Wondering people's opinions on GW's next long term move, do they push on with AOS or do they try and go back in time again before the end times etc. Apologies if there is already a thread like this, I had a brief look and couldn't find anything
They're not going back. This was a very deliberate and drastic move to change Fantasy due to flagging sales. Going back to the old rules and setting would just be going back to those flagging sales.
Age of Sigmar needs to sell well, or its very likely GW will either move it to their new Specialist branch or drop it entirely and focus on what sells.
I hope it sells well, and that they have time to expand on it and flesh it out more. It has potential, great potential, especially with the multiple play types they are coming out with and different missions.
If Mordheim comes back, I believe it will be updated to AoS since they just discontinued the key plastic kit from the boxed set (the Empire Free Company) when they redid Order.
Warmaster I can easily see keeping the Olde World setting.
They have done way to much to drop it now, and those players they have lost are likely lost for good.
What hurt age of sigmar was poor planing, poor marketing and poor release. The game itself isn't bad if they work on it and use the FAQ to get ideas on how to improve it.
GW has to get out of there old habits if they want it to really succeed, rather than leaving things for months(years) to just sorta sit And fade.
One of the bigist complaints still is nothing to talk about with factions players want to know something about, dragging there feet would be welcome from GW at this point.
Onto mordheim, if they tie it into age of sigmar somehow that's fine, but sigmarines wouldn't fit in the game right. They would need to rewrite it around them to make it really work, or expect to have warbands of two.
The biggest issue with age of sigmar isnt the poorly written rules (they are at least playable, can be entertaining but they are no work of art or brilliance and certainly deserve no praise) is the absolutely garbage attempt at setting. If they could do something with it, work to make it less cookie cutter junk and perhaps make is something you can care about, then it has a chance. I think warhammer quest was a great start, but it needs more. the fluff is too spread out, and doesnt matter anyway. Infinite space makes caring hard and just tossing stuff out is meh. The flesh eater courts would be alot more interesting in a setting with some manner of boundary. as it is, the setting took old concepts and made it something lazy.
It impossible to believe that GW will simply dump AoS and restore 8th edition WHFB.
I find it unlikely that they will bring back Warmaster, as in many ways it is the opposite of the kind of games they clearly want to sell.
I think AoS has had a rocky launch, and GW have been scrambling to put the boat on an even keel. IMO the promise of a points system is a massive bone thrown to the old-style WHFB competition players after GW found that AoS sales were suffering badly from lack of a points system. Clearly an after-thought, or it would have been there much earlier.
IDK how much more stuff like that GW can add to the game rules. If they add something major, like a C3 and morale system, it starts to make it too complicated and moves away from the simple core 4-page concept.
The fluff looks wooly to me. I'm not a fluff fan anyway, but I see complaints from a lot of people about it. Obviously GW can write more fluff, and gradually it might help bring back some of the lost players.
thekingofkings wrote: The biggest issue with age of sigmar isnt the poorly written rules (they are at least playable, can be entertaining but they are no work of art or brilliance and certainly deserve no praise) is the absolutely garbage attempt at setting. If they could do something with it, work to make it less cookie cutter junk and perhaps make is something you can care about, then it has a chance. I think warhammer quest was a great start, but it needs more. the fluff is too spread out, and doesnt matter anyway. Infinite space makes caring hard and just tossing stuff out is meh. The flesh eater courts would be alot more interesting in a setting with some manner of boundary. as it is, the setting took old concepts and made it something lazy.
I was certainly in the same boat as you about the fluff, but I have warmed to it massively. One of the problems with the "official storyline" is that although we have infinite realms, it has actually become more limited in scope - just focusing on a handful of key players and armies.
But the little snippets of the wider realms - even just one liners in the Grand Alliance books, have been enough to place my collection in the setting once more. So I am really coming to like this new setting, even if the main storyline isn't my thing.
I would love a giant source book crammed full of example civilisations for each faction, or at least hope some of these things hinted at in the Grand Alliance books get a bit more fleshed out in the future.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the general future of the game. There is so much hype and excitement about AoS at the moment the future looks really positive and I think the game is going to skyrocket. The general's handbook is going to be MASSIVE. The Ironjawz realise was incredible and well received as was Silver Tower. We're getting to the point now that every AoS release is going to something fans are clamouring for (like the upcoming Aelfs).
wuestenfux wrote: The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.
Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.
wuestenfux wrote: The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.
Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.
wuestenfux wrote: The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.
Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.
I'm eager to have a look at it.
Yeah! It should be great! Can't wait to see all the different modes for campaign play too.
wuestenfux wrote: The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.
Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.
I'm eager to have a look at it.
Yeah! It should be great! Can't wait to see all the different modes for campaign play too.
A bright future for AoS would be highly welcome. But I doubt that GW can make a balanced game. They never could.
AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.
What I care about from "matched play" is a variety of strong builds across all factions/alliances. That's all that matters really - the more variety of builds the better, and the perfect system would be one where every Warscroll could have its time to shine in a certain build.
I want there to be the ability to crunch and tweak lists, and I would like there to be strategy in the list building for matched play.
Open play is where you can strive for balance, as there are no points or restrictions so players can handicap or add to the armies until they are equal.
I'm not really sure what I dislike about AOStbh, maybe I just need to play a really game rather than just the starter set. I've always loved developing the background of my units and I guess I feel like AOS has destroyed this. The no points system really annoyed me though so looking forward to that being released.
Kilkrazy wrote: AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.
... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.
AoS I think is a goner, just from my own experince.
I never bother visiting the website to view what models I may have missed released, except the odd 40k.
I never see anyone but 1 or 2 guys playing it, even then they do not buy new models.
A guy showed up for two weekeneds that I know of with the AoS starter fully painted and asked people to play either army and found no one to play with. i gave him a pitty game but it was like pulling teeth.
If they count on AoS sales my local GW will be closed in a month.
The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.
How is the game unbalanced? It is merely a set of rules for move/attack/magic etc.
Whether an individual game is balanced or not is down to the two players playing not GW. Only you and the person you play with can decide whether your game is balanced.
Do you mean it lacks a way to tell you how to play in a way that will somehow mystically produce a balanced game between two random people?
Kilkrazy wrote: AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.
... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.
Really? Executioners are the unit you pick to showcase "extreme units"?
3+/3+ with 2 attacks, 1 damage, and no Rend? Is it because they get to make 2 Mortal Wounds on Hit rolls of 6s?
Because Retributors(Hammer equipped Paladins) get the same ability, but come in units of 3 or more and can add Starsoul Maces for every 1 in 5 models, allowing for D3 Mortal Wounds--and they have 2 damage and -1 Rend for attacks that fail to roll 6s.
Kilkrazy wrote: AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.
... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.
Really? Executioners are the unit you pick to showcase "extreme units"?
3+/3+ with 2 attacks, 1 damage, and no Rend? Is it because they get to make 2 Mortal Wounds on Hit rolls of 6s?
Because Retributors(Hammer equipped Paladins) get the same ability, but come in units of 3 or more and can add Starsoul Maces for every 1 in 5 models, allowing for D3 Mortal Wounds--and they have 2 damage and -1 Rend for attacks that fail to roll 6s.
Executions make 2 mortal wounds on a hit roll of 6.
We play KDV atm. They are undercosted.
Kilkrazy wrote: AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.
... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.
Really? Executioners are the unit you pick to showcase "extreme units"?
3+/3+ with 2 attacks, 1 damage, and no Rend? Is it because they get to make 2 Mortal Wounds on Hit rolls of 6s?
Because Retributors(Hammer equipped Paladins) get the same ability, but come in units of 3 or more and can add Starsoul Maces for every 1 in 5 models, allowing for D3 Mortal Wounds--and they have 2 damage and -1 Rend for attacks that fail to roll 6s.
Executions make 2 mortal wounds on a hit roll of 6.
I know what they do. I even mentioned it in my post.
We play KDV atm. They are undercosted.
That's your problem, not mine. Don't play comps and come whining about 'extreme units'.
wuestenfux wrote: The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.
Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.
I'm eager to have a look at it.
Yeah! It should be great! Can't wait to see all the different modes for campaign play too.
A bright future for AoS would be highly welcome. But I doubt that GW can make a balanced game. They never could.
