus Tyranids again or whatnot part 1 in november and part 2 will come out in january/february of next year just like last year.
Targeting back the kid is already coming in a future very soon with the Battle For Vedros set.
8th edition sounds a lot like the "living edition" they wanted to pull out with 6th. They could have done errata for 6th to 7th instead of only buying a new BRB at the time. Sure it would not have been optimal but people like me would have just bought the new BRB fully updated anyway.
There's that much salt on this thread - I'm in danger of dying from coronary heart disease!
On a more serious note, I'm convinced that these rumours are bull. Why? Because there's no way a company like Forge World would say there's a gap in the market for a ranked up fantasy game. FW will know as well as anybody that Kings of War exists.
Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)
Chikout wrote: I am highly dubious of this. From what I understand the end times and age of sigmar was in planning for years, so why start to make a new starter set. The stuff about scheduling meetings to avoid Kirby also sounds like nonsense. Didn't they already talk about plans for the Lotr game which did not include war of the ring? They haven't even don't the second part of war zone Fenris yet. How will there be time for two more this year?
The Bretonnia stuff reinforces this for me, I think it was Hastings over at Warseer who confirmed laying eyes on these 2-3 years back. If I remember he said they were set for a new army book and a full mini overhaul, then sigmar hit and they got shelved.
I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet
Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's that much salt on this thread - I'm in danger of dying from coronary heart disease!
On a more serious note, I'm convinced that these rumours are bull. Why? Because there's no way a company like Forge World would say there's a gap in the market for a ranked up fantasy game. FW will know as well as anybody that Kings of War exists.
The salt level was only 10% less than a lethal dose.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: There's that much salt on this thread - I'm in danger of dying from coronary heart disease!
On a more serious note, I'm convinced that these rumours are bull. Why? Because there's no way a company like Forge World would say there's a gap in the market for a ranked up fantasy game. FW will know as well as anybody that Kings of War exists.
The salt level was only 10% less than a lethal dose.
I'm ever eager to mock them but this time "It's Faeit" isn't a valid argument since they're listing their source.
But since that source doesn't appear on any more credible source(and is the source even reliable himself?) but only on the site that never gets it right first...
SickSix wrote: No one who shops at Wal-Mart or Toys-R-Us is going to buy their little Johnny little plastic men that require glue and paint for $40. So going retail at this point isn't even going to help them unless they cut their prices by 25% or more.
There's plenty of more expensive toys and games at those stores. Besides, I've seen X-Wing in Target, and that's $40 for three little ships and some dice. Munchkin: Legends is a Target exclusive costing $25 for a deck of cards. Besides, they're also marketing Vedros as a hobby, where doing some painting is part of the idea. Vedros is one of their better ideas in quite some time, IMO.
I'm ever eager to mock them but this time "It's Faeit" isn't a valid argument since they're listing their source.
But since that source doesn't appear on any more credible source(and is the source even reliable himself?) but only on the site that never gets it right first...
So, you mock the source, and not the echochamber that is Faeit.
I love a good rumour me. Would make sense to do a reprint of the 40k rules to encapsulate the FAQ. It's a bit grandiose of the rumourmonger to call it a new edition though.
As for the campaign books, this is old news isn't it? We've already seen a track record of this.
The rest? Who knows. Could be a couple of rumours meshed together with a lots of added "flavour" and extrapolation. You know how these things grow.
All in all though it fits with the generally positive stuff coming out of the company lately.
what's it been about 2 years since 7th? sounds about right, time to make some minor changes, and charge everybody for a new rulebook!
Maybe this has something to do with them asking for FAQ questions? Instead of actually making an FAQ, why not sell it back as a new edition of the game?
@Pacific, Funnily enough it was Bretonnia that killed(or at least dampened) my love of history. After becoming obsessed with knights and understanding their hate for gunpowder, it becomes harder to read a book that gleefully throws it in your face thaf knighthood died and everything non-cavalry is the real war winner.
So down with history and hurrah for fantasy I say!
Anyway, I do believe that Bretonnian rumor. Lots of other rumors talked about a finished Bretonnian book that never came out.(little hopeful that those models might get used somehow)
SickSix wrote: No one who shops at Wal-Mart or Toys-R-Us is going to buy their little Johnny little plastic men that require glue and paint for $40. So going retail at this point isn't even going to help them unless they cut their prices by 25% or more.
There's plenty of more expensive toys and games at those stores. Besides, I've seen X-Wing in Target, and that's $40 for three little ships and some dice. Munchkin: Legends is a Target exclusive costing $25 for a deck of cards. Besides, they're also marketing Vedros as a hobby, where doing some painting is part of the idea. Vedros is one of their better ideas in quite some time, IMO.
You can't compare the success of anything Star Wars to anything GW. Star Wars is one of the biggest IPs in the world. (If not THE biggest)
No-one outside the HHHobby has any idea what 40k is. The entire civilized world knows what Star Wars is.
And guess what, the $40 box of 3 ships is enough to actually play X-Wing.
You need to spend a minimum of $120 to play a minimum size Space Marine army. And that doesn't include the books and modelling supplies.
Hmmm... Formations not gone? Well that's the ultimate demise of 40k. Looks like lotr, the hh, and aos sales will have to keep the company afloat.
I can't believe such a massive contender could slide into oblivion... but Kirby really didn't help when he priced many out of the game, created formations to sell models, imbalance, and said rules don't matter.
That's why most have moved on to other games (even miniature board games!). I hate to say it as I used to say 40k is a lifestyle, not a simple game. I really don't enjoy the game anymore, I haven't (and won't) sell my dark angels, but I have so many other games I really enjoy now (wwx, infinity, bmg, mmg, zombicde, descent, etc).
455_PWR wrote: Hmmm... Formations not gone? Well that's the ultimate demise of 40k. Looks like lotr, the hh, and aos sales will have to keep the company afloat.
Right, they have done nothing but release formations for the past year, spent all that money publishing books, and then they are going to make them absolutely worthless. That would make perfect business sense.
Yeah, formations are really the death of 40k, and not the bad internal and external balance of the codices. No, it is FORMATIONS that will bring about the end of the fanbase!
Baron Klatz wrote: @Pacific, Funnily enough it was Bretonnia that killed(or at least dampened) my love of history. After becoming obsessed with knights and understanding their hate for gunpowder, it becomes harder to read a book that gleefully throws it in your face thaf knighthood died and everything non-cavalry is the real war winner.
Very true, although I think if you look at a 'snap-shot' of history you can find a fairly lengthy period when armour plated knights were the pinnacle development of warfare (indeed, the reason that armour developed in that fashion!), where the charge of heavy cavalry was a signal of tremendous fear for any of the common soldiery. Eventually the crossbow bolt and like you say gunpowder changed the fashion of war, but then you could say the same thing about the demise of the Battleship - the sinking of the Prince of Wales, Bismarck and Yamamoto perhaps marked the end of an era, but doesn't make those machines any less remarkable or evocative to imagine during the first and for most of the second world war.
Anyway! Yes, the end of chivalry is perhaps the end of what perceived as quite a romantic era of warfare (what a ridiculous statement! ), but you have got a couple of hundred years to play with.
Fantasy is dead outside of aos.. but they are resurrecting war of the ring (rank and file warhammer style lotr combat). They are doing this to keep ahold of past fans rather than losing them to kow or whatnot.
455_PWR wrote: Fantasy is dead outside of aos.. but they are resurrecting war of the ring (rank and file warhammer style lotr combat). They are doing this to keep ahold of past fans rather than losing them to kow or whatnot.
That makes no sense though. The two main reasons people stuck with Warhammer were the IP and the fact it was still more ubiquitous than the competition(and so easier to get a game) - a revived WotR doesn't satisfy either of those conditions since it's evidently not the Warhammer IP, and it will be a niche SGS product trying to claw its way back into a market that's had a year to entrench into the current Oldhammer/9th Age/KoW split.
I'm ever eager to mock them but this time "It's Faeit" isn't a valid argument since they're listing their source.
But since that source doesn't appear on any more credible source(and is the source even reliable himself?) but only on the site that never gets it right first...
So, you mock the source, and not the echochamber that is Faeit.
I'd rather mock the echo chamber as it is the amplification of the source - that way I go two for the price of one. Additionally, an echo chamber that echoes everything it can get its hands on deserves nothing but mockery to begin with.
Whao, is their any verification about that story about Alessio Calvatore? That's some pretty damning claims, even for Kirby. I know people suspected this for awhile.
Lockark wrote: Whao, is their any verification about that story about Alessio Calvatore? That's some pretty damning claims, even for Kirby. I know people suspected this for awhile.
Whole rumour is just an exercise in confirmation bias.
I thought Kirby stepped down last year like in January or something? Why are they saying it like the new guy loves the game when under his reign it was all demolished and turned into Age of Sigmar.
GW for the love of all that is good and holy kill Age of Sigmar and make Warhammer X A Fantasy Battle game, the world restored each race has been placed onto a new world and has to carve out its land etc make it a global campaign players have a slight sway on the early history of the world and then time jump a few hundred years off of the global campaign. Rules restored to Mass battle game with rank and file troops, but more options for skirmish too rounds for skirmishers. Try to keep it balanced but focus on the fun rules like the Giant and the way he attacks or the steam tank and the way it generates steam points make flavor the top priority. Make about 5-6 Units of 5-20 models the standard amount used and we will have a golden age!
timofeo wrote: I thought Kirby stepped down last year like in January or something? Why are they saying it like the new guy loves the game when under his reign it was all demolished and turned into Age of Sigmar.
Its not like they decide what they're going to release a week before it shows up in White Dwarf. GW has plans for more than a year out.
timofeo wrote: I thought Kirby stepped down last year like in January or something? Why are they saying it like the new guy loves the game when under his reign it was all demolished and turned into Age of Sigmar.
Its not like they decide what they're going to release a week before it shows up in White Dwarf. GW has plans for more than a year out.
I get what your saying, but does anyone actually think the new guy dislikes AOS and thinks it was a mistake?
timofeo wrote: I thought Kirby stepped down last year like in January or something? Why are they saying it like the new guy loves the game when under his reign it was all demolished and turned into Age of Sigmar.
Its not like they decide what they're going to release a week before it shows up in White Dwarf. GW has plans for more than a year out.
I get what your saying, but does anyone actually think the new guy dislikes AOS and thinks it was a mistake?
It's not like he would ever admit to it. I think you would have to be brain dead to not realize that AOS was a huge mistake. I also find it funny that they are "boosting" AOS sales with the "Last Chance To Buy" selections. Seeing how quickly they are selling out should send a pretty clear message that people still want the old WFB models.
timofeo wrote: I thought Kirby stepped down last year like in January or something? Why are they saying it like the new guy loves the game when under his reign it was all demolished and turned into Age of Sigmar.
Its not like they decide what they're going to release a week before it shows up in White Dwarf. GW has plans for more than a year out.
I get what your saying, but does anyone actually think the new guy dislikes AOS and thinks it was a mistake?
It's not like he would ever admit to it. I think you would have to be brain dead to not realize that AOS was a huge mistake.
Yeah, okay there marketing wizard.
I also find it funny that they are "boosting" AOS sales with the "Last Chance To Buy" selections. Seeing how quickly they are selling out should send a pretty clear message that people still want the old WFB models.
It's funny how people are buying the stuff now when before it was just sitting around.
Your conclusion of "people still want the old WFB models" is one that is based upon flawed logic. Every single model isn't going away, just some. That's the whole point of "Last Chance to Buy"--you get a chance to buy stuff before it goes away.
There's additionally no limits as to how many of a model a customer purchases nor anything of that nature, so assuming that every single model is being sold to someone who wants it and not someone who plans on eBaying stuff as "OOP LTD EDITION!11!!" is kind of a leap as well.
It would be nice if instead of completely discontinuing WHFB products they sold them on a limited rotating basis throughout the year. This way people could still pick up the old stuff eventually and GW can make some money by just running product out of their pre-existing plastic molds.
"The Great Master Plan continues: cutting costs, becoming more efficient, providing excellent returns on capital and paying dividends. "
Any comment on rules / books, models... you know: saleable product right?
"We need to be here next year if you want more of the exquisite models we make. To be here next year we have to do what all our customers want, not just a noisy few, and find a way of making money doing it. "
Sounds almost like a threat: you want our models you better buy more you ingrates!
Sounds like if you complain too much we obviously have to ignore you!
Wait a minute, how do you know what your customers want?
"Babies get born, the rain falls the sun shines and the plants grow, our chickens keep laying, and Games Workshop still employs over 1,500 people, supporting 1,500 families all over the globe, making the best miniatures money can buy, providing one of the best investments in our owners' portfolios, and having a great deal of fun doing it."
Very compelling, either it is "the world just keeps on happening no need to worry or change" or "think about the babies and children we support!".
The best miniatures money can buy almost made we spit-up my drink through my nose.
I would say "very good heroic scale miniatures" but not that blanket statement.
That was all 2014/2015, almost reserved compared to the mess in 2013/2014.
The investor relations page really paints rather clearly the customer is not much of a consideration... more of a "if we make them, they will come".
I will have to think more of the recent changes, it is like one of the old owners was allowed to try a few "old" methods of running the business.
It's funny how people are buying the stuff now when before it was just sitting around.
At least some is being sold to players of Kings of War - which locally has a lot more players than Age of Sigmar. (I do not pretend that is the case everywhere, but it would not surprise me all that much either way.)
Heck, Mantic has just announced that they are releasing metal bits for making miniatures for Empire of Dust (AKA Tomb Kings Revisited), because the demand is there, and GW is no longer fulfilling that demand.
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* To be clear: I am currently a lot more optimistic of GW's chances than I was at this same time last year - last year I would have been surprised to see GW, as it was then, surviving for another decade. Now, it has a chance.
zamerion wrote: Bretonnians were going to be in the next WFB starter before it was scrapped in favour of AoS, meaning there are some lovely plastics that made it to prototyping that will likely never be seen now, including a hero on hippogriff better than the Elf Prince from Island of Blood.
Thanks for kicking me while I'm down. Here, let me smile broadly so you can get all of my teeth, why don't you?
Haha, yeah, after reading that I wanted to eat someone's face and I've never even played Bretonnians. Who knows if it's really true but it's so perfectly cruel I kind of want it to be.
timofeo wrote: I thought Kirby stepped down last year like in January or something? Why are they saying it like the new guy loves the game when under his reign it was all demolished and turned into Age of Sigmar.
Its not like they decide what they're going to release a week before it shows up in White Dwarf. GW has plans for more than a year out.
I get what your saying, but does anyone actually think the new guy dislikes AOS and thinks it was a mistake?
It's not like he would ever admit to it. I think you would have to be brain dead to not realize that AOS was a huge mistake.
Yeah, okay there marketing wizard.
I also find it funny that they are "boosting" AOS sales with the "Last Chance To Buy" selections. Seeing how quickly they are selling out should send a pretty clear message that people still want the old WFB models.
It's funny how people are buying the stuff now when before it was just sitting around.
Your conclusion of "people still want the old WFB models" is one that is based upon flawed logic. Every single model isn't going away, just some. That's the whole point of "Last Chance to Buy"--you get a chance to buy stuff before it goes away.
There's additionally no limits as to how many of a model a customer purchases nor anything of that nature, so assuming that every single model is being sold to someone who wants it and not someone who plans on eBaying stuff as "OOP LTD EDITION!11!!" is kind of a leap as well.
Ahh there's the typical Kanluwen, quick to attack without any valid argument on his part. I would say you need to work on your language comprehension. Nowhere did I say every single model was going away. I merely pointed out that the "Last Chance" stuff is quickly selling out. By adding the "Last Chance To Buy" tag, more people will tend to buy the models. Good to see you are the same guy that posted on the Infinity forums, with the same amount of venom. But it's okay, you can crawl back under your bridge.
I would say that you need to work on your reading comprehension and expressing your points(if you actually had one beyond "lulz AoS was a huge mistake and this is why") better.
Because I addressed your rantings about "Last Chance to Buy" pretty well.
Of course things are selling now. You have people who might be trying to round out their collections before things go away or people who are trying to pick stuff up because it's simply going OOP or you have people who are trying to buy as much of certain things as they can to eBay it.
But hey, just keep pretending that there's "no valid argument" on my part. It's not like sales dropped pretty hard for WHFB to the point where there are STILL boxed sets from two Christmases ago sitting on the shelves in stores, right?
"The Great Master Plan continues: cutting costs, becoming more efficient, providing excellent returns on capital and paying dividends. "
Any comment on rules / books, models... you know: saleable product right?
"We need to be here next year if you want more of the exquisite models we make. To be here next year we have to do what all our customers want, not just a noisy few, and find a way of making money doing it. "
Sounds almost like a threat: you want our models you better buy more you ingrates!
Sounds like if you complain too much we obviously have to ignore you!
Wait a minute, how do you know what your customers want?
"Babies get born, the rain falls the sun shines and the plants grow, our chickens keep laying, and Games Workshop still employs over 1,500 people, supporting 1,500 families all over the globe, making the best miniatures money can buy, providing one of the best investments in our owners' portfolios, and having a great deal of fun doing it."
Very compelling, either it is "the world just keeps on happening no need to worry or change" or "think about the babies and children we support!".
The best miniatures money can buy almost made we spit-up my drink through my nose.
I would say "very good heroic scale miniatures" but not that blanket statement.
That was all 2014/2015, almost reserved compared to the mess in 2013/2014.
The investor relations page really paints rather clearly the customer is not much of a consideration... more of a "if we make them, they will come".
I will have to think more of the recent changes, it is like one of the old owners was allowed to try a few "old" methods of running the business.
I'm glad that he's gone and for my experience GW isn't just coming round, they're making this(well, not just them) the best time for wargaming in my life. And for whatever happened behind the scenes I still get a kick out of the crap like that quoted above. Thanks for the laughs We 'Muricans had Bushisms for a time, even a daily desk calendar. Maybe there's a market for that.
We are no longer dependent on large companies to make great games.
Social media and rapid prototyping coupled with crowd finding has allowed anyone with a great idea to make it a reality.
Though I think FFG is showing everyone how it is done.
Malifaux has found a great niche as well.
Privateer with Warmahordes is a great comparison of what 40k could have been.
For games in general I can say it has been the best gaming in my life (almost 50 years!).
A bit of a low with 40k but other games compensated nicely! GW really has to get it together and make something shiny or the profits will continue to plummet.
The changes we see now makes me hopeful.
Baron Klatz wrote: @Pacific, Funnily enough it was Bretonnia that killed(or at least dampened) my love of history. After becoming obsessed with knights and understanding their hate for gunpowder, it becomes harder to read a book that gleefully throws it in your face thaf knighthood died and everything non-cavalry is the real war winner.
Very true, although I think if you look at a 'snap-shot' of history you can find a fairly lengthy period when armour plated knights were the pinnacle development of warfare (indeed, the reason that armour developed in that fashion!), where the charge of heavy cavalry was a signal of tremendous fear for any of the common soldiery. Eventually the crossbow bolt and like you say gunpowder changed the fashion of war, but then you could say the same thing about the demise of the Battleship - the sinking of the Prince of Wales, Bismarck and Yamamoto perhaps marked the end of an era, but doesn't make those machines any less remarkable or evocative to imagine during the first and for most of the second world war.
Anyway! Yes, the end of chivalry is perhaps the end of what perceived as quite a romantic era of warfare (what a ridiculous statement! ), but you have got a couple of hundred years to play with.
Haha, quite true on all points. My biggest complaint these days is with the so-called "historians" that write the books. More and more they water military history down so only the main points are shown and they ignore everything else.
Did longbows win Agincourt? Yes, but it becomes difficult to find them putting down that the French knights still made it to the English line and nearly broke through if not for the English knights and man-at-arms holding the line. It's even rarer to find out that the English suffered from Dysentery and had to fight with with their pants down but they'll make sure to put in those three useless cannons the English used.
Lepanto's worse because out of five history books that drooled over the superior European guns and cannons only one made mention of the heroic actions of the armored knights that freed the slaves of the enemy ships mid-battle and having close-deck battles where forty knights killed four hundred opponents.
Well, there's my rant.
timofeo wrote: I thought Kirby stepped down last year like in January or something? Why are they saying it like the new guy loves the game when under his reign it was all demolished and turned into Age of Sigmar.
He's taking steps to make the game something great and not sweep it under the rug for more 40k. That's love in my book.
Also, AoS was started in 2013, he's just building on it.
GW for the love of all that is good and holy kill Age of Sigmar and make Warhammer X A Fantasy Battle game,
Or how about handing WFBX over to the specialist games and building on AoS to please both fan groups.
the world restored each race has been placed onto a new world and has to carve out its land etc make it a global campaign players have a slight sway on the early history of the world and then time jump a few hundred years off of the global campaign.
Eh, the eight realms getting some maps and putting together fan-made ideas(via FB) with official lore would be cooler. Alot more to work with and gives people a something they can better relate to.
Global campaign would be cool for both.
Rules restored to Mass battle game with rank and file troops, but more options for skirmish too rounds for skirmishers.
AoS: give trays for round bases.
Specialist games: Mordheim-esque rules.
Try to keep it balanced but focus on the fun rules like the Giant and the way he attacks or the steam tank and the way it generates steam points make flavor the top priority.
Are you asking a company this or a genie?
Even 9th age, the successor of 8th and trying to keep the old game flavor, are planning on major streamlining by removing alot of special rules to make the game more balanced.
Balance and flavor don't mix well.
Make about 5-6 Units of 5-20 models the standard amount used and we will have a golden age!
Heh, that basically a game of AoS. Would be nice to see Specialist games do something like that as well.
Also, going by your avatar, aren't you that chap on 9th age who made a thread to propose your own vision for KoE? Just curious.
There's so much lore potential in AoS, potentially even more so than WHFB. We have 9 realms, each with their own stories to tell, and unique features. Don't trash the AoS lore, after all, the game is barely a year old, compared to how old Fantasy was. With the quality of the AoS "campaign" books, Grand Alliance books, and novels coming out, I'm liking the AoS lore a lot more by the week.
Hear hear! There's so much for them to expand on and they've done a considerable amount when factoring in that they also have to balance out the releases with 40k.
What's annoying is that many disregard the lore and say it hasn't shown much when they haven't even read a novel of it yet.
The AoS lore so far has only covered major events and big battles, that's exactly what a wargame focused narrative is supposed to do. We'll have to wait for things like the upcoming Silver Tower game and any kind of future rpg supplements to get the level of lore detail people complain the setting lacks.
Verviedi wrote: There's so much lore potential in AoS, potentially even more so than WHFB. We have 9 realms, each with their own stories to tell, and unique features. Don't trash the AoS lore, after all, the game is barely a year old, compared to how old Fantasy was. With the quality of the AoS "campaign" books, Grand Alliance books, and novels coming out, I'm liking the AoS lore a lot more by the week.
But AoS lore is trash. This isn't about giving AoS time to "bed in", or comparing all the accumulated lore for WHFB to the little that's come out for AoS so far, it's about the tone & content of the material; AoS is about big, bombastic, over-the-top catastrofiction and nothing else. It doesn't care about telling stories about the 9 realms or the people who live there beyond "they all died to Chaos/Orcs/Skaven/Godbeasts and then Sigmarines showed up and took revenge YAY!", because it doesn't want us to care about anything that doesn't involve whatever is up for preorder that week. The structure of the setting, the style of the fiction, the motivations(such as they are) and abilities of the factions - they're all designed such that the writers can make the "buy moar models" tie-in fiction as "epic" as possible by blowing up vast tracts of land and killing vast populations of people without having to deal with any reprecussions. The sad thing is though, in trying to ensure there are no real consequences or stakes, they remove any reason for the reader to give a gak - OK, so Chaos wiped out a whole town of people, why do I care again? I don't know anything about these people, how they lived, what they wanted out of the lives that were taken from them, they're just numbers used by the author to remind you that, yes, Chaos are baddies.