As was said by Bottle, AoS was poorly executed, poorly marketed etc. Well the Kirby days are gone hopefully. So maybe AoS can become what we thought could happen.
AoS is the "starter" version. You first buy AoS start your forces small, and once they get bigger and you want more complexity you go into Fantasy. Problem is, Fantasy needs to be, HAS to be perfectly balanced, clear and concise so people will want to and look forward to making their armies, bigger.
So depending on how this General Handbook goes, Fantasy can come back, just need to get rid of the Multiple planets, and GW makes them officially "shards" from one world instead of different planets, make it more Fantasy instead of Science Fiction Fantasy, and go back to ONE PLANET (don't know what it was called) and have different shards where we use "portals" to travel through.
Make the game fantasy setting again and I am sure Fantasy Battles can come back better than ever.
The momentum for AoS has clearly been gaining after a rough launch. It's got a lot of people buzzing now, to the point the stalwart hate-it-never-play-it crowd are the awkward minority.
Davor wrote: ...
Fantasy can come back, just need to get rid of the Multiple planets, and GW makes them officially "shards" from one world instead of different planets, make it more Fantasy instead of Science Fiction Fantasy, and go back to ONE PLANET (don't know what it was called) and have different shards where we use "portals" to travel through.
Make the game fantasy setting again and I am sure Fantasy Battles can come back better than ever.
The setting is certainly not science fantasy - I've read almost everything that has been released as fiction for AoS and there is absolutely nothing out there to suggest a more advanced technological level than that of the old world. The most advanced machinery that has been seen is either made by the skaven or is something like the mechanical steed of the Empire engineer - basically stuff that already existed.
It has not been mentioned whether there are planets in the setting although there are plenty of non-traditionally shaped land masses. All in all, fundamentally the setting as is now is not that different from Planescape and MTG's worlds. The difference is that both MTG and Planescape feature technologically advanced planes while AoS (atleast for now) is entirely magical.
The topic has been discussed to death, either way, so I just hopped in for my sporadic sharing of my view on AoS' setting.
wuestenfux wrote:We play KDV atm. They are undercosted.
When you play with an added statistic that is supposed to measure something in relation to something else and that statistic ends up just being evaluated as an inherent part of the function of the model you may end up with such experiences. IMO many of AoS' abilities are impossible to be costed "fairly" in relation to a vanilla "base ability. Each comp will give you a fair bit of additional statistics (points) to help you choose what you play, but to expect a real equality between any given set of units and thus equity for the players is IMO naive - atleast not without outright banning abilities.
With regards on AoS' future - it looks bright in my eyes. There is a surge of new posts on FB's groups, since the points announcement, detailing people's new purchases (and some of them are atrociously big), painting progress and battle reports. While I don't approve of points in AoS, I can't deny the influx of new people the announcement has brought and with that comes stability for the entire line.
An argument could be advanced that "pure AoS" doesn't have points, so that GW releasing a points system changes the game to something different and it is no longer AoS.
While there is some merit in that point of view, practically speaking I think it's more important that GW have recognised they were leaving a lot of players behind by the insistence that AoS was a no points system.
Arranging the game as three complementary approaches seems to satisfy everyone who likes the core rules.
OgreChubbs wrote: AoS I think is a goner, just from my own experince.
I never bother visiting the website to view what models I may have missed released, except the odd 40k.
I never see anyone but 1 or 2 guys playing it, even then they do not buy new models.
A guy showed up for two weekeneds that I know of with the AoS starter fully painted and asked people to play either army and found no one to play with. i gave him a pitty game but it was like pulling teeth.
If they count on AoS sales my local GW will be closed in a month.
There is no direct correlation between people playing in a store and sales. For all you know they could be selling tons of it and most people are playing amongst friends.
As was said by Bottle, AoS was poorly executed, poorly marketed etc. Well the Kirby days are gone hopefully. So maybe AoS can become what we thought could happen.
There are things that I would've done differently, but I'm not sure that it would've made much of a difference. I mean, GW seems to have earned a lot of good will recently, but they were at rock bottom when AoS was released. That, coupled with the necessity of killing WHFB - there's just no easy way past that. And releasing a whole new game system in a whole new world? It was going to take time before it was built up enough for a lot of players. I think that releasing the game and putting heavy support behind it early on was the best they could do, so that after they built up the good will, there was a mature game waiting there when people were finally, finally willing to give it a chance.
I'd said it before but AoS has followed the early adopter curve pretty much exactly. I'd say we are in the early adopters phase now, possibly having hit the tipping point for early majority.
AoS is the "starter" version. You first buy AoS start your forces small, and once they get bigger and you want more complexity you go into Fantasy. Problem is, Fantasy needs to be, HAS to be perfectly balanced, clear and concise so people will want to and look forward to making their armies, bigger.
So depending on how this General Handbook goes, Fantasy can come back, just need to get rid of the Multiple planets, and GW makes them officially "shards" from one world instead of different planets, make it more Fantasy instead of Science Fiction Fantasy, and go back to ONE PLANET (don't know what it was called) and have different shards where we use "portals" to travel through.
Make the game fantasy setting again and I am sure Fantasy Battles can come back better than ever.
First, WHFB won't come back any time soon. It would be preposterous for GW to segment the market when it is trying to build a playerbase for a game. And there's rumors of a new edition of 40k around the bend. If WHFB does come back, it would be at a time when these two playerbases were mature and self sustaining. 40k is now, but not when a new edition is released, and AoS is not there yet. So, at a minimum, it would be three or four years before they could even consider WHFB coming back - and then, it would probably not be in the same formula. With how expensive GW miniatures are (and they are only getting more expensive), requiring hundreds of them is unsustainable in terms of getting new players or keeping them. It could come back in a more streamlined format, single mold figures, perhaps at a different scale, or maybe as a specialist game, but the idea that you'd have a third pillar game with a dozen factions with several dozen models each is probably one you should've give up on.
Second, lore-wise, I think GW has burned their bridges there. They ended the lore and moved forward. You could set a new game in the old world, but End Times and subsequent AoS storyline creates a fated storyline which has already ended. An alternate universe would be fine, like Blood Bowl, but I'd wager that GW wouldn't go that route for a long, long time given how confusing that would be to have multiple canons crisscrossing (you won't see Disney continuing the old Star Wars Extended Universe while currently contributing to a new one).
Third, AoS isn't science fiction. It is mythic fantasy - an older fantasy subgenre than Tolkien codified. It's probably closest to Norse mythology with the different realms (Asgard, Hel, Midgard, Jotunheim, etc all being realms flowing off Yggdrasil, the world tree), and Sigmar draws a lot from Odin. There's some Greek and Roman mythology in there, with the Stormcast drawing from that sort of iconography for their visual design. Age of Sigmar is going to draw far more from The Odyssey than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
AoS is the future whether someone likes it our not. It feels like that at times people think that these companies come out with their release schedule a month at a time. They do not, they are big companies and they have to plan. Age of Sigmar was most likely already planned well ahead of the End Times. They most likely have it's releases planned out some years in advance. Take for instance that the new Warmachine/Hordes rule sets have been roughly 2-3 years in the making, and Privateer Press is smaller than GW. If you indeed look at GW over the course of the past say 5 or 10 years it's clear the company has been slowly restructuring itself for some time. It's clear that many of the concepts in AoS were first tested in 40k. AoS will be around for awhile.