I don't think the AoS fiction is gak because there aren't any WFRP-style sourcebooks out for it yet, I think the AoS fiction is gak because I believe it's intentionally incapable of supporting that kind of detail and worldbuilding and it never will be capable of it unless they change the core purpose of the setting, which is evidently unlikely.
Baron Klatz wrote: Hear hear! There's so much for them to expand on and they've done a considerable amount when factoring in that they also have to balance out the releases with 40k.
What's annoying is that many disregard the lore and say it hasn't shown much when they haven't even read a novel of it yet.
The AoS lore so far has only covered major events and big battles, that's exactly what a wargame focused narrative is supposed to do. We'll have to wait for things like the upcoming Silver Tower game and any kind of future rpg supplements to get the level of lore detail people complain the setting lacks.
To be fair, the new lore is damn bloody expensive. It's even worse if the customer doesn't even know what to expect or if he'll like it. I'd love to catch up on the AOS lore, but the prices for the novellas are just bananas, and the gaming/fluff books are beyond that.
Well, with all due respect and as yourself admitted, that's what you believe. Besides some of the novels showing the struggles of the innocents in the mortal realms, any additional sourcebooks could really help you care about those people.
Of course, this is all opinion based when we get down to it. AoS could make great books and very well give you what you're asking in the nitty-gritty of why a town is there and why it's important and it's people worth saving but if you yourself can't invest yourself into the setting then it's all for nought anyway.
40k novels deal with countless worlds and random cities that meet death on a regular basis but are usually exceptional reads. No reason why AoS can't make just as compelling novels with it's fickle dieties, war to reclaim peace in a chaos ravaged setting and massive realms of unexplored possibilities.
[Edit]: @BobtheInquisitor, that's fair enough. Though there has been some good reads, GW might want to consider making it more accessible.
Nice to see things like the Lexicanum helping to show the events in the lore to that regard. Might have to start a Narrative guideline in the AoS section to help people catch up.
Baron Klatz wrote: Well, with all due respect and as yourself admitted, that's what you believe. Besides some of the novels showing the struggles of the innocents in the mortal realms, any additional sourcebooks could really help you care about those people.
Of course, this is all opinion based when we get down to it. AoS could make great books and very well give you what you're asking in the nitty-gritty of why a town is there and why it's important and it's people worth saving but if you yourself can't invest yourself into the setting then it's all for nought anyway.
40k novels deal with countless worlds and random cities that meet death on a regular basis but are usually exceptional reads. No reason why AoS can't make just as compelling novels with it's fickle dieties, war to reclaim peace in a chaos ravaged setting and massive realms of unexplored possibilities.
[Edit]: @BobtheInquisitor, that's fair enough. Though there has been some good reads, GW might want to consider making it more accessible.
Nice to see things like the Lexicanum helping to show the events in the lore to that regard. Might have to start a Narrative guideline in the AoS section to help people catch up.
Well yeah, I suppose if your average 40K bolterporn novel is what you're after then AoS will keep you entertained until the cows come home. There's nothing wrong with that if it's your bag, but it's the pretense that AoS is just on the cusp of become some super-awesome and deep setting that gets my goat - maybe in 10 or 20 years we'll get an Eisenhorn or Matthias Thulmann equivalent out of an AoS author, but I doubt it, and I'm certainly not going to spend a fortune on GW stuff for a setting that might, some day get better.
I'd be perfectly happy to ignore the AoS lore which doesn't captivate me and deal with some of the stylistic choices (I'm only truly happy with most minis when I can convert the jeck out of them) and even the size increase, though I like prefer my minis more skewing to Gobbo or regular 28mm size with only the occasional ogre sized brute to look imposing in comparison. I can make room for shiny new things in my older edition armies (and ignore the actually playing tge game part even more )
But those prices. Ouch. Ork Nobz are reasonable in my book, big elite guys so you don't get a huge squad, but the sticker price is still easy to stomach. The new Orruk whatever, no, that's more than I paid for freaking Karl Franz on Deathclaw (and the druid on foot I made from the same kit). A kit I probably shouldn't have bought because it showed GW that ridiculously large models sell.
Half your prices and I'm willing to stop nagging and buy your crap (with discount) and start all those little factions and projects you want people to have.
Edit: Stupid shaking bus. I want to add that I'm REALLY salty about those Bret rumours. I would've gotten so many more knights and new M@A units and heros. If you had released them.
I have really enjoyed the aos novels. They are better than the 40k bolter porn you speak of, and are far less drama filled than the hh novels. Seems to me like you haven't even read them all, or were biased from the start by your comment.
Sorry but fantasy is dead, aos is what is here, growing, and outselling the old wfb.
Baron Klatz wrote: Hear hear! There's so much for them to expand on and they've done a considerable amount when factoring in that they also have to balance out the releases with 40k.
What's annoying is that many disregard the lore and say it hasn't shown much when they haven't even read a novel of it yet.
The AoS lore so far has only covered major events and big battles, that's exactly what a wargame focused narrative is supposed to do. We'll have to wait for things like the upcoming Silver Tower game and any kind of future rpg supplements to get the level of lore detail people complain the setting lacks.
To be fair, the new lore is damn bloody expensive. It's even worse if the customer doesn't even know what to expect or if he'll like it. I'd love to catch up on the AOS lore, but the prices for the novellas are just bananas, and the gaming/fluff books are beyond that.
Agree. I bought the highly overpriced first "realm gate wars" book, eager to learn more about this new age of sigmar.
The writing was really poor, and the stories utterly failed to give me any grasp of the setting apart from massive battles with anonymous stormcasts against hordes of anonymous chaos worshipers. I was really dissapointed, and will not pay another krona for AoS lore anytime soon.
I do however find it quite easy to get in to the world with homemade scenarios and fluff. And that has alot more freedom for the players than the old world had.
For example
First battle was my empire general that had secretly gathered a small army to revolt against the evil nurgle deamon count ruling the region. Inspiered by the rumous of the stormcast crusade the general finaly decided that the time of the uprising was due, and it played out as an ambush against the evil count.
Second battle is a rescue mission for a steamtank commander trapped in a soulgrinders horrible forge lair. Etc, and so forth.
The oficcial lore though, as far as Im concerned, stink. I appreciate the funny maps though.
I Just cannot get along with the AOS lore.
Im not fussy with my reading either, almost any fantasy and sci-fi interests me from Tolkien to Bolter porn and Iain Banks.
I have nothing against AOS at all, I quite like the no points thing too, but the lore just seems really bad to me, It reminds me of those cheap cartoons that are made around action figures just to sell toys.
Maybe it is because we know the story around how it came about that influences how we regard it, I just actually want it to be good enough for me to read but as it is, id rather reread felix and gotrek.
GW will be just fine, its just taken them a long long time to set foot in the modern world !
455_PWR wrote: I have really enjoyed the aos novels. They are better than the 40k bolter porn you speak of, and are far less drama filled than the hh novels. Seems to me like you haven't even read them all, or were biased from the start by your comment.
Sorry but fantasy is dead, aos is what is here, growing, and outselling the old wfb.
Why would you expect someone to have read the AOS novels? The burden should not be on new customers to search out something to love about the setting. If GW prices the novels like first edition Gone With The Winds, then only people who are already fans will buy them. To convince new customers that AOS is any deeper than the intro fluff paragraphs on the website, GW should put the background out there as easy and cheap to stumble into as possible. Until they make AOS accessible, it is completely fair to judge the setting on the meager scraps that fed our first impressions.
The old fluff came in MMPBs at market prices. The omnibuses for Thulmann, Brunner, Blackhearts, Gotrek and Felix, Genevieve, the Ambassador, the Vampire War, and so on, cost $10 each for three novels' worth of fiction. They were amazing deals.
A book with Short Stories (like first chapter of the novels) about 5€ as ebook would get people easy introduced to the new background and is cheap enough for those who are not already fans
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The old fluff came in MMPBs at market prices. The omnibuses for Thulmann, Brunner, Blackhearts, Gotrek and Felix, Genevieve, the Ambassador, the Vampire War, and so on, cost $10 each for three novels' worth of fiction. They were amazing deals.
Yeah they were, wish that was still an option going forward. I'm a huge BL fan but the quality and pricing is getting really hard to take stabs at the amount of fic and stomach at the same time if it's not what I was hoping for--so, not great.
I think that one of the best indicators that AoS is doing alright is that GW keeps releasing big, splashy new models for it and giving AoS significant launch window time.
Sorry but fantasy is dead, aos is what is here, growing, and outselling the old wfb.
Where are you getting the figures to prove it is growing? and outselling the old WHFB? Any proof that AOS models are outselling the pre-AOSWHFB models? and do you have some GW insider knowledge on sales figures of the Last Chance to Buy range vs the last 3 months of AOS model sales?
Talys wrote: I think that one of the best indicators that AoS is doing alright is that GW keeps releasing big, splashy new models for it and giving AoS significant launch window time.
Or the work was already mostly done, and there was nothing to be gained by not releasing them?
Or that the models are selling ok but not to be used in playing AoS?
Or someone thinks throwing releases at people is the way to revive flagging sales?
There's plenty of plausible explanations that don't require AoS to be in a good place as a game.
AOS seems to be about big, flashy kits that get people's attention versus WHFB's old rank-and-file focus. In that regard, the catalog for AOS *should* be much smaller (requiring much less upkeep) and the ROI for kits should be higher.
Now, whether AOS is as successful (or even close to as successful) as WHFB during its hayday (roughly 5th-7th) is another matter altogether. The costs of models for the game seem to be quite high- now of course they're much larger so as to justify this cost- but it still seems like it would push the game to a slightly more niche category for consumers.
Really, there won't be a way to tell until we get some more reports. Anecdotally, I haven't heard much positive about success of this brand overall, but of course the game's introduction to the customer base was...poor, to say the least. The Orcs (I'm not using that dumb copyright name) are probably the first big AOS release that have seen overwhelmingly positivity, but that might have a bit to do with the portability of the models into 40k.
455_PWR wrote: I have really enjoyed the aos novels. They are better than the 40k bolter porn you speak of, and are far less drama filled than the hh novels. Seems to me like you haven't even read them all, or were biased from the start by your comment.
Sorry but fantasy is dead, aos is what is here, growing, and outselling the old wfb.
And fourth edition D&D is the future of the game....
I had my doubts about 4th edition D&D at the time - but was a bit surprised to find that my doubts were the majority.
I have my doubts about AoS being the future of Warhammer - but I won't be surprised when it turns out that I'm right.
Ya know, I have been negative towards GW for years because of the way they have been conducting themselves and their prices. AoS was like a nightmare come true for me, but with the company truly listening for the first time in years has me hopeful that they will one day make AoS into a slightly better constructed game with some form of balancing mechanism. Even if they don't release a point system
That, and it gives me hope that maybe one day my 2nd Ed Wyche Cult models might also be useful again. We shall see, for the first time in years I am optimistic about the future of my favorite models and armies. Used to hope GW would fail, but now I can't say that I feel that way.
I get it, a lot of people are pissed at them for the roughlyten years of crap they have been feeding us, and rightfully so. But it does seem even GW can learn (very slowly).
Talys wrote: I think that one of the best indicators that AoS is doing alright is that GW keeps releasing big, splashy new models for it and giving AoS significant launch window time.
They crammed the entire Orruk/Destruction release into one week, when the previous 3 weeks had one new model released (and that was a single space marine collectors edition)
Talys wrote: I think that one of the best indicators that AoS is doing alright is that GW keeps releasing big, splashy new models for it and giving AoS significant launch window time.
They crammed the entire Orruk/Destruction release into one week, when the previous 3 weeks had one new model released (and that was a single space marine collectors edition)
Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like there was recently a whole month of Stormcast stuff before the Space Marine anniversary. It always feels longer when it's fantasy, because I really want more 40k releases Then, there were the Dwarf releases earlier this year too.
I mean, we're only in April, and there have been 3 giant AoS models -- and none for 40k. MORE TITANS!
Talys wrote: I think that one of the best indicators that AoS is doing alright is that GW keeps releasing big, splashy new models for it and giving AoS significant launch window time.
They crammed the entire Orruk/Destruction release into one week, when the previous 3 weeks had one new model released (and that was a single space marine collectors edition)
Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like there was recently a whole month of Stormcast stuff before the Space Marine anniversary. It always feels longer when it's fantasy, because I really want more 40k releases Then, there were the Dwarf releases earlier this year too.
I mean, we're only in April, and there have been 3 giant AoS models -- and none for 40k. MORE TITANS!
You know, I haven't really been paying too much attention to their website right now, now that I stop to think about it, it is insane just how much stuff has been released for AoS recently. Hah, besides an army being redone, you never saw that much pushed out the doors for Fantasy.
Fantasy was killed due to bad sales. Talk to a gw investor, sales rep, or someone of rep at gw and they will confirm this. The sales issues I assume stemmed from imbalance and magic issues, starting with 5th.
As for aos is here... no citation needed... it's in stores.
As for aos is growing... go to various forums, tournaments, etc. The game has grown quite a bit. Tournaments had a half dozen folks, now there are several times that at most tournaments.
As for sales, you can see gw Financials online. Look to recent rumor threads or news posts on why gw got a new ceo. The major point was 40k is losing mass sales, not aos. Staff from gw has said that aos has increased fantasy sales (for collectors, famers, old fantasy players, etc).
Don't believe me? I don't care, aos is here and hasn't been changed yet (one past esition of wfb lasted 6 only 6 months). Naysayers will naysay, like the post above by a member that has an opinion that it is bad... but confirmed he didn't read the books lol.
All I know is wfb is dead in the major tournament scene, so it will end up like mage knight, star wars minis, etc, eventually. I liked the game, but I also like aos.
for sales, you can see gw Financials online. Look to recent rumor threads or news posts on why gw got a new ceo. The major point was 40k is losing mass sales, not aos. Staff from gw has said that aos has increased fantasy sales (for collectors, famers, old fantasy players, etc).
Citation needed.
GW don't report by system. They've even stopped reporting by territory and now only report by channel.
GW staff are the least reliable source of information, everything is awesome according to them, that's their job.
GW got a new CEO because Kirby is rapidly closing in on retirement age and it isn't really done to be both CEO and Chairman, which had been the case since Mark Wells left.
Not that it's directly correlated to sales (since GW minis are used in all the systems), I really don't think AoS tournament is a point in AoS favour.
How many WHFB tournaments ran before the AoS release compared to AoS tournaments after?
US had a whole 'masters' infrastructure for WHFB didn't it? Now that's gone to KOW. Every convention style gaming event I've heard about has both 9th age and KoW drawing higher attendance than AoS (though I obviously has no comprehensive knowledge here).
GW could theoretically sell minis well to people playing AoS at home and other game systems. AoS could theoretical be growing (from a pretty horrible baseline mind you). Pointing to tournaments and fora though (where AoS is bombing hard), paints a very different picture however.
Fwiw. Whenever I go into the local GW it seems that the younger customers 12-14 are buying and playing AoS the older folks are playing 40k.
There is a customer base there, it's easy to dismiss AoS because yeah it's easy and fashionable to bitch everything GW do. But people are buying and playing it, even if it's not you or your group.
Are they doing it in sufficiently increased numbers and with sufficiently increased amounts of cash to offer any improvement over its predecessor though? That's the thing which can't be proven by anyone claiming that it's growing.
It's also self evidently not "fashionable to bitch everything GW do" (sic) as can be seen by the positive reactions engendered by anything they do which is widely well received.
A certain amount of cynicism is to be expected, given the last few years behavior, but, by and large, people still get excited by the good things and will give the bad stuff a kicking.
Azreal13 wrote: Are they doing it in sufficiently increased numbers and with sufficiently increased amounts of cash to offer any improvement over its predecessor though? That's the thing which can't be proven by anyone claiming that it's growing.
It's also self evidently not "fashionable to bitch everything GW do" (sic) as can be seen by the positive reactions engendered by anything they do which is widely well received.
A certain amount of cynicism is to be expected, given the last few years behavior, but, by and large, people still get excited by the good things and will give the bad stuff a kicking.
Plenty of people line up on Dakka to give the good stuff a good shoeing as well. It's renowned for it among the other forums and offline. simlly because there are balanced fans of GW on Dakka who will praise their good stuff, and criticise their bad stuff, doesn't mean there aren't both rabid fanboys of GW, and bitter former fans who seem desperate for the company to fail at every turn.
People offer their opinions, these will differ. Dakka happens to be more lightly moderated than some other forums, so dissenting voices are more at liberty to express themselves here than other less enlightened forums.
Plus, humans being tribal in nature, will convince themselves "their" board is the best and consequently criticize the competitors.
Dakka has the largest active membership of any site of its kind, it is therefore reasonable to assume that the views expressed are largely representative.
Azreal13 wrote: Are they doing it in sufficiently increased numbers and with sufficiently increased amounts of cash to offer any improvement over its predecessor though? That's the thing which can't be proven by anyone claiming that it's growing.
It's also self evidently not "fashionable to bitch everything GW do" (sic) as can be seen by the positive reactions engendered by anything they do which is widely well received.
A certain amount of cynicism is to be expected, given the last few years behavior, but, by and large, people still get excited by the good things and will give the bad stuff a kicking.
Plenty of people line up on Dakka to give the good stuff a good shoeing as well. It's renowned for it among the other forums and offline. simlly because there are balanced fans of GW on Dakka who will praise their good stuff, and criticise their bad stuff, doesn't mean there aren't both rabid fanboys of GW, and bitter former fans who seem desperate for the company to fail at every turn.
Not 'desperate' to see it fail, in my case, but there was definitely a feeling that the worst that I could imagine for the company would be wildly optimistic.
Rountree definitely seems to at least be trying to reverse the march to oblivion.
That said, I am pretty sure that AoS has fewer players than WHFB did - which is not the only measure of success, but is certainly not a mark in favor of AoS.
Going by the local market... AoS hemorrhaged a lot of players to Kings of War - many of whom carted their entire WHFB armies to KoW without pausing by AoS.
A secondary question is whether GW could regain some of those players be releasing a revived and rebalanced WHFB?
Azreal13 wrote: Are they doing it in sufficiently increased numbers and with sufficiently increased amounts of cash to offer any improvement over its predecessor though? That's the thing which can't be proven by anyone claiming that it's growing.
It's also self evidently not "fashionable to bitch everything GW do" (sic) as can be seen by the positive reactions engendered by anything they do which is widely well received. A certain amount of cynicism is to be expected, given the last few years behavior, but, by and large, people still get excited by the good things and will give the bad stuff a kicking.
Plenty of people line up on Dakka to give the good stuff a good shoeing as well. It's renowned for it among the other forums and offline. simlly because there are balanced fans of GW on Dakka who will praise their good stuff, and criticise their bad stuff, doesn't mean there aren't both rabid fanboys of GW, and bitter former fans who seem desperate for the company to fail at every turn.
Not 'desperate' to see it fail, in my case, but there was definitely a feeling that the worst that I could imagine for the company would be wildly optimistic.
Rountree definitely seems to at least be trying to reverse the march to oblivion.
That said, I am pretty sure that AoS has fewer players than WHFB did - which is not the only measure of success, but is certainly not a mark in favor of AoS.
Going by the local market... AoS hemorrhaged a lot of players to Kings of War - many of whom carted their entire WHFB armies to KoW without pausing by AoS.
A secondary question is whether GW could regain some of those players be releasing a revived and rebalanced WHFB?
The Auld Grump
If they bring back Bretonnians, Tomb Kings, fix the problem rules in 8th (squad removing spells and hoards of doom) and expand the setting to cover Cathay, Arabia and whatever the Japan-expy is called...maybe. It is likely though that many would still be angry at GW, and stick to KoW. Blowing up WHFB was a mistake; there was still so much potential.
If they really wanted to do some sort of apocalyptic event, they should have just killed off the Empire, and moved the focus over to the East. So as to long invalidate everyone's Empire army though, they could reintroduce Dogs of War, which uses heavy use of ex-imperial units, and could be allied into most Order factions. Cathay would take over the roll as the main human faction. This idea is probably terrible, but its better than "Meteor falls, everyone dies and goes to LSD warp land"
Azreal13 wrote: Are they doing it in sufficiently increased numbers and with sufficiently increased amounts of cash to offer any improvement over its predecessor though? That's the thing which can't be proven by anyone claiming that it's growing.
It's also self evidently not "fashionable to bitch everything GW do" (sic) as can be seen by the positive reactions engendered by anything they do which is widely well received.
A certain amount of cynicism is to be expected, given the last few years behavior, but, by and large, people still get excited by the good things and will give the bad stuff a kicking.
Plenty of people line up on Dakka to give the good stuff a good shoeing as well. It's renowned for it among the other forums and offline. simlly because there are balanced fans of GW on Dakka who will praise their good stuff, and criticise their bad stuff, doesn't mean there aren't both rabid fanboys of GW, and bitter former fans who seem desperate for the company to fail at every turn.
Not 'desperate' to see it fail, in my case, but there was definitely a feeling that the worst that I could imagine for the company would be wildly optimistic.
Rountree definitely seems to at least be trying to reverse the march to oblivion.
That said, I am pretty sure that AoS has fewer players than WHFB did - which is not the only measure of success, but is certainly not a mark in favor of AoS.
Going by the local market... AoS hemorrhaged a lot of players to Kings of War - many of whom carted their entire WHFB armies to KoW without pausing by AoS.
A secondary question is whether GW could regain some of those players be releasing a revived and rebalanced WHFB?
The Auld Grump
Personally, I don't have any kind of investment in fantasy to have an opinion in it. I can only say what I see going on in my local store and club. I'm not sure those in the club playing KoW would switch back to WHFB if AoS was ditched. So I don't think it would make much difference. What I am seeing however is a lot of new blood enjoying AoS. That's got to be a good thing. Fantasy was dying anyway, so what did GW have to lose?
Is this sales figures and comparisons to 8th edition? No. But it's as good as anyone else's anecdotal evidence.
WHFB was killed due to poor rules and inflated prices.
I have to agree that WHFB was killed by bad sales. That GW didn't know what caused low sales numbers and just threw the game out and started with something new is another, albeit related, story.
GW didn't know what they were doing and they still don't. This is what killed Warhammer Fantasy and what looks like will kill AoS as well. That'll fully murder that whole setting which has been basically destroyed. I can only imagine GW would miff AoS players the same way the miffed Fantasy players. Probably set them against Fantasy players and say it was their fault as well as saying if they don't buy their 40k crap they're not 'true' fans.
I'm sorry GW are such scumbags. All they needed to do is shorten the rules by maybe half, add new stuff to the setting and most importantly branch out into other mediums such as books and esp. popular video games. You mean to tell me Vermintide and the Total War game wouldn't have put Fantasy back on the map? I find that highly unlikely given all the people in the youtube comments sections and friends being interested in the lore and the game only to be disheartened that the game is dead.
Add insult to injury with GW discontinuing lines of models and killing off our discontinued game that we can apparently still play (which is a crock of ****) and we have nothing left.
GW are evil and stupid. I'm sure they'd attribute total war: warhammer increasing sales in Fantasy as a byproduct of Global Warming given how far off the point they've been. They refuse to understand why people are or aren't buying and refuse to understand their customers. Honestly I hope GW goes under. At this point they truly deserve it.
I wonder about the whole "return the old world" thing as well. So many people have gone to KoW or 9th with popular rule-sets for rank-and-file battles that it seems doubtful enough would return to justify keeping the setting supported.
Games would've helped the setting but 8th edition already saw plummeting sales and AoS was started in 2013 with no knowledge on when CA would finish their Total Warhammer game.
I definitely believe AoS has a chance, as long as GW keep doing what they've been doing with community interaction, start collecting sets and pumping out more AoS models. The upcoming Silver Tower game will go a long ways towards showing if AoS can create the player interest it needs.