No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time. AoS is not nearly as popular as that. I dont think it will go away, but it will stay a second or third tier game. GW is no longer the king of the hill and likely wont be for a while again. AoS certainly wont bring it back to the top. I see alot of
"its popular here, the greatest" all the way to "its extinct here, its the worst" that is not a healthy sign, considering 40k used to be either top dog or at least played pretty much everywhere. AoS does not have that and likely is not going to. If anything it reminds me of 4th edition D&D ( which in my opinion was replaced by a far inferior product), it had its vocal defenders, and it had a strong start and decent run, then it got dropped hard like an ugly baby. Companies don't make games with the intent for them to fail. But the new generals book for AoS is either a careful contingency for a general "rejection" of AoS or it was pre-planned to make AoS something it was not at release. I am not certain we have seen the entire spectrum of what they have planned. AoS as it was at launch is already going the way of the dodo, but the game is evolving with what looks to me to be the "last throw of the dice" mindset where it will constantly evolve and adjust to try to get the maximum number of folks on board. So overall after the long rambling wall of text. I think it will be around for a good long while in some form or another, but will likely sit atop the second tier of gaming, more of an "also ran" than champion...AoS is the "Bernie Sanders" of miniature games, a lovable loser who will hang in to the end. My son and I will continue to play it and hope it doesnt turn into a "Donald Trump"
thekingofkings wrote: No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time. AoS is not nearly as popular as that. I dont think it will go away, but it will stay a second or third tier game. GW is no longer the king of the hill and likely wont be for a while again. AoS certainly wont bring it back to the top. I see alot of
"its popular here, the greatest" all the way to "its extinct here, its the worst" that is not a healthy sign, considering 40k used to be either top dog or at least played pretty much everywhere. AoS does not have that and likely is not going to. If anything it reminds me of 4th edition D&D ( which in my opinion was replaced by a far inferior product), it had its vocal defenders, and it had a strong start and decent run, then it got dropped hard like an ugly baby. Companies don't make games with the intent for them to fail. But the new generals book for AoS is either a careful contingency for a general "rejection" of AoS or it was pre-planned to make AoS something it was not at release. I am not certain we have seen the entire spectrum of what they have planned. AoS as it was at launch is already going the way of the dodo, but the game is evolving with what looks to me to be the "last throw of the dice" mindset where it will constantly evolve and adjust to try to get the maximum number of folks on board. So overall after the long rambling wall of text. I think it will be around for a good long while in some form or another, but will likely sit atop the second tier of gaming, more of an "also ran" than champion...AoS is the "Bernie Sanders" of miniature games, a lovable loser who will hang in to the end. My son and I will continue to play it and hope it doesnt turn into a "Donald Trump"
That all makes sense, except I'm not sure what you mean by GW no longer king of the hill. I would say they still have the greatest market share out of any traditional miniatures gaming company. Only time will tell how AoS will do, I'm just a little tired of these it'll be gone tomorrow folks. That's just not how things work. AoS has been a large investment, they aren't going to just drop it, I know that's not what you are saying but it is what some people are saying.
thekingofkings wrote: No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time. AoS is not nearly as popular as that. I dont think it will go away, but it will stay a second or third tier game. GW is no longer the king of the hill and likely wont be for a while again. AoS certainly wont bring it back to the top. I see alot of
"its popular here, the greatest" all the way to "its extinct here, its the worst" that is not a healthy sign, considering 40k used to be either top dog or at least played pretty much everywhere. AoS does not have that and likely is not going to. If anything it reminds me of 4th edition D&D ( which in my opinion was replaced by a far inferior product), it had its vocal defenders, and it had a strong start and decent run, then it got dropped hard like an ugly baby. Companies don't make games with the intent for them to fail. But the new generals book for AoS is either a careful contingency for a general "rejection" of AoS or it was pre-planned to make AoS something it was not at release. I am not certain we have seen the entire spectrum of what they have planned. AoS as it was at launch is already going the way of the dodo, but the game is evolving with what looks to me to be the "last throw of the dice" mindset where it will constantly evolve and adjust to try to get the maximum number of folks on board. So overall after the long rambling wall of text. I think it will be around for a good long while in some form or another, but will likely sit atop the second tier of gaming, more of an "also ran" than champion...AoS is the "Bernie Sanders" of miniature games, a lovable loser who will hang in to the end. My son and I will continue to play it and hope it doesnt turn into a "Donald Trump"
That all makes sense, except I'm not sure what you mean by GW no longer king of the hill. I would say they still have the greatest market share out of any traditional miniatures gaming company. Only time will tell how AoS will do, I'm just a little tired of these it'll be gone tomorrow folks. That's just not how things work. AoS has been a large investment, they aren't going to just drop it, I know that's not what you are saying but it is what some people are saying.
What I mean by that is a combination of it not being the dominant game company being played in stores. As little as 4 years ago I could walk into any of my flgs (not including the GW) and play, purchase, or see being played at least 1 of GW's games (90% of that being 40K, to be honest, AoS didnt kill fantasy, poor management did) now, I cannot do that. It is minimally carried and some stores do not carry any GW products at all. Worse, if you want to play a game of 40k there are few places to do so, AoS, pretty much 1 maybe 2 places, and a couple flat out wont let us play it there. add that general animosity (which is primarily GWs fault) with the generally much better personal support by other games (PP and Wyrd) and the popularity (but lets be honest most people like star wars) of Xwing and games like it make GW far less than the titan it was. I think its good for gaming overall, but bad for GW in particular. There are a lot more games out there now and they are getting better. Kickstarter and in some cases 3d printing means GW has to be better, cheaper, and more accessable than it used to be. All of that combined still keeps GW on the hill, but not at the top. IT may not have any one super challenger, but the combination of all these games and a greater willingness by folks to play them makes it not necessary for there to be that one competitor. FFG and PP are the two most likely, and according to some sources Xwing already knocked 40k off of #1. hope that rambling answers what I was trying to say ( I hate typing, much prefer BS sessions over coffee and a tabletop game)
The setting is certainly not science fantasy - I've read almost everything that has been released as fiction for AoS and there is absolutely nothing out there to suggest a more advanced technological level than that of the old world.
I have not read much for Age of Sigmar. Then again, I am not going to be spending $100 for books. It is not up to me to see how or what the setting for Age of Sigmar is. It is up to Games-Workshop to show me the setting. GW failed to show me that.
All I see in AoS is Space Marines without bolters. I see a space station over a planet. The 9 worlds do not take on the same planet, so I have to believe they are on different planets. I have to force myself into thinking these are "shards" like the game Warlock 2 to think they are on a Fantasy world.
So to me, this is science fiction trying to be in a Fantasy setting. Again, this might not be true, but sadly that is how I see it. Again, not up to me, but GW to get me into the setting. Is it my fault that I few AoS as sci fi? Or is it GW fault for not doing enough to get me more involved in the setting.
This is where GW failed. First of making $100 books. Yes in Canada they are $90 then I have to add in tax so yeah over $100 for a book. Now it's not just one $100 book, but what 5 now if not more? So GW wants me to spend $500 so I get to know AoS setting? No thank you. I will not. So from what I read and see, AoS is a sci fi setting trying to be Fantasy. Now don't thing I am harping on it. I am spending lots of money (well lots of money to me) on AoS products so yes I am liking it. Still my view will not change until GW convinces me otherwise. And no, I am not going to be spending half a grand if not more just to "get or understand the fluff and setting."
Another place where GW has failed is the writing is HORRIBLE. I tried reading an expert on one of the books. Pretty sad I find 50 Shades of Grey a better read than AoS books and novels. I couldn't get past chapter 3 or 4 on 50 Shades of Grey, so that should tell you how bad I see AoS fluff is. Again not my problem. It's GW. They should get better writers and or make the the writing better and more interesting.
"OH the Sigmarines are so POWERFUL and put's out Sigmar's REVENGE onto the WORLD". Yeah horrible. That might not be exactly how they do it, but that is how I view it. Again GW needs to change my perspective. Hell not just mine but our perspective because I am not the only one who views this.
One more, I am not wrong. Also I am not correct either. This is my opinion, and the only way for it to be changed is GW needs to do it. How they do it, it's up to them. If they want me to fork over 1/2 a grand for me to understand, they are not going to get me to change their mind that AoS is basically Space Marines in a Fantasy setting.
And lastly. Bolt Stormers? GW can't do better than Bolt Stormers? Yeah these are not SPACE MARINES. I win. End of Story. (kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)
I have not read much for Age of Sigmar. Then again, I am not going to be spending $100 for books. It is not up to me to see how or what the setting for Age of Sigmar is. It is up to Games-Workshop to show me the setting. GW failed to show me that.
GW is showing you the setting in the books - whether you want to buy them and learn about it or make uninformed statements is up to yourself - I won't blame you for either. I get your point that the setting is a big plus for you and you want to know more about it, but the fact of reality is that GW considers its setting IP as valuable as its miniatures' one. If you want to know more about it you'll have to pay up. All other extrapolations in your posts about GW not involving you in the setting enough, the fact that you don't want to buy expensive books and ultimately your frustration about not knowing enough about the setting are answered with the above. Fortunately, in time, various wikis will be populated with enough information that the purchase of these products will no longer be required (if you think about it 40k's lore at the moment is a big blob of small facts, gathered from various books and organized in a couple of wikis).