AoS could definitely benefit from a video game or two of it's own. A game app version of Silver Tower as an AoS heroquest or the like would certainly be nice.
Personally, the response around me has been amazingly positive for AoS, sinply because the rules are concise but still fun. The game promotes beer-and-pretzels gaming where people agree on limits themselves to make the game fair, but that also means it is terrible for pick up games. As such, Sigmar will likely do much better in a small community that plays together are playing the game for fun, rather than as items for a collector who only gets to play once in a while sith people they don't know. It creates the massive swings we hear about, where in some places the game is thriving and in others people deride it ad nauseam.
Indeed, that's a big reason I like it as well. As I mentioned earlier, balance and flavor don't mix so alot of mass battle games are streamlining the rules for as much tournament balance as possible.
Obviously, to some players, this starts to feel like chess: fantasy edition rather than fantasy battles.
So the fun spirit of AoS and it's unbalanced "when in doubt, talk it out" nature is rather refreshing when wanting to have large and small battles that are full of flavorful moments.
GW is trying to turn the boat around, problem is they already hit the iceberg.
They should have taken note what happened with D&D. D&D ended up with a huge split over its attempt to revitalize with the lore-destroying, new rule 4E. Long story short, it didn't survive. D&D attempted to mend the community and recover some players with 5E, but it hasn't been the same; though I like the base game, the line is only putting out a fraction of what it used to, and interest seems to be at an all-time low.
GW could bring back WHFB, but the customer numbers would never be even as good as the last edition - anyone who didn't convert over to AoS probably felt burned and either is stayed with the old game, converted to KoW or quit. The only ones GW might get back are probably those still playing the last edition of WHFB. And they'd probably tick off the majority of those who picked up AoS if they went back to WHFB, or even turned AoS into a specialty game that was irregularly updated.
What GW should have done was offer AoS as a alternate way to play, like a form of Mordenhiem, and gone with dual system books until they could either ease players into AoS or somehow shore up WHFB or slide it into a specialty game slot. And they should have certainly NOT blown up the Old World.
It is definitely too late to just reintroduce warhammer as it was, but there is no reason why they could not follow the Horus heresy model. Have a new game called Warhammer: war of the beard, or just Warhammer historical. There is a vast amount of accumulated background that his not beern explored in miniature form.
They could start small with a minimal budget and guage player interest as they develop it. As a long term warhammer player this would be much more interesting to me than warhammer 9th edition.
Sorry but fantasy is dead, aos is what is here, growing, and outselling the old wfb.
Where are you getting the figures to prove it is growing? and outselling the old WHFB? Any proof that AOS models are outselling the pre-AOSWHFB models? and do you have some GW insider knowledge on sales figures of the Last Chance to Buy range vs the last 3 months of AOS model sales?
Of course AoS is not outselling WHFB. In the report, sales were slightly down despite the release of a starter, Calth and people panic buying WHFB stuff. If it was 9th WHF starter, there would be a sales increase as usual.
AoS will die in few years time and I will dance on its grave. That it is still supported is GW false sense of dignity.
I think some of the comments here saying GW should go under, etc are pretty harsh. At the end of the day, that would be a lot of folks out of work. I think a lot of us can appreciate there is nothing worse than having the company you've worked for go under suddenly. No one deserves that.
I for one, am quite enjoying the new stuff from GW. They're making a lot of good steps of late.
AoS seems to be picking up steam slowly from what I can tell. From a dismal start at launch people seem to have been steadily gaining interest. No sign of reaching a plateau either.
I'm basing this assessment on activity I've seen on the internet. I'm not sure how well this actually translates to sales/income for GW however.
I think after SCGT the whole landscape around AoS has changed. It's been shown the game holds up very well at a highly competitive level (obviously with the addition of points) - couple this with a very strong Orc release - and on top of that, the destruction book signals the stabilising of the range (everyone now knows how their miniature collection sits with the game). The future looks overwhelming positive for AoS and it is finally moving on from the very rocky start it had.
I see AoS doing better than 8th, just because here no one bought anything for 8th except end times stuff, while those who play AoS are doing it with new stuff only.
Additional there are those who buy AoS Stuff for Oldhammer and KoW (seen more Sigmarines as Basilean Angels than original ones here)
How has it been shown that it holds up at a competitive level? Sure, if you add points... but the game itself has removed points. That sounds like it holds up at a competitive level if it is not AoS.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think some of the comments here saying GW should go under, etc are pretty harsh. At the end of the day, that would be a lot of folks out of work. I think a lot of us can appreciate there is nothing worse than having the company you've worked for go under suddenly. No one deserves that.
In the long term, their services are better utilized by competent companies.
It's always unfortunate that individuals (who deserves no blame for the mismanagement) have to suffer when their companies go under. But in the long run it benefits all to have those people employed by companies who better knows how to utilize them.
My local GW has more people playing in the AOS campaign they have running than they ever had Fantasy. 29 people, I was told, which is a lot for a game that is 'DOA'.
I think the simpler/cheaper/lower model count nature of AOS appeals to people over painting hundreds of models just to have a reasonably sized fantasy army.
AOS seems like a terrible tournament game, but an amazing narrative game, from everything I've seen and heard other people talk about. Haven't had a chance to actually play, but that's because my hobby focus is on 40k (and I'm feeling slightly burned from buying a thousand dollars worth of Empire and then getting End Times'd).
Of course, Vancouver has had a huge resurgence of Lord of the Rings. Perhaps us Canadians are just more forgiving than you yanks. Or just have a more positive outlook on things.
Besides, I don't think GW really cares if you use their models for KOW or AOS, since they are still selling you their models, or, for the salty veterans who were not going to buy anything anyways... So what if they play KOW? Not going to effect GW, since they were not going to buy models anyways.
Nuwisha wrote: How has it been shown that it holds up at a competitive level? Sure, if you add points... but the game itself has removed points. That sounds like it holds up at a competitive level if it is not AoS.
When AoS first launched most said it would be impossible to use the game for tournaments - but the opposite has been shown. For all the word "comp" gets used, the SCGT makes virtually no modifications to the core AoS game, and doesn't comp structure beyond the points limit and a limit to one grand alliance and the competition saw an incredible variety of lists as well as very positive player feedback especially on how clear the rules were from game-to-game in comparison to WHFB that often led to rules disputes.
Bottle wrote: I think after SCGT the whole landscape around AoS has changed. It's been shown the game holds up very well at a highly competitive level (obviously with the addition of points)
I'd argue it proves the opposite, actually, since clearly a highly competitive event wouldn't have even been possible if not for the introduction of a points system, comp, or some other radical modification to the game.
I wanna see someone run an Age of Sigmar tournament "out of the box", with no special rules, modifications, or balancing done by points/wounds like the community has come up with themselves (doing the job GW couldn't be arsed to). You won't ever see that because obviously it'll be a clusterfeth.
Bottle wrote: For all the word "comp" gets used, the SCGT makes virtually no modifications to the core AoS game, and doesn't comp structure beyond the points limit and a limit to one grand alliance and the competition saw an incredible variety of lists
Now how can you claim they make "virtually no modifications" to AoS when they had to assign points to every single model in the game? That's a pretty big fething modification if you ask me. It takes a long time to come up with a formula for pricing things out, hundreds of games to test them out and determine if they're balanced or not, etc. It's definitely not a small task.
But it's not a radical modification to the game. SCGT is pretty much vanilla AoS (in terms of game mechanics) just with some limits on what gets deployed.
In fact the core rules state players can bring as many models as they want - and here both want to bring within the agreed limit defined by the SCGT point values.
Apart from the point values - the only other changes SCGT makes are some house rule additions like 'base-to-base' measuring and buffs of the same name not stacking.
As for events without points, Warhammer World is doing a very good job of that.
Bottle wrote: I think after SCGT the whole landscape around AoS has changed. It's been shown the game holds up very well at a highly competitive level (obviously with the addition of points)
I'd argue it proves the opposite, actually, since clearly a highly competitive event wouldn't have even been possible if not for the introduction of a points system, comp, or some other radical modification to the game.
I wanna see someone run an Age of Sigmar tournament "out of the box", with no special rules, modifications, or balancing done by points/wounds like the community has come up with themselves (doing the job GW couldn't be arsed to). You won't ever see that because obviously it'll be a clusterfeth.
Who cares how it is achieved? The community has stepped up and created a points system that makes the game a viable tournament game. Whether that's the "out of the box" experience or not is really irrelevant to the outcome, which is that more people will be arranging and attending tournaments, which in turn means more people playing AoS. I don't get the fixation with the "out of the box" game, it really doesn't matter if people are using those rules or modified rules, as long as they are playing.
You would never see an "out of the box" 40k tournament either... Because it would be a clusterfeth. Doesn't seem to stop people from running and playing 40k tournaments.
@Mymearan I agree! And if GW continue to offer community support for big tournaments like they did with SCGT, then it's much better for things like point lists to be created by the community.
No longer do we have a financial agenda behind the points cost of a model, instead the agenda is nothing but creating a fun and competetive experience for the players. Looks like GW has gotten onboard with it to and I hope to see many events get spotlighted in the future - a far cry even from the 8th edition rulebook that had a blurb about how the rules don't work for tournaments.
Bottle wrote: For all the word "comp" gets used, the SCGT makes virtually no modifications to the core AoS game, and doesn't comp structure beyond the points limit and a limit to one grand alliance and the competition saw an incredible variety of lists
Now how can you claim they make "virtually no modifications" to AoS when they had to assign points to every single model in the game? That's a pretty big fething modification if you ask me. It takes a long time to come up with a formula for pricing things out, hundreds of games to test them out and determine if they're balanced or not, etc. It's definitely not a small task.
I'm talking about how the game plays on the table - SCGT makes little modification to the game mechanics. The mechanics of the game hold up well in a tournament environment - especially due to the lack of rules disputes that come with it.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think some of the comments here saying GW should go under, etc are pretty harsh. At the end of the day, that would be a lot of folks out of work. I think a lot of us can appreciate there is nothing worse than having the company you've worked for go under suddenly. No one deserves that.
I for one, am quite enjoying the new stuff from GW. They're making a lot of good steps of late.
The models do look pretty great. I haven't seen any dud designs recently.
A pity they are super expensive, and the rules aren't great.
Very few major tourneys that I have ever seen organized WFB or 40k, on this forum or elsewhere, appear to have been straight out the box or unmodified (comp'd in some way if you will).
AOS is probably the one best able to claim that, it clearly states it is for the players to work out what to play etc, so having an organizer set the limits, be it points or some other mechanism, and players agree to them is indeed straight out the box.
AOS seems like a terrible tournament game, but an amazing narrative game, from everything I've seen and heard other people talk about.
How is AoS better for narrative play than WHFB was? What stopped all those narrative players from destroying the old world themselves in their own campaign? One could bring back Sigmar 11 times including one in 70s Chicago raising an army with golden afros to destroy chaos in the public transportation. If anything, AoS seems much worse than WHFB for narrative play because fluff for me is much more shallow and harder to relate to/ suspend disbelief at.
It's the same crowd that wants the 40k story to progress because "it's stagnant". Progress it yourself ffs, for all the creativity the narrative guys claim to posess, they seem to need GW stamp a lot.
My criticism of GW is well known on these boards, but from one perspective, I can say they'll never be able to reach the heights of the 1990s again, because
A) Technology and the world has moved on
B) There is a ton of competitors out there to keep them honest.
So, if you are a GW fan who likes their stuff, you have a lot of advantages in your favour, and the biggest one is being able to walk away and buy top quality stuff from a rival. Remind them of that at every opportunity and you'll see GW change for the better.
Bottle wrote: But it's not a radical modification to the game. SCGT is pretty much vanilla AoS (in terms of game mechanics) just with some limits on what gets deployed.
In fact the core rules state players can bring as many models as they want - and here both want to bring within the agreed limit defined by the SCGT point values.
Apart from the point values - the only other changes SCGT makes are some house rule additions like 'base-to-base' measuring and buffs of the same name not stacking.
As for events without points, Warhammer World is doing a very good job of that.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then, I guess. Personally I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that determining a points value for everything in the game, setting a points limit so people know when to stop putting models on the table, and coming up with other limits on what you get to deploy, isn't a radical change from how the game is intended to be played.
Setting a points value for everything is no small task, either. Unless you do it the GW way I guess and just pull numbers out of your ass, long forgetting what your formula was or if you even had one to begin with.
As for 40k not working "out of the box" either...well, no, obviously it doesn't. I stopped playing primarily because it's such a fething mess. I wasn't trying to argue that 40k was better, though.
Because you can imagine ANYTHING now and have it fit into the world, no more having to work within the confines of any silly 'official fluff' like before. Don't ya know that the less established setting material there is the better for creating stories. That's why no one ever developed any settings and worlds to go along with D&D, right?
Bottle wrote: But it's not a radical modification to the game. SCGT is pretty much vanilla AoS (in terms of game mechanics) just with some limits on what gets deployed.
In fact the core rules state players can bring as many models as they want - and here both want to bring within the agreed limit defined by the SCGT point values.
Apart from the point values - the only other changes SCGT makes are some house rule additions like 'base-to-base' measuring and buffs of the same name not stacking.
As for events without points, Warhammer World is doing a very good job of that.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then, I guess. Personally I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that determining a points value for everything in the game, setting a points limit so people know when to stop putting models on the table, and coming up with other limits on what you get to deploy, isn't a radical change from how the game is intended to be played.
Setting a points value for everything is no small task, either. Unless you do it the GW way I guess and just pull numbers out of your ass, long forgetting what your formula was or if you even had one to begin with.
As for 40k not working "out of the box" either...well, no, obviously it doesn't. I stopped playing primarily because it's such a fething mess. I wasn't trying to argue that 40k was better, though.
Doing the bolded part for AoS actualy takes more work than writing its ruleset.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Doing the bolded part for AoS actualy takes more work than writing its ruleset.
Indeed, which is why I personally find it boggling that it's being presented as if it isn't a big deal or major change to the game. That's a pretty big job, and requires a lot of testing to get it right, too. Probably years of testing. You can't just assign a random number to everything with no thought or meaning behind it, say "Yeah, that feels right" and then call it balanced.
Age of sigmar sucks, fantasy was so much better. Excusing the fact no one played it. Where were all the fantasy fans when it was dying on its ass, no one buying, playing etc. You didn't care then but the minute it was replaced by the thankfully great AoS you lot were up whining til you were green. Fantasy is dead thank god.
Now lets hope 40k gets fixed next cos lord it needs a total redo
Plumbumbarum wrote: Doing the bolded part for AoS actualy takes more work than writing its ruleset.
Indeed, which is why I personally find it boggling that it's being presented as if it isn't a big deal or major change to the game. That's a pretty big job, and requires a lot of testing to get it right, too. Probably years of testing. You can't just assign a random number to everything with no thought or meaning behind it, say "Yeah, that feels right" and then call it balanced.
You're missing the point. If you saw two games side by side, one where the forces had been chosen under SCGT and one of Vanillia AoS which just so happened to have the exact same forces - there would be hardly any differences to the two games. This is what I mean about it not being a major change to the game mechanics. Critics said that AoS lacked any tactical play - SCGT has shown it can be played very tactically and competitively.
And a balanced system needing years of play testing? Says who? AoS isn't even a year old and acclaimed comps have been made for it, multiple times in fact. It was no doubt a big task, but it has been shown that in the hands of the community it can be done quickly and effectively. I think the balancing being placed in the hands of the community is going to be very healthy for the game - especially now that GW is looking to actively support the community too.
Motograter wrote: Where were all the fantasy fans when it was dying on its ass, no one buying, playing etc.
Probably waiting for it to be fixed. Or waiting for releases like End Times which sold like crazy, unlike AoS crap.
I for example was playing and buying btw.
Fantasy is dead thank god.
That's a sentiment I always find interesting, why is it good, why do you care if you never liked it anyway. Why didn't you find yourself a simple skirmish high fantasy game and leave whfb to people who liked it. But no, you need GW to provide you a game you like and whfb dead for some reason.
I'll admit in concept I like AOS. I like the models (don't hate) and like how it's flexible enough to allow for coming up with your own stuff. That's a good thing. The problem is that's the ONLY thing you can do, which means to me GW dropped the ball again by refusing to acknowledge or design a balanced system that can do both casual/narrative and competitive games without one being "the" way and one being ignored except for third parties. They just don't get the idea that a balanced set of rules helps everybody.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Doing the bolded part for AoS actualy takes more work than writing its ruleset.
Indeed, which is why I personally find it boggling that it's being presented as if it isn't a big deal or major change to the game. That's a pretty big job, and requires a lot of testing to get it right, too. Probably years of testing. You can't just assign a random number to everything with no thought or meaning behind it, say "Yeah, that feels right" and then call it balanced.
You're missing the point. If you saw two games side by side, one where the forces had been chosen under SCGT and one of Vanillia AoS which just so happened to have the exact same forces - there would be hardly any differences to the two games. This is what I mean about it not being a major change to the game mechanics. Critics said that AoS lacked any tactical play - SCGT has shown it can be played very tactically and competitively.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Doing the bolded part for AoS actualy takes more work than writing its ruleset.
Indeed, which is why I personally find it boggling that it's being presented as if it isn't a big deal or major change to the game. That's a pretty big job, and requires a lot of testing to get it right, too. Probably years of testing. You can't just assign a random number to everything with no thought or meaning behind it, say "Yeah, that feels right" and then call it balanced.
Points are not a change to the game, nor is any other mechanism by which you choose what army/model to play with. The game encourages you to get together and agree on what will make an interesting game. It is you who decides that, not the game. You can go by model limit, wound limit, home brew point system, retail value, place your entire collection or whatever. None of those are changing the game, they are all merely ways you might agree with someone what you will bring to the game. The game starts after that. As Bottle said once you are actually playing it makes no difference, the mechanics of the game itself are the same.
It may be that you want to see list building etc as some part of the game, which is fine, but it isn't the game itself. That is a meta game aspect for those that want to play like that. Even warhammer of old made it clear that you didn't have to use points, you could play with whatever you agreed to play with, or just whatever you had etc.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Doing the bolded part for AoS actualy takes more work than writing its ruleset.
Indeed, which is why I personally find it boggling that it's being presented as if it isn't a big deal or major change to the game. That's a pretty big job, and requires a lot of testing to get it right, too. Probably years of testing. You can't just assign a random number to everything with no thought or meaning behind it, say "Yeah, that feels right" and then call it balanced.
You're missing the point. If you saw two games side by side, one where the forces had been chosen under SCGT and one of Vanillia AoS which just so happened to have the exact same forces - there would be hardly any differences to the two games. This is what I mean about it not being a major change to the game mechanics. Critics said that AoS lacked any tactical play - SCGT has shown it can be played very tactically and competitively.
What tactics in particular were used?
I wasn't there - so I'm relaying the opinions of players who very much enjoyed the tactical challenges of the games at the event. From watching all the coverage and listening to various podcasts on the event, the tactics used were many you would see in another war game such as manoeuvring, flanking, staggering attacks and creating zones of control - AoS also allows strategies based on synergies of keywords and AoE buffs, and employing those strategies and countering the enemy's brings in another set of tactics to play.
I think the simpler/cheaper/lower model count nature of AOS appeals to people over painting hundreds of models just to have a reasonably sized fantasy army.
Except GW brought this onto themselves. In its glorious years, many of the WFB units were 5/10/16/20 models in size only.
Had GW not gone down the horde route of having loads of units of 40+, this model count would be no different. Greed however meant they forced WFB players into increasing unit size massively. Short term profit maybe, but now they had to cease sales of the game because of the long term effect it had.
Crazyterran wrote: AOS seems like a terrible tournament game, but an amazing narrative game, from everything I've seen and heard other people talk about.
Any game is an amazing narrative game if you are with the right people. The rules are irrelevant to how narrative it is. People quoting that AoS is amazingly narrative just comes across as there's no other redeeming features to brag about.
Besides, I don't think GW really cares if you use their models for KOW or AOS, since they are still selling you their models, or, for the salty veterans who were not going to buy anything anyways... So what if they play KOW? Not going to effect GW, since they were not going to buy models anyways.
You would think GW would like the extra sales this could bring in. Yet they put so much iconography, runes and skulls onto their models to force them out of a use in other games.
It's their loss of extra sales.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Doing the bolded part for AoS actualy takes more work than writing its ruleset.
Indeed, which is why I personally find it boggling that it's being presented as if it isn't a big deal or major change to the game. That's a pretty big job, and requires a lot of testing to get it right, too. Probably years of testing. You can't just assign a random number to everything with no thought or meaning behind it, say "Yeah, that feels right" and then call it balanced.
You're missing the point. If you saw two games side by side, one where the forces had been chosen under SCGT and one of Vanillia AoS which just so happened to have the exact same forces - there would be hardly any differences to the two games. This is what I mean about it not being a major change to the game mechanics. Critics said that AoS lacked any tactical play - SCGT has shown it can be played very tactically and competitively.
What tactics in particular were used?
I wasn't there - so I'm relaying the opinions of players who very much enjoyed the tactical challenges of the games at the event. From watching all the coverage and listening to various podcasts on the event, the tactics used were many you would see in another war game such as manoeuvring, flanking, staggering attacks and creating zones of control - AoS also allows strategies based on synergies of keywords and AoE buffs, and employing those strategies and countering the enemy's brings in another set of tactics to play.
Well without manouvering there is no wargame at all I guess. Flanking maybe happened but very situational, seldom makes sense to use it and plan for it. Rest is basic, it's not that AoS lacks any tactical play, hardly possible when you have tactics for a 100m run. It's just that it's least tactical of all major games and minor as well probably heh.
Obviously the amount of units and unit types warrants strategies and execution takes some skill, the skill ceiling is not really high though and it will become evident for the tournament crowd as well sooner or later.
puree wrote: What was so tactical about WFB? I can't think of anything that made it a deep tactical game, it was about as shallow/deep tactically as AOS.
8th ed was pretty shallow, but earlier editions had more of an emphasis on maneuvering and flanking.
Instead of throwing an AoE spell of death or crushing the enemy with a hoard.
puree wrote: What was so tactical about WFB? I can't think of anything that made it a deep tactical game, it was about as shallow/deep tactically as AOS.
Maneuvering a unit into hitting your enemy in the flank required skill and provided significant reward.
In WHFB you could tie ranged units up with cheap fast melee unit.
In WHFB one of my favourite tactics was using chaff to tie up my enemies best units and control who would fight and where, if I played it right two units of 5 wolves could take a unit of 40 chaos warriors out of the game.
I could modify the equipment and powers on my vampire lord to suit different roles instead of having a totally generic profile with the option for a horse.
Yes and it gets kinda hard to flank units in AoS when units have no front, sides, or rear. There is hunting for a short edge but that will change on turn to turn basis so no point as well. You could ofc flank battle lines but that's just wasting time because you want to be in a fight asap. Etc.
Yeah, using fast cav to occupy ranged units and chaff to redirect charges or block enemy movement were a thing as well. You could use those tactics in 8th.
Flanking wasn't that effective in 8 though, due to the steadfast rule that strongly benefited hoards. I'm pretty sure flanking doesn't remove steadfast anyway.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, using fast cav to occupy ranged units and chaff to redirect charges where a thing as well.
You could use those tactics in 8th as well.
Flanking wasn't that effective in 8 though, due to the steadfast rule that strongly benefited hoards. I'm pretty sure flanking doesn't remove steadfast anyway.
IIRC you needed more ranks than them, which was kinda rare. If nothing else flanking meant you got full attacks on your opponent, who got minimal attacks back at you. It provided *A* bonus, as it should given the style of warfare. AoS doesn't even have unit facings so you can't stab someone in the back.
I played earlier editions rather than 8th. There was nothing about it that made it some deep tactical wargame. Maneuver is pretty much mandatory in any wargame as noted above, and flanking is not the epitome of deep tactics, especially in WFB. It was the most shallow tactic in many ways, the rules pretty much highlighted in big neon signs why you should flank making it pretty much the definition of shallowness.