All I see in AoS is Space Marines without bolters. I see a space station over a planet.
...And lastly. Bolt Stormers? GW can't do better than Bolt Stormers? Yeah these are not SPACE MARINES. I win. End of Story. (kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)
You know it has always puzzled me how people think of space marines when they see the stormcasts miniatures and not of these guys for example:
https://youtu.be/UYmUirZQNiY?t=34 , but I guess when the SM image is so deeply ingrained in one's consciousness he can't help but associate anything with it before any other options. Pauldrons are widespread in the game industry. Elevated, immortal warriors are not something unheard of in common lore. GW may have done a disservice to themselves with the image of the SM being so widely spread.
I was very dubious about the setting to begin with but I have really grown to like it (I've grown to like the Stormcasts too). I recommend the Grand Allaince books. I have two, Death and Order and while the fluff is sparse it is much much more than we had to begin with and it gives me lots of cool ideas about things in the realms (everything from the black market trade of exotic beasts in Azyrheim to Freeguilders setting up frontier towns in the newly liberated realms).
Edit: I recommend those books, if you don't want to buy into the Black Library fiction (like me). And if 'source book' material is your preference instead of narrative fiction (again like me).
Still wondering when GW is going to make a valkyrie like stormcast unit since they have stated in the lore and white dwarf that stormcast are male and female under the armor they just wear armor of the visage of sigmar so you can't tell. Now the future? Now that it seems GW is changing and their comments it looks a lot brighter I still think they got a bit more to go.
People in my GW are really getting into AOS we have a lot of seraphon collectors and death we also have a guy he decided to collect stormcast because of stardrakes. We also now have a gaming night for AOS and quite a few people turn up and there are actually gaps in the shelves for AOS before my GW before AOS came out(we are friends) said his paints and tactical marines box sold more than his whfb minatures. Now that price of entry is lower and the news of the general handbook more people are warming up to it.
I agree with the view that AoS is a repeat of the 4th edition D&D as mentioned earlier in the thread; They split their fan base and released a new product that wasn't an improvement over the current.
If you go to popular YouTube channels and blog sites look at how the fan base is now shattered. Some are okay and playing AoS. but there are more still playing 8th edition, plus there is also
9th age and Kings of War..
If AoS was a solid system on its release then everyone as a group would be preaching its word from the rooftops.
Instead we have a splintered fan-base with no clear future if it will survive or how many revisions it will take to repair.
Being successful with a game is easy.. Have cool models and good game system, but annexation of your current players and changing your models to meet certain
copyrights, issued by your legal department doesn't sound a normal creative route.
... but the fact of reality is that GW considers its setting IP as valuable as its miniatures' one. If you want to know more about it you'll have to pay up.
Ah the double edge sword. You are correct if I want to know more, I should have to pony up. Just like if I want to read the Star Wars books in the other reality now. Thing is, they are reasonably priced. The $100 books in my opinion are not reasonably priced or worth it. So yes I should pony up, I don't disagree with you at all, but GW did fail. Did I ever say those books should be free? No. GW failed in their pricing. I am sure a lot of us would have bought those $100 books if they were priced $40 or less. (will not go into worth right now, but we can if it helps the discussion.)
Also since GW priced me out from buying their books, they have kept me from caring from their fluff. Again, it's GW responsibility to get me interested to buy their products. All they are doing is keeping me away from it. Now I did buy thier Grand Alliance books. You would have thought this was the PERFECT time to get people hooked on the AoS fluff. Again another fail. Why? Because of same old GW philosophy squeeze as much money as you can from the people. Heaven forbid GW actually charged a fair price or HELL even a cheap price for their books so people would be interested in their fluff. You would think if people got interested in their fluff they would want to buy more just like what happened to 40K.
Yes, yes, I know. GW is a company to make money. Thing is you don't have to squeeze every penny from a person to do so. Again, it's GW own fault I think and many others would think GW would charge us the air we breath if they could when in their stores. GW could have broken that image. They choose not to do so.
GW wants to sell minis, then they need me to get interested into buying their product. I loved Battletech. one of the reasons why I loved the fluff was when I BOUGHT the books they were reasonably priced. So I got into their fluff, I bought more of their stuff. GW priced their books where people don't buy, so not as interested in their products. So who is to blame? Look I don't care if I get into AoS fluff. It's garbage in my opinion. Only GW can change it. If they don't want to change it, fine, but don't blame the people when they don't buy because they can't find interest in it.
All I see in AoS is Space Marines without bolters. I see a space station over a planet. ...And lastly. Bolt Stormers? GW can't do better than Bolt Stormers? Yeah these are not SPACE MARINES. I win. End of Story. (kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)
You know it has always puzzled me how people think of space marines when they see the stormcasts miniatures and not of these guys for example: https://youtu.be/UYmUirZQNiY?t=34 , but I guess when the SM image is so deeply ingrained in one's consciousness he can't help but associate anything with it before any other options. Pauldrons are widespread in the game industry. Elevated, immortal warriors are not something unheard of in common lore. GW may have done a disservice to themselves with the image of the SM being so widely spread.
About the link. There is no giant shoulder pads. That is why we call them Fantasy Space Marines instead of just knights.
Thing is there is too much connection to Space Marines than the Stormcasts being unique. Especially the Bolt Stormers. That right there SCREAMS Space Marines. Was someone trying to be cute? Total fail, and that is why I and many other call them Sigmarines. Even the fluff acts out like 40K, The God Emperor made the Space Marines. Sigmar a God now made the Stormiest Eteranals. Both were made to fight off Chaos.
Only Difference is, Sigmar is a Coward and hid, and The Emperor is an Xenophoe and it's his way or the highway. I am sure in a few months or years from now, GW will make a Civil War in Azyr and 1/2 the Stormcasts will wake up and find out the False God Sigmar really is.
thekingofkings wrote: No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.
BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.
I am sure you knew what he meant. Who would have thought Battletech would have disappeared. I preferred Battletech over 40K. Yes it was because of Fasa's decisions, but in the end Battletech did disappear. Nobody would have thought that. Just like how people got sick of Star Trek. Who would have thought that Star Trek would have sunk so low. Is that Star Treks fault or the people at CBS and Paramount? Same for D&D. Was it D&Ds fault or the people who ran the company.
No need to prove someone is wrong when you should have known what he meant.
thekingofkings wrote: No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.
BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.
I am sure you knew what he meant. Who would have thought Battletech would have disappeared. I preferred Battletech over 40K. Yes it was because of Fasa's decisions, but in the end Battletech did disappear. Nobody would have thought that. Just like how people got sick of Star Trek. Who would have thought that Star Trek would have sunk so low. Is that Star Treks fault or the people at CBS and Paramount? Same for D&D. Was it D&Ds fault or the people who ran the company.
No need to prove someone is wrong when you should have known what he meant.
Why should I believe he meant something other than what he said? I have no idea if he knows the background of FASA and what happened.
thekingofkings wrote: No game is to big to fail, in the 80's noone would have foreseen battletech going away, but it did for a long time.
BattleTech did not 'fail'. What did 'fail' was some of FASA's business decisions.
Even under the control of Whizkids and Fanpro it did not recover, it did fail, FASA buried it for certain, but the game itself did not recover. Catalyst has brought it back and in a big way. But the point being is the popular big dog of its day died out.
Sqorgar wrote: There are things that I would've done differently, but I'm not sure that it would've made much of a difference. I mean, GW seems to have earned a lot of good will recently, but they were at rock bottom when AoS was released. That, coupled with the necessity of killing WHFB - there's just no easy way past that. And releasing a whole new game system in a whole new world? It was going to take time before it was built up enough for a lot of players. I think that releasing the game and putting heavy support behind it early on was the best they could do, so that after they built up the good will, there was a mature game waiting there when people were finally, finally willing to give it a chance.