Maybe a matter of perspective and definitions - but IMHO deep tactical games are the ones where non obvious play that you have to think about trumps some combat resolution bonus. Such tactics are different in every situation and with affects that may not even be clear cut and need explaining the other guy afterwards why you did what you did and why you think it worked.
[edit]crikey ninjad half a dozen times whilst typing:
Maneuvering a unit into hitting your enemy in the flank required skill and provided significant reward.
Sure, the act of maneuvering to achieve some bonus is tactics. But that is a generic statement and applies to any wargame. When I talk about flanking above I don't see the act of flanking making the game deep. The fact that it is blindingly obvious that you want to flank due to the massive bonuses makes the act of flanking shallower tactically IMO. Now if you were maneuvering deceptively to look as though you were flanking but had no intention of doing so that would be much more interesting.
Nuwisha wrote: How has it been shown that it holds up at a competitive level? Sure, if you add points... but the game itself has removed points. That sounds like it holds up at a competitive level if it is not AoS.
Using that same logic, 40K doesn't hold up at a competitive level either because of the FAQs and flat out rules changes tournaments make to the game.
puree wrote: I played earlier editions rather than 8th. There was nothing about it that made it some deep tactical wargame. Maneuver is pretty much mandatory in any wargame as noted above, and flanking is not the epitome of deep tactics, especially in WFB. It was the most shallow tactic in many ways, the rules pretty much highlighted in big neon signs why you should flank making it pretty much the definition of shallowness.
I... what?
If flanking is considered 'shallow' then without it isn't AoS essentially an empty pool tactically?
And why the hell is seeing that something is obviously a good tactical move a bad thing? Yes, it is obvious that flanking is good, the point is you have to pull it off.
Nuwisha wrote: How has it been shown that it holds up at a competitive level? Sure, if you add points... but the game itself has removed points. That sounds like it holds up at a competitive level if it is not AoS.
Using that same logic, 40K doesn't hold up at a competitive level either because of the FAQs and flat out rules changes tournaments make to the game.
I think a great many people would agree with that. :-p
Nuwisha wrote: How has it been shown that it holds up at a competitive level? Sure, if you add points... but the game itself has removed points. That sounds like it holds up at a competitive level if it is not AoS.
Using that same logic, 40K doesn't hold up at a competitive level either because of the FAQs and flat out rules changes tournaments make to the game.
I think a great many people would agree with that. :-p
Nuwisha wrote: How has it been shown that it holds up at a competitive level? Sure, if you add points... but the game itself has removed points. That sounds like it holds up at a competitive level if it is not AoS.
Using that same logic, 40K doesn't hold up at a competitive level either because of the FAQs and flat out rules changes tournaments make to the game.
puree wrote: I played earlier editions rather than 8th. There was nothing about it that made it some deep tactical wargame. Maneuver is pretty much mandatory in any wargame as noted above, and flanking is not the epitome of deep tactics, especially in WFB. It was the most shallow tactic in many ways, the rules pretty much highlighted in big neon signs why you should flank making it pretty much the definition of shallowness.
I... what?
If flanking is considered 'shallow' then without it isn't AoS essentially an empty pool tactically?
And why the hell is seeing that something is obviously a good tactical move a bad thing? Yes, it is obvious that flanking is good, the point is you have to pull it off.
I never said it was a bad thing.
Your statement comes down to maneuver to achieve something. That is the relevant fact. That the 'something' is flanking is irrelevant, and due to the obvious nature highlighted by the game 'shallow'.
The more a game revolves around a couple of clear cut things like flanking IMO makes a game shallower tactically. That is not to say the game is bad or whatever. But I fail to see how WFB is made out to be somehow better tactically than AoS due to the presence of such clear and obvious huge bonuses to combat resolution.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Yes and it gets kinda hard to flank units in AoS when units have no front, sides, or rear. There is hunting for a short edge but that will change on turn to turn basis so no point as well. You could ofc flank battle lines but that's just wasting time because you want to be in a fight asap. Etc.
If you engage a unit from two directions you negate its ability to pile-in (as it breaks the unit coherency). Flanking is a very real tactic in AoS.
Again, why does it being obvious make it tactically shallow? You still have to pull it off. Taking the queen in chess is an obvious tactical move, doesn't make it easy or tactically shallow.
Again, why does it being obvious make it tactically shallow? You still have to pull it off. Taking the queen in chess is an obvious tactical move, doesn't make it easy or tactically shallow.
IMO you may have the skill to pull off you flanking move. But if due to the nature of the game rules it is clear what you are trying to and why then the tactic itself is shallow. That is not to say that you may not have done a good job achieving it and won accordingly.
If I can't work out what your maneuvering is about at the time, say because there is no mega flanking bonus that you are clearly going for, yet at the end it is what made a noticeable contribution then it is probably due to deeper tactics.
In other words deep tactical play is not about some game bonus, but about doing stuff that goes beyond a clear immediate bonus.
That might not be your idea of shallow or deep tactics, fair enough, I'm not sure there is a real definition of the terms. I just see shallow as meaning something only surface deep in game terms and deep as being something that you have to go beyond the surface to work out. I hence tend to see WFB as being mainly a shallow game as it was mainly always clear what people were doing, and why. That, however, is not to say it was a bad game or anything.
Again, why does it being obvious make it tactically shallow? You still have to pull it off. Taking the queen in chess is an obvious tactical move, doesn't make it easy or tactically shallow.
IMO you may have the skill to pull off you flanking move. But if due to the nature of the game rules it is clear what you are trying to and why then the tactic itself is shallow. That is not to say that you may not have done a good job achieving it and won accordingly.
If I can't work out what your maneuvering is about at the time, say because there is no mega flanking bonus that you are clearly going for, yet at the end it is what made a noticeable contribution then it is probably due to deeper tactics.
In other words deep tactical play is not about some game bonus, but about doing stuff that goes beyond a clear immediate bonus.
That might not be your idea of shallow or deep tactics, fair enough, I'm not sure there is a real definition of the terms. I just see shallow as meaning something only surface deep in game terms and deep as being something that you have to go beyond the surface to work out. I hence tend to see WFB as being mainly a shallow game as it was mainly always clear what people were doing, and why. That, however, is not to say it was a bad game or anything.
And are you trying to say AoS isn't tactically shallow or are you just claiming WHFB is?
If you think AoS isn't shallow then I'd very much like to know what kind of tactics are involved that are suitably subtle for your definition.
As noted, I was making no great comment on AoS, beyond I don't see how WFB is some deep tactical game and AoS isn't.
Both have maneuvering in, which as noted earlier would be very bizarre if that was not the case. Almost all tactics rely to some extent on maneuvering, the only thing that might be different is to what goal. In both cases you could be attempting something non obvious, WFB also has a couple of clear cut things that are good to achieve, but they alone do not make the game the epitome of tactics. With a much bigger variety of unit combos and potential synergies etc it is hard to imagine that AoS does not offer more tactical opportunities that are not going to be found in the more restrictive setting of a WFB block game. Different game rules, e.g. the whole pile in/combat timing makes for a new set of tactics that WFB doesn't really do.
The games are different, and have different things to account for. But the argument that WFB is a great tactical game and AoS isn't just strikes me as bizarre, and given how much it comes up as the shining example, maybe from those who feel that tactics amount to not much more than flanking.
Because you can imagine ANYTHING now and have it fit into the world, no more having to work within the confines of any silly 'official fluff' like before. Don't ya know that the less established setting material there is the better for creating stories. That's why no one ever developed any settings and worlds to go along with D&D, right?
I'm not sure if it's what Plum was getting at, but I find there is a huge difference between how people approach the setting and creating their armies vs how players approach the rules and creating their lists. WFB had amazing background, but WFB the game had percentages of core and must takes and limited units worth taking. AOS has underdeveloped fluff, but the rules make it much easier to take the units you want for your own narrative. At least for now. As the tournament scene heats up, I'm sure unit synergy and min maxing will render AOS every bit as joyless to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Motograter wrote: Age of sigmar sucks, fantasy was so much better. Excusing the fact no one played it. Where were all the fantasy fans when it was dying on its ass, no one buying, playing etc. You didn't care then but the minute it was replaced by the thankfully great AoS you lot were up whining til you were green. Fantasy is dead thank god.
Now lets hope 40k gets fixed next cos lord it needs a total redo
There are many reasons for fantasy sales to plummet despite the game's enduring popularity. Pricing out the customers and diminishing rules quality are the obvious ones, but there are more subtle things like increased competition and changing demographics in tabletop gaming. BL was clearly having success with the setting, as was the video game industry.
Honestly, GW's reaction makes me wonder what would have happened if George Lucas saw the fan reaction to his prequels and then decided Star Wars was dead, killed all the characters except Lando and Wicket, burnt every world to ash, and then created Star Wars: A New Setting, where everything lives in hyperspace and the plot revolves around the war between ancient energy squids and giant space Arthropods.
puree wrote: What was so tactical about WFB? I can't think of anything that made it a deep tactical game, it was about as shallow/deep tactically as AOS.
Maneuvering a unit into hitting your enemy in the flank required skill and provided significant reward.
In WHFB you could tie ranged units up with cheap fast melee unit.
In WHFB one of my favourite tactics was using chaff to tie up my enemies best units and control who would fight and where, if I played it right two units of 5 wolves could take a unit of 40 chaos warriors out of the game..
This right here is probably why WHFB was not considered a good narrative game. Too many tactics so heavily based on flawed game mechanics would and did kill my suspension of disbelief. AOS might be crap, but sometimes it's fun crap.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Honestly, GW's reaction makes me wonder what would have happened if George Lucas saw the fan reaction to his prequels and then decided Star Wars was dead, killed all the characters except Lando and Wicket, burnt every world to ash, and then created Star Wars: A New Setting, where everything lives in hyperspace and the plot revolves around the war between ancient energy squids and giant space Arthropods.
puree wrote: As noted, I was making no great comment on AoS, beyond I don't see how WFB is some deep tactical game and AoS isn't..
Well for starters, WFB had more than four pages of rules.
Should we pretend that the huge pile of battle scrolls with different rules and options on each of them, including ones for terrain , are not an actual set of rules? Just because you don't have to check the main rule book to see what a sword and shield combo does or what benefit comes with a fortress wall doesn't mean there aren't a significant a.ount of rules.
puree wrote: As noted, I was making no great comment on AoS, beyond I don't see how WFB is some deep tactical game and AoS isn't..
Well for starters, WFB had more than four pages of rules.
Should we pretend that the huge pile of battle scrolls with different rules and options on each of them, including ones for terrain , are not an actual set of rules? Just because you don't have to check the main rule book to see what a sword and shield combo does or what benefit comes with a fortress wall doesn't mean there aren't a significant a.ount of rules.
Right, so WFB had a massive BRB and a big army book per faction full of options and choices, AOS has a four-page ruleset and... warscrolls. Hmm, I'm not buying it.
The idea that "more rules = deeper game" is painful.
Seems like the same people who haven't played the game are still arguing why there's nothing to it.
If you're interested, follow the community (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter), podcasts, battle reports, etc. and see for yourself. If you're not interested, think about things you are interested in.
Your mind is not going to be changed arguing about it on a forum, but that might not be your goal anyway.
Erm, I read the actual rules of the game (wasn't that much of an effort, lol). I don't see how some battle reports are going to change my opinion on the four pages long ruleset.
Certainly more rules =/= better game. WHFB itself proves that, with 8th edition being clearly the worst in my opinion, and at the same time the most bloated and rules-heavy of them all.
AoS is a half-assed attempt of a game. It will survive for some time because if you happen to play at a GW official store, it's AoS, 40k or nothing. It will retain some enthusiasts, of course. Outside of that, people can try to convince themselves that it's truly "picking up steam" and whatever you want. Without official data you can't make such a claim, and the latest half-year report by GW doesn't seem to indicate it's doing any better than WHFB was before getting the axe.