I don't mean to bring back Fantasy Battles back right away. GW will have to flesh out AoS now. What's done is done now. I was thinking in 2 or 3 years from now. Still make AoS the get into Fantasy. Once your AoS is big enough and a person wants more, they will have Fantasy Battles (what ever it becomes then) so people who want to play like Fantasy Battles was, can play it. Yes there will no be going back to the old fluff. Then again, this could be someones dream of dos and End Times never happened. It's Dallas all over again. So anything is possible in bringing back the old fluff.
Hell I find it funny that 1000s of years have passed and the tech setting is still what it was thousands of years ago. It's almost like nothing has changed that way. It should really be easy to bring back the old fluff for the people who want that.
Then again, I see this as Dallas all over again. It's someone's dream and it was never real.
Sqorgar wrote: There are things that I would've done differently, but I'm not sure that it would've made much of a difference. I mean, GW seems to have earned a lot of good will recently, but they were at rock bottom when AoS was released. That, coupled with the necessity of killing WHFB - there's just no easy way past that. And releasing a whole new game system in a whole new world? It was going to take time before it was built up enough for a lot of players. I think that releasing the game and putting heavy support behind it early on was the best they could do, so that after they built up the good will, there was a mature game waiting there when people were finally, finally willing to give it a chance.
I don't mean to bring back Fantasy Battles back right away. GW will have to flesh out AoS now. What's done is done now. I was thinking in 2 or 3 years from now. Still make AoS the get into Fantasy. Once your AoS is big enough and a person wants more, they will have Fantasy Battles (what ever it becomes then) so people who want to play like Fantasy Battles was, can play it. Yes there will no be going back to the old fluff. Then again, this could be someones dream of dos and End Times never happened. It's Dallas all over again. So anything is possible in bringing back the old fluff.
Hell I find it funny that 1000s of years have passed and the tech setting is still what it was thousands of years ago. It's almost like nothing has changed that way. It should really be easy to bring back the old fluff for the people who want that.
Then again, I see this as Dallas all over again. It's someone's dream and it was never real.
The fluff was just lazy thats all. It kept too much of the old and took no steps to really make it new and creative. They really should have just let fantasy go, completely. Just make AoS its own new thing. But that would have taken effort and I am not sure they were willing to really do that. There was no way that AoS would keep the majority of the WHFB fans so they should not have tried. Now we have a patchwork,. round vs square, AoS vs WHFB etc..I think that stays as my biggest negative about AoS, what it could have been (should have been) compared to what it is.
Ghaz wrote: If Mordheim comes back, I believe it will be updated to AoS since they just discontinued the key plastic kit from the boxed set (the Empire Free Company) when they redid Order.
Warmaster I can easily see keeping the Olde World setting.
I certainly wouldn't mind a AoS updated Mordheim. They can have a whole thing of exploring lost cities and ruins throughout the mortal realms with each city having different functions like the a city in the life realm having shifting areas that are blessed by life or Nurgle so you never know where you're safe and a death city having banshee attacks, spreading Flesh-Eater madness and dead explorers rise up as zombies.
They could even update the oop militia with a new Free Guild explorers set.
Hell I find it funny that 1000s of years have passed and the tech setting is still what it was thousands of years ago. It's almost like nothing has changed that way. It should really be easy to bring back the old fluff for the people who want that.
What happened to it being a sci-fi setting?
I get what you mean earlier though, Sigmar's city does give off a sci-fi vibe. Though with a realm that based on the winds of the heavens and thus things like stars, planets and comets, it would be a bit difficult to make it look otherwise.
, but I guess when the SM image is so deeply ingrained in one's consciousness he can't help but associate anything with it before any other options. Pauldrons are widespread in the game industry. Elevated, immortal warriors are not something unheard of in common lore. GW may have done a disservice to themselves with the image of the SM being so widely spread.
Oh this is very true. I remember Dragon's Dogma(mix of Dark Souls and Shadows of Colossus) having a dlc armor with huge shoulder pauldrons, many a comment there was that it looked like medieval space marine armor. . (Quite baffled why that's such a turn off, really)
Also, not sure why one planet is better than several. To me, it gives tons of possibilities of what's possible and I don't see how a castle with innocents in it while under siege on a single world evokes more empathy than a castle with innocents in it that's among several worlds. Multiple worlds can easily give those small precious moments such as a line of militia holding the line while the civilians escape.
The fluff was just lazy thats all. It kept too much of the old and took no steps to really make it new and creative. They really should have just let fantasy go, completely. Just make AoS its own new thing. But that would have taken effort and I am not sure they were willing to really do that. There was no way that AoS would keep the majority of the WHFB fans so they should not have tried. Now we have a patchwork,. round vs square, AoS vs WHFB etc..I think that stays as my biggest negative about AoS, what it could have been (should have been) compared to what it is.
Now that you say that, you are correct. That could be a reason why I am having a hard time getting into the fluff of AoS. No effort seems to be taken just like how I view the art work. Computer being used, the easy way out. But this is all under Kirbys direction. Hopefully now with Mr Roundtree it will be different. Thing is that will take time, we have already seen some of his changes (if they are his changes indeed), hopefully now we will see changes in the artwork and how the fluff is written as well.
thekingofkings wrote: The biggest issue with age of sigmar isnt the poorly written rules (they are at least playable, can be entertaining but they are no work of art or brilliance and certainly deserve no praise) is the absolutely garbage attempt at setting. If they could do something with it, work to make it less cookie cutter junk and perhaps make is something you can care about, then it has a chance. I think warhammer quest was a great start, but it needs more. the fluff is too spread out, and doesnt matter anyway. Infinite space makes caring hard and just tossing stuff out is meh. The flesh eater courts would be alot more interesting in a setting with some manner of boundary. as it is, the setting took old concepts and made it something lazy.
Looking at some of the fluff makes me think they had all these nuggets of ideas they thought were neat, but knew they couldnt shoe horn or retcon them into the old worlde and could not figure out how to make them a cohesive setting in their own right so took the cop out of the winds of magic being realms. Maybe they and us would have been better served had they taken more time and flushed it out more. There are golden nuggets hidden in the giant turd pile.
I don't know, alternate fantasy Europe with Tolkien and Lovecraftian forces playing football to resolve their conflicts is a pretty tough contender.
Leaving out the Blood Bowl stuff as that was always an alternate reality, I do think that the Old World definitely suffered from being highly generic, or at the very least a mishmash of too many different existing ideas and tropes. Some elements were more unique; Skaven and Lizards I always thought were rather different, but the Elves/Men/Dwarfs/Orcs/Ogres basically function as you'd expect them to in any other Fantasy setting. Now this may still be the case in AoS, but the setting they're existing within is brilliantly unique, and what's more, has a much, much wider scope than the Old World in terms of unique and distinct background. Things like the Realms themselves, the Godbeasts, the very distinct geography in a lot of the maps, very hard to call that generic! What's more, having the 'blank spaces' among the fluff is a gift, you can create whatever narrative you want for your army and fit it in somehow! There is a lot more scope for the weird and wacky than in the Old World, a lot more scope to put your own stamp on things.
Ah the double edge sword. You are correct if I want to know more, I should have to pony up. Just like if I want to read the Star Wars books in the other reality now. Thing is, they are reasonably priced. The $100 books in my opinion are not reasonably priced or worth it. So yes I should pony up, I don't disagree with you at all, but GW did fail. Did I ever say those books should be free? No. GW failed in their pricing. I am sure a lot of us would have bought those $100 books if they were priced $40 or less. (will not go into worth right now, but we can if it helps the discussion.)
Also since GW priced me out from buying their books, they have kept me from caring from their fluff. Again, it's GW responsibility to get me interested to buy their products. All they are doing is keeping me away from it. Now I did buy thier Grand Alliance books. You would have thought this was the PERFECT time to get people hooked on the AoS fluff. Again another fail. Why? Because of same old GW philosophy squeeze as much money as you can from the people. Heaven forbid GW actually charged a fair price or HELL even a cheap price for their books so people would be interested in their fluff. You would think if people got interested in their fluff they would want to buy more just like what happened to 40K.
Yes, yes, I know. GW is a company to make money. Thing is you don't have to squeeze every penny from a person to do so. Again, it's GW own fault I think and many others would think GW would charge us the air we breath if they could when in their stores. GW could have broken that image. They choose not to do so.