I'm really sorry, but some people seem to just be deluding themselves.
puree wrote: I played earlier editions rather than 8th. There was nothing about it that made it some deep tactical wargame. Maneuver is pretty much mandatory in any wargame as noted above, and flanking is not the epitome of deep tactics, especially in WFB. It was the most shallow tactic in many ways, the rules pretty much highlighted in big neon signs why you should flank making it pretty much the definition of shallowness.
I... what?
If flanking is considered 'shallow' then without it isn't AoS essentially an empty pool tactically?
And why the hell is seeing that something is obviously a good tactical move a bad thing? Yes, it is obvious that flanking is good, the point is you have to pull it off.
I never said it was a bad thing.
Your statement comes down to maneuver to achieve something. That is the relevant fact. That the 'something' is flanking is irrelevant, and due to the obvious nature highlighted by the game 'shallow'.
The more a game revolves around a couple of clear cut things like flanking IMO makes a game shallower tactically. That is not to say the game is bad or whatever. But I fail to see how WFB is made out to be somehow better tactically than AoS due to the presence of such clear and obvious huge bonuses to combat resolution.
You have to keep track of multiple units and their facing and plan accordingly. It's not about particular tactic being shallow but the gameplay being shallow or not thanks to particular mechanic. That you can say that "it's obvious that you have to go for a flanking move" is completly irrelevant.
Also battles simulated on the tabletop are not really that deep affairs in general and you should rather add mechanics, even abstract ones, than remove them. Movement phase is crucial when it comes to wargame depth and facing makes it deeper, not more shallow. Whfb was not a super deep game but still AoS dumbed it down significantly.
Korinov wrote: Erm, I read the actual rules of the game (wasn't that much of an effort, lol). I don't see how some battle reports are going to change my opinion on the four pages long ruleset.
Well, your entire understanding of the game is imagined in your head. It's not nothing, but you're likely not going to change your opinion without seeking more sources of information.
Pacific wrote: Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)
...
I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet
Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)
That's arguably true about fantasy and SF wargames in general, though. They are based on mediaeval or modern warfare with some variations.
WHFB was killed due to poor rules and inflated prices.
And terrible marketing without due research.
There were people that joined in the play for End Times because suddenly they had a hope that WHFB would no longer be the red headed step child of WH40K....
Instead... they got AoS.
I was not one of the people to jump on the End Times Bandwagon, having already switched to KoW. (Which meant that I was in a position to help others switch over....)
The Auld Grump - but I was hoping that there would be some good models coming out of End Times....
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Honestly, GW's reaction makes me wonder what would have happened if George Lucas saw the fan reaction to his prequels and then decided Star Wars was dead, killed all the characters except Lando and Wicket, burnt every world to ash, and then created Star Wars: A New Setting, where everything lives in hyperspace and the plot revolves around the war between ancient energy squids and giant space Arthropods.
That's a great analogy actually.
I think that he made a mistake, and was looking at the series outline for Mass Effect....
The Auld Grump - or Lucas throwing the characters from Willow into the Star Wars universe because Willow did poorly.... (This is actually the sound of me agreeing, for the record.)
Pacific wrote: Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)
...
I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet
Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)
That's arguably true about fantasy and SF wargames in general, though. They are based on mediaeval or modern warfare with some variations.
Pshh! Next you'll be trying to tell us that The Empire in WHFB was based on The Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs, or something....
Plumbumbarum wrote: Yes and it gets kinda hard to flank units in AoS when units have no front, sides, or rear. There is hunting for a short edge but that will change on turn to turn basis so no point as well. You could ofc flank battle lines but that's just wasting time because you want to be in a fight asap. Etc.
If you engage a unit from two directions you negate its ability to pile-in (as it breaks the unit coherency). Flanking is a very real tactic in AoS.
Is it though, how situational is that. Doesn't the unit have to be both big enough and foolishly set up to allow you to exploit it? Also if it's set up like that, wouldn't it limit the number of attackers anyway for the initial round of combat even if not flanked?
Doesn't have to be a big group or foolish player. Two small skirmish units attacking a medium sized group of soldiers by attacking from opposite directions so the bigger group can only focus soldiers on one side or the other can be rough.
More complicated when you add in that the soldier is trying to keep high enough numbers to keep it's ability bonus and if the skirmishers have any nasty effects or even a simple 2" range advantage.
I love those simple 1" and 2" range differences, fun to combine sword and spear units to create mousetraps to limit and pick apart a elite force. Use their size against them.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Yes and it gets kinda hard to flank units in AoS when units have no front, sides, or rear. There is hunting for a short edge but that will change on turn to turn basis so no point as well. You could ofc flank battle lines but that's just wasting time because you want to be in a fight asap. Etc.
If you engage a unit from two directions you negate its ability to pile-in (as it breaks the unit coherency). Flanking is a very real tactic in AoS.
Is it though, how situational is that. Doesn't the unit have to be both big enough and foolishly set up to allow you to exploit it? Also if it's set up like that, wouldn't it limit the number of attackers anyway for the initial round of combat even if not flanked?
It's not that situational - often units are set up with wide facings to better pile-in, but that sort of formation can be prone to being hit from either end. Especially if the countering player wins initiative. It doesn't have to be some grand cavalry charge in the rear too, it's quite easy to pull off this with flying or other fast moving units.
There's not really any point in us discussing how situational something is however, or even if *you* find AoS to be tactical or not. The main point that set off this tangent is that SCGT showed there was a section of the player base that wants to be play AoS competitively - and that the game + a points system led to a very enjoyable experience for the players that attended - many of them commenting that they enjoyed the tactics involved in the game and the smoothness of the core rules too.
Pacific wrote: Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)
Chikout wrote: I am highly dubious of this. From what I understand the end times and age of sigmar was in planning for years, so why start to make a new starter set. The stuff about scheduling meetings to avoid Kirby also sounds like nonsense. Didn't they already talk about plans for the Lotr game which did not include war of the ring? They haven't even don't the second part of war zone Fenris yet. How will there be time for two more this year?
The Bretonnia stuff reinforces this for me, I think it was Hastings over at Warseer who confirmed laying eyes on these 2-3 years back. If I remember he said they were set for a new army book and a full mini overhaul, then sigmar hit and they got shelved.
I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet
Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)
Except for the whole magical force field protection granted to them by an Arthurian Legend expy, you mean. Or a ghost knight.
Baron Klatz wrote: Doesn't have to be a big group or foolish player. Two small skirmish units attacking a medium sized group of soldiers by attacking from opposite directions so the bigger group can only focus soldiers on one side or the other can be rough.
More complicated when you add in that the soldier is trying to keep high enough numbers to keep it's ability bonus and if the skirmishers have any nasty effects or even a simple 2" range advantage.
I love those simple 1" and 2" range differences, fun to combine sword and spear units to create mousetraps to limit and pick apart a elite force. Use their size against them.
Still sounds like a glorified double tap tbh. But ok, let's call it flanking lite, do you have a batrep with that pulled off? I'd love to see it in practice.
Haha, well I can't really give you any personal examples of flanking because I haven't played that many games (my free time schedule stinks) and I don't go for flanks because, as was in 8th, I'm the elite army guy who likes head on charges.
Lockark wrote: Whao, is their any verification about that story about Alessio Calvatore? That's some pretty damning claims, even for Kirby. I know people suspected this for awhile.
Whole rumour is just an exercise in confirmation bias.
This the reason I had to take a moment to point out how this unverifiable rumour, is claiming a lot of people theories of what happens in GW internal are true.
If the claims were verifiable would actually be a pretty big deal.
I see alot of good points and arguments on both sides here (pro AoS and pro WHFB).
I think its safe to say Fantasy Battle is not coming back, and GW is really going in for a huge AoS push and giving it lots of support (i think Sad panda has said something like that).
So I think the question right now for GWs future is -how far away is "AoS second edition"?
The whole "lofty" setting, lack of points, rules on the war scrolls (lets not forget there really is lots more rules than the 4 page basic game mechanics), has to me always looked like a bridge for old gamers to something more stable and elaborate once enough people get used to the concept.
There's not really any point in us discussing how situational something is however, or even if *you* find AoS to be tactical or not. The main point that set off this tangent is that SCGT showed there was a section of the player base that wants to be play AoS competitively - and that the game + a points system led to a very enjoyable experience for the players that attended - many of them commenting that they enjoyed the tactics involved in the game and the smoothness of the core rules too.
Sure but you said that it can be played "very tacticaly" and I asked about that. People saying that they enjoyed the tactics involved doesn't really mean the game is or isn't very tactical. Also while I am obviously combative about the game, I consider you a quality poster and a claim like that makes me genuinely curious.
I actualy like the fact that it's played as tacticaly as possible, that's how games should be played imo and good to see that players can keep their spirit even bombarded with forge the narrative and hhhobby propaganda. It's just that the cc pile in 40k is similar and not only it's simple and obvious but also seems incredibly boring and micromanagey as a big mechanic for tactical play in a cc based game.
Pacific wrote: Re. the Roundtree comments, the company definitely seems it has turned round, in the sense that they no longer seem like they are trying to feth followers of their games with every decision (veterans get special attention)
Chikout wrote: I am highly dubious of this. From what I understand the end times and age of sigmar was in planning for years, so why start to make a new starter set. The stuff about scheduling meetings to avoid Kirby also sounds like nonsense. Didn't they already talk about plans for the Lotr game which did not include war of the ring? They haven't even don't the second part of war zone Fenris yet. How will there be time for two more this year?
The Bretonnia stuff reinforces this for me, I think it was Hastings over at Warseer who confirmed laying eyes on these 2-3 years back. If I remember he said they were set for a new army book and a full mini overhaul, then sigmar hit and they got shelved.
I've always thought of Bretonnia players as being historicals players that haven't realised it quite yet
Other than crushing greenskins under-hoof with lance formations, really there isn't anything in the concept of Bretonnians that you can't find in a dozen historical game systems and lots of fantasy ones for that matter (Perry + KoW = done!)
Except for the whole magical force field protection granted to them by an Arthurian Legend expy, you mean.
Or a ghost knight.
You mean "faith"? Pretty sure plenty of historical armies have gone out with a shield of that in the past.
There's not really any point in us discussing how situational something is however, or even if *you* find AoS to be tactical or not. The main point that set off this tangent is that SCGT showed there was a section of the player base that wants to be play AoS competitively - and that the game + a points system led to a very enjoyable experience for the players that attended - many of them commenting that they enjoyed the tactics involved in the game and the smoothness of the core rules too.
Sure but you said that it can be played "very tacticaly" and I asked about that. People saying that they enjoyed the tactics involved doesn't really mean the game is or isn't very tactical. Also while I am obviously combative about the game, I consider you a quality poster and a claim like that makes me genuinely curious.
I actualy like the fact that it's played as tacticaly as possible, that's how games should be played imo and good to see that players can keep their spirit even bombarded with forge the narrative and hhhobby propaganda. It's just that the cc pile in 40k is similar and not only it's simple and obvious but also seems incredibly boring and micromanagey as a big mechanic for tactical play in a cc based game.
Good points all round. I guess when I said "very tactically" - I wasn't wanting to make a value judgement of how tactical AoS is compared to other games but to simply highlight that it can be played competitively with success and that at high-level play the players remarked at how much tactics were at play in the games (this is out of my sphere of experience - but watch some of the SCGT coverage to see the player commentary.)
Part of my personal journey with AoS has been the revelation that although I thought I was a casual-at-all-costs gamer I actually found out I love competitive play instead lol. And now after having my eyes opened by GW's coverage of SCGT I'm going to my first tournament in June (and if I successfully shut down an enemy pile-in with flank attacks I'll post pictures for you to see it in action haha) I feel much more happy with the direction of the game now because I no longer have my fellow AoSers saying "if you want to play competitively you've got the wrong game..."
I really do feel that SCGT and just as importantly GW's coverage, support and interaction with the event has really had a massive impact on the game and future of AoS. Although we need to see that support continue if they want to grow the game. It seems that GW are finally starting to realise not everyone wants to play the game the same way as they do in Lenton - and that's going to be very healthy for AoS and probably 40k too.