GW wants to sell minis, then they need me to get interested into buying their product. I loved Battletech. one of the reasons why I loved the fluff was when I BOUGHT the books they were reasonably priced. So I got into their fluff, I bought more of their stuff. GW priced their books where people don't buy, so not as interested in their products. So who is to blame? Look I don't care if I get into AoS fluff. It's garbage in my opinion. Only GW can change it. If they don't want to change it, fine, but don't blame the people when they don't buy because they can't find interest in it.
I want to state, at this point, that whether you have the financials to buy gw stuff or not as well as the reason behind the pricing of AoS books are of no interest to me whatsoever. You made some broad statements concerning a setting that you admitted you have no knowledge of. Your displeasure of the pricing of gw books and your lack of desire to know more about the setting removes the points over I'm willing to have a discussion. You are ofcourse free to post your initial impressions of the setting, to not exhibit any interest in it and I will certainly not blame you for that as it is your time and you decide what to do with it. I won't waste my time however trying to fill you in a setting that you despise. I won't derail the thread any more into this direction and for the sake of fairness expect no more answers from me.
I loved Battletech. one of the reasons why I loved the fluff was when I BOUGHT the books they were reasonably priced. So I got into their fluff, I bought more of their stuff.
I get the 2nd sentence. Price means you don't buy, ergo you literally can't get into it. I bought the first 2 novels for AoS early on (I have never bought any other GW novels) when people were complaining about the setting a lot and about the stormcasts, I bought them as it is poor form to make statements about the fluff if you haven't read it. Having bought them I was able to see that many people were making unjustifiable complaints about (factual) stuff they clearly hadn't read, because they hadn't got into it. However, the price of the books is too high for me, so I have not got into it any further.
But the first sentence is one of the more head scratching arguments I have heard. What has the price of the books got to do with how good the fluff is? You love the fluff in battletech, but would have not liked it if the books were a lot more expensive? Which part of the fluff would have been awful at twice the price, was there some stuff that was good at twice the price but would have been awful at thrice? I'm feeling there is a logical fallacy in that argument! Surely the fluff is the fluff and is good or bad on its own merit. That you can't afford it, or don't think it is worth buying due to price, and therefore can't get into it is a wholly separate argument.
Also since GW priced me out from buying their books, they have kept me from caring from their fluff.
I have not read much for Age of Sigmar.
Look I don't care if I get into AoS fluff. It's garbage in my opinion.
Indeed, having bought it (battletech) and got into it you can say what your opinion of it is, good or bad. But if it was priced at a point (AoS) that you couldn't buy it or get into it then doesn't that mean you are not in a position to say whether that it is garbage? At that price you can certainly say you don't care, but saying you don't care is not the same as saying it is garbage - as you haven't been able to get into to be able to make such an opinion presumably?
Unless of course you are arriving at your conclusion of it being garbage based on the titbits you get in the few books you have bought, but that would again be saying the fluff is crap on its own merit. I can understand not liking it even if you have only seen a few small parts, we all have things that will turn us off certain styles of background without going to much into detail, e.g. any thing that is 'weird wild west' style is a turn off to me straight away. But that argument would be distinct from price again, whether it is free or premium priced I'm not 'wasting' my time looking at weird west stuff.
Heaven forbid GW actually charged a fair price or HELL even a cheap price for their books so people would be interested in their fluff.
GW priced their books where people don't buy, so not as interested in their products.
What is a fair price? Do they not charge a fair price? Is there an objective definition of fair price?
Except people do buy the books. Equally it is demonstrably true that even at free there will be people who will not acquire a book, nor get interested in it.
I find what you are arguing bizarre, on the one hand you are clearly angry at the prices of the books. But given the fluff is 'garbage' in your opinion does it matter? Are you saying that you would buy what you think is garbage if it was cheaper rather than spend the money on something you find good?
Who would have thought Battletech would have disappeared. I preferred Battletech over 40K. Yes it was because of Fasa's decisions, but in the end Battletech did disappear. Nobody would have thought that. Just like how people got sick of Star Trek. Who would have thought that Star Trek would have sunk so low. Is that Star Treks fault or the people at CBS and Paramount? Same for D&D. Was it D&Ds fault or the people who ran the company.
Really? Most things have their time and then disappear, that is the nature of these things. What was considered the hight of gaming in the 80s is not nowadays. What was originally just a very 60s show is not going to retain interest in today's generation. That battletech or star trek disappeared for long periods should surprise no one. It takes a lot of effort to maintain such things over decades, and a single error in understanding changing interests in society etc (which may not be immediately obvious) can rapidly lose loyalty/customers, until sometime later someone tries to resurrect the brand/franchise more aimed at a contemporary/different audience (or an audience that is more into 'retro' than the last one).
Ah the double edge sword. You are correct if I want to know more, I should have to pony up. Just like if I want to read the Star Wars books in the other reality now. Thing is, they are reasonably priced. The $100 books in my opinion are not reasonably priced or worth it. So yes I should pony up, I don't disagree with you at all, but GW did fail. Did I ever say those books should be free? No. GW failed in their pricing. I am sure a lot of us would have bought those $100 books if they were priced $40 or less. (will not go into worth right now, but we can if it helps the discussion.)
Also since GW priced me out from buying their books, they have kept me from caring from their fluff. Again, it's GW responsibility to get me interested to buy their products. All they are doing is keeping me away from it. Now I did buy thier Grand Alliance books. You would have thought this was the PERFECT time to get people hooked on the AoS fluff. Again another fail. Why? Because of same old GW philosophy squeeze as much money as you can from the people. Heaven forbid GW actually charged a fair price or HELL even a cheap price for their books so people would be interested in their fluff. You would think if people got interested in their fluff they would want to buy more just like what happened to 40K.
Yes, yes, I know. GW is a company to make money. Thing is you don't have to squeeze every penny from a person to do so. Again, it's GW own fault I think and many others would think GW would charge us the air we breath if they could when in their stores. GW could have broken that image. They choose not to do so.
GW wants to sell minis, then they need me to get interested into buying their product. I loved Battletech. one of the reasons why I loved the fluff was when I BOUGHT the books they were reasonably priced. So I got into their fluff, I bought more of their stuff. GW priced their books where people don't buy, so not as interested in their products. So who is to blame? Look I don't care if I get into AoS fluff. It's garbage in my opinion. Only GW can change it. If they don't want to change it, fine, but don't blame the people when they don't buy because they can't find interest in it.
I want to state, at this point, that whether you have the financials to buy gw stuff or not as well as the reason behind the pricing of AoS books are of no interest to me whatsoever. You made some broad statements concerning a setting that you admitted you have no knowledge of. Your displeasure of the pricing of gw books and your lack of desire to know more about the setting removes the points over I'm willing to have a discussion. You are ofcourse free to post your initial impressions of the setting, to not exhibit any interest in it and I will certainly not blame you for that as it is your time and you decide what to do with it. I won't waste my time however trying to fill you in a setting that you despise. I won't derail the thread any more into this direction and for the sake of fairness expect no more answers from me.
Who says I despise? If I despised it or hated it I wouldn't be here. Hypocritical of me then if that was the case. All I say is IN MY OPINION it's not good. There is still enough good in Age of Sigmar to keep me interested in it.
My point in all this is, it's up to Games-Workshop to get me interested. I said numerous times now GW failed in doing so. I even gave explanations and reasons why GW failed in my eyes. No where am I saying ANYONE is wrong and they have to view it as I do. (If I did please show me so I can apologize for that.)
It all started as why AoS is not doing so well or I should say when AoS came out why it didn't do so well. So I gave my explanation as to why AoS is not doing so well when it started for ME. For AoS to do succeed, it's up to GW to do that, not us as customers to make AoS succeed. So I was showing how GW failed for them to capture me to get into AoS from the beginning. Isn't that one of the topics were? AoS didn't to well in the begging but is doing good now. So to say how they failed in the beginning would be a good way of not repeating the same mistakes so AoS can still become better and more popular.
So I am not sure why people are getting upset over this? Am I harping on GW? No. I gave legitimate answers and examples. Did I attack anyone? No. (again please show me if that is the case.) Do I want AoS to fail? No I don't. I just thought I was part of a discussion. What am I saying that is so wrong now?
rothrich wrote: What are these $100 books people are talking about? Grand order books are $16 each or $100 for all of them.
$90 Canadian (why I have an American flag I am not sure) + 15% tax I just round it off to $100.
Looking forward to this General Book, and I really hope it turns out well, because I would love to have some people to game with in AoS. So here is hoping I can show them this book and they won't give AoS a look at least. Don't buy use my stuff what I have and then we can game.
Yeah the rules are great. Especially when combined with one of the comp packs. I don't get too much into the ongoing narrative but still really enjoy the game and the hobby side of it too.
The thing that appeals to me about the grand narrative of the setting is that it's overall much more optomisitic than the 'You're all going to die in the next week or two' that WFB and 40k have going on. The 'good guys', or at least the forces of Order, are united and on the offensive, pushing back the taint of chaos and reclaiming their lands. It's not so much 'two minutes to midnight', it's the dawn of a new age.
There's also the potential for some massive shakeups down the line. Bring back Slaneesh, see how that kicks things off within the pantheon of Chaos. Have one of the factions under Sigmar slowly start to worship their own Gods, not necessary Chaos but not Sigmar himself. Have a new Realm appear, or an existing one vanish or change dramatically...
There's a lot they can do on this grand, mythic scale, while also leaving so much room to tell your own stories in your army's personal narrative.
Paradigm wrote: There's a lot they can do on this grand, mythic scale, while also leaving so much room to tell your own stories in your army's personal narrative.
The fact that AoS is only told in grand, mythic scale is another one of the setting's big problems. Contrast is an important tool. Throwing it out is foolish.
Paradigm wrote: There's a lot they can do on this grand, mythic scale, while also leaving so much room to tell your own stories in your army's personal narrative.
The fact that AoS is only told in grand, mythic scale is another one of the setting's big problems. Contrast is an important tool. Throwing it out is foolish.
I'm happy to be corrected, but I can't think of an equivalent example from WFB where this doesn't apply?
We've had every level of action in AoS so far, from deity to army to group to individual.
I may have misunderstood.
Paradigm wrote: There's a lot they can do on this grand, mythic scale, while also leaving so much room to tell your own stories in your army's personal narrative.
The fact that AoS is only told in grand, mythic scale is another one of the setting's big problems. Contrast is an important tool. Throwing it out is foolish.
I'm happy to be corrected, but I can't think of an equivalent example from WFB where this doesn't apply?
We've had every level of action in AoS so far, from deity to army to group to individual.
I may have misunderstood.
If someone has only read the campaign books then it would be pretty reasonable to see AoS as only being told in a mythic scale. The smaller-scale stuff is in the novels. But as you said, the same was true of WHFB so I don't see that as having changed.
Paradigm wrote: There is a lot more scope for the weird and wacky than in the Old World,
One of AoS' biggest failures as a setting, in fact, is that it has never capitalized on this in any real way.
Now this I completely disagree with. Have you read the campaign books? Have you looked at some of the maps? Quest for Ghal Maraz has the Stormcast fighting on an ocean of silver (while it's melting no less) in their quest to track down a teleporting fortress... and that's just the first campaign book. As for models, we have the Fyreslayers release of near-naked Dwarves given supernatural might by the magical runes hammered directly into their skin who tunnel by controlling magma and have guns which shoot globs of lava.
To add some detail concerning the wacky stuff. Consider the following double page image:
Spoiler:
On this image we can find:
1. The hand of a sleeping titan which is a primal beast of godlike nature - the father of the giants.
2. Monstrous skaven machine-cities drilling the earth.
3. A ring of land suspended mid-air with parts that represent both year seasons and the cycle of life.
4. An enormous stairwell linking the aforementioned ring with the land below
5. A magical sun-vortex and the tentacles of a monstrous being in the background.
CoreCommander wrote: To add some detail concerning the wacky stuff. Consider the following double page image:
Spoiler:
On this image we can find:
1. The hand of a sleeping titan which is a primal beast of godlike nature - the father of the giants.
2. Monstrous skaven machine-cities drilling the earth.
3. A ring of land suspended mid-air with parts that represent both year seasons and the cycle of life.
4. An enormous stairwell linking the aforementioned ring with the land below
5. A magical sun-vortex and the tentacles of a monstrous being in the background.
The wacky stuff was cool in realms of chaos, codex daemons, and warhammer armiesaemons, but as the standard setting...no, not cool at all.
From what I've heard from some people is that the Generals handbook that it's going to be around €20,- and comes around 23 of juli. Heard from some sources that went to the european managers meeting.
If it's true... I'll be delightfully suprised. It might help AoS further.
auticus wrote: I like the over the top heavy metal album setting. I've waited for something like this for the past 20 years.
Did you see Chronopia or Keltos? those might have seriously scratched that itch...Chronopia has great fluff (and great rules too) but its out of print.
auticus wrote: I have not seen those. Unfortunately though if its not something a lot of people play, its very difficult to play those out of the way games.
Chronopia was released circa 1997 while Celtos was released circa 2002. Both have seen their heydays come and go long ago.
auticus wrote: I have not seen those. Unfortunately though if its not something a lot of people play, its very difficult to play those out of the way games.
Chronopia was released circa 1997 while Celtos was released circa 2002. Both have seen their heydays come and go long ago.
yeah celtos was a follow on kinda the way void was to warzone. Though celtos barely got off the ground.
I really like the over-the-top setting of the Mortal Realms - it has more in common with Hiernonymus Bosch or Goya than it does with the standard Tolkienesque fantasy setting. I understand that it's not quite everyone's cup of tea, but my only complaint about it is that it's quite difficult to recreate those more surrealistic elements of the geography on the tabletop (although the battleplans try to reflect it I suppose).
Adding points will bring a few back but the majority will still avoid GW like the plague, they shattered their own fan base and alot of people feel betrayed.
No amount of effort will make AoS popular as long as prices remain so high that's the number one problem.
When so many other systems let you build an army for under £100 AoS is an incredibly hard sell, for £63 I got a 1500 fow army for under £100 I could get 1k of bolt action.
You can fix the game but if it's models are too expensive people will go elsewhere.
Around £100 could easily get you a working AoS army. As an example, at GW RRP:
- Start Collecting: Slave To Darkness (12 Warriors of Chaos, 1 Chariot, 1 Sorcerer, 5x Chaos Knights)- £50
- Chaos Marauders (20 models)- £23
- Chaos Lord on Manticore- £32.50
Total: £105.50, a good sized army (45 models, including a good mix of unit types).
Go to somewhere like Darksphere and with the money you save, you can throw in a Chaos Warshrine as well to give the army big a centrepiece model, or some Demons to summon.
GW models are still expensive, but AoS drastically reduced the cost of entry, through the freely available rules and the fact that you no longer need to buy any set at least twice to actually get a useful unit out of it (in WFB, a unit of 10 Empire State Troops, for example, is getting Fireballed off the table in the first couple of turns and is just throwing VPs away, in AoS that is still not a unit that's going to win you games by itself but it will be able to contribute something meaningful). Combine that with the removal of a %-based composition system that means you can buy the fun stuff without needing half a dozen boxes of basic troops first, and it's clear that AoS is much cheaper to get into that 40k or WFB.
The Grumpy Eldar wrote:From what I've heard from some people is that the Generals handbook that it's going to be around €20,- and comes around 23 of juli. Heard from some sources that went to the european managers meeting.
If it's true... I'll be delightfully suprised. It might help AoS further.
I really do hope so. When AoS was released it was quite embracing because of the 4 page rules that were actually not really 2 pages once all the "set up" was taken out. I just hope this doesn't turn into another joke and can actually make AoS respectable.
auticus wrote:I like the over the top heavy metal album setting. I've waited for something like this for the past 20 years.
Now only if GW used Heavy Metal artwork or at least their great artwork they had before. Artwork does a lot in a game. It can make someones imagination bloom. I don't get this from AoS.
richstrach wrote: I really like the over-the-top setting of the Mortal Realms - it has more in common with Hiernonymus Bosch or Goya than it does with the standard Tolkienesque fantasy setting. I understand that it's not quite everyone's cup of tea, but my only complaint about it is that it's quite difficult to recreate those more surrealistic elements of the geography on the tabletop (although the battleplans try to reflect it I suppose).
I think that's it exactly. It's a different type of fantasy, and maybe not one that people who grew up with a half century of Tolkien clones is familiar with. It makes people uneasy because the tropes they rely on to keep point them in the right direction may no longer be applicable.
Like when people complain that there are no normal people in Age of Sigmar - that's not an objective complaint. That's not better or worse than the alternative. It's just that people like that trope and maybe find it useful for putting perspective on the superheroics of gods and monsters. When everybody is a god, how do you judge their relative capabilities? I'm not sure you have to. I think mythic fantasy may be more similar to Shonen style manga/anime in that a character's power level is relative to their commitment to the task at hand. Like Vandus Hammerhand's wavering in the face of dark future visions may say more about what he is capable of than the fact that he was reforged by Sigmar. And Sigmar may be an immortal god-king, but the anger and regret (maybe even denial) that he shows over having to abandon the realms to Chaos drive his character more.
So, the setting is really only over-the-top with respect to Tolkienesque fantasy. Its peers are Norse and Greek mythology. It's more Clash of the Titans than Wheel of Time. It's contemporaries are comic books. It's Flash Gordon or a grimdark Masters of the Universe. It's the cover of an 80s heavy metal record. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that it is basically a new genre, and requires new signpost tropes to guide our understanding of it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe it's new to you youngsters. To me it's a lot more reminiscent of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books than Tolkien.
It's not that it is new. It's just fallen out of fashion. After Tolkien sort of codified high fantasy as the standard for fantasy, all the other stuff became too unrealistic compared to the grounded seminal works and ended up largely becoming the domain of young adult fiction (comic books, cartoons, and the like) - and I think part of the problem AoS faces is that it reminds people more of cartoons than the more serious, grounded stuff. It's a problem of respect, not necessarily exposure.
Also, I've never read Moorcock, but I was under the impression that Elric and the like were closer to heroic fantasy/swords and sorcery like Conan - more swashbuckling than the trials and tribulations of gods.
Also, I've never read Moorcock, but I was under the impression that Elric and the like were closer to heroic fantasy/swords and sorcery like Conan - more swashbuckling than the trials and tribulations of gods.
I have not read any of the books about Elric, but have read about prince Corum and there are a lot of similarities there - Moorcock has always been an inspiration for GW. Prince Corum battles against hordes of marauding armies, alongside the drowned sailors coming to aid on their rotting, ghost ships, strikes a deal with a mighty sorcerer for his loved one, gets imbued with godly artifacts and goes on a quest through different realms before finally arriving in the court of a god and slaying him by finding his Achilles' heel before meeting a being of order that has been aiding him (that's basically the first book). AoS has similar stories to the above, but also includes stories about the trials and questing of the gods, their relationships with each other and with mortals, their plans and workings through their servants and by themselves etc. The gods are given human qualities like greed, pride and spite along with the more mystical ones like prescience, power over reality etc. - this is a very common motif in Greek mythology and the ancient tragedies and is somewhat required so the spectator/reader can associate himself more with the mythical protagonist, be more emotionally attached to him or just get a better insight into the story at hand.
On a side note, concerning the similarities to already existing writings, It is better to explain the setting like this to an interested person than to point him to the works in question:
"Dude, read the Odyssey, the Illiad, some of the eddas, something from Moorcock, Howard and Leiber to get an idea of AoS and then get back here for more details."
This is the same reason why 40k players don't automatically redirect newcomers to Dune for example.
Kilkrazy wrote: It impossible to believe that GW will simply dump AoS and restore 8th edition WHFB.
I've got to agree. AoS is all or nothing for GW. If it fails I imagine they will drop fantasy altogether to focus on their 40K cash cow.
I find it unlikely that they will bring back Warmaster, as in many ways it is the opposite of the kind of games they clearly want to sell.
I'd love to see WM make a return. It was a beautiful, elegant rule system and much better at doing "mass battles" than WFB ever was. I do agree though that it might not fit into GW's current marketing plans.
IMO the promise of a points system is a massive bone thrown to the old-style WHFB competition players after GW found that AoS sales were suffering badly from lack of a points system. Clearly an after-thought, or it would have been there much earlier.
Not just "competition" players. The lack of points is one of the main reasons I never picked up AOS and I hate tournaments. On the other hand, most of my WFB gaming was pick up games at the FLGS and without a points system that's just too much trouble to bother with for me. Indeed, the points system in the upcoming General's Compendium is actually making me think I may give the game a chance now.
IDK how much more stuff like that GW can add to the game rules. If they add something major, like a C3 and morale system, it starts to make it too complicated and moves away from the simple core 4-page concept.
In a lot of ways, WFB was too complicated so I'm not generally opposed to the simplified rules of AoS. Add points and do something to fix summoning, and I'd be probably be happy.
Bosch, Corum and Illiad, sure. I'd be all over that in a second, sadly GW somehow managed to hide it from me, despite me checking majority of AoS artwork so far. Yes there were few good pictures showing sth along those lines and I remember being suprised, what is this inspiring little pic doing here drowned in the sea of crap.
I'd say it's Corum, Illiad and Bosch done bad. Or Masters of the Universe done good (yeah it's better. A bit). I'd also say, you guys are more concerned about selling me this angle on the setting than GW because if they cared, the vast majority of the artwork would never make it into the books.
The AoS setting was just an excuse, they wanted to repeat space marines sales in fantasy. I doubt that whfb was doing that bad, and for sure it was able to sustain itself. GW just wanted better returns and didn't care at all for their legacy, sending a universe developed for years off with a few cringeworthy jokes.
richstrach wrote: I really like the over-the-top setting of the Mortal Realms - it has more in common with Hiernonymus Bosch or Goya than it does with the standard Tolkienesque fantasy setting. I understand that it's not quite everyone's cup of tea, but my only complaint about it is that it's quite difficult to recreate those more surrealistic elements of the geography on the tabletop (although the battleplans try to reflect it I suppose).
I think that's it exactly. It's a different type of fantasy, and maybe not one that people who grew up with a half century of Tolkien clones is familiar with. It makes people uneasy because the tropes they rely on to keep point them in the right direction may no longer be applicable.
Not really, no. Videogames cover all types of fantasy nowadays, low, high, grim, happy, mythological, celestial, space, you name it. Tolkien clones are actualy a minority and unfamiliarity is not a reason for dislike towards AoS.
AoS is Clichea and no less generic nowadays than whfb was, and maybe more.
So, the setting is really only over-the-top with respect to Tolkienesque fantasy. Its peers are Norse and Greek mythology. It's more Clash of the Titans than Wheel of Time. It's contemporaries are comic books. It's Flash Gordon or a grimdark Masters of the Universe. It's the cover of an 80s heavy metal record. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's just that it is basically a new genre, and requires new signpost tropes to guide our understanding of it.
There's a lot wrong with that because there was a consumer base for something different, all the people who were coming to GW for grimdark and gritty fantasy got rejected. I love my mythology based fantasy or silly fantasy but I was getting it somewhere else. That's why I find all the "finaly" reactions from some AoS fans and all the cheering for anti consumer crap weird, if one wasn't into whfb anyway then why ever expect them to kill it to bring you something different and why does it have to be GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coldgaming wrote: The momentum for AoS has clearly been gaining after a rough launch. It's got a lot of people buzzing now, to the point the stalwart hate-it-never-play-it crowd are the awkward minority.
Lol that must be why they dropped all their (misguided) pride soon after it released and are bringing points now, because of all the AoS buzz. Or maybe you mean the buzz about points coming, because that's more a buzz about the company changing ways than the game itself. Other than that, there's a Silver Tower buzz sure, again not really AoS though as that rather harms than helps WQ, Old World based one would it eat alive buzz wise.
Awkward minority, you mean on Facebook. Surely not reality.
Plumbumbarum wrote: I doubt that whfb was doing that bad, and for sure it was able to sustain itself.
All the most credible sources out there were pretty universal in agreeing WFB was a money sink for GW.
We'll never know the true figures, but come on...
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe it's new to you youngsters. To me it's a lot more reminiscent of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion books than Tolkien.
It's not that it is new. It's just fallen out of fashion. After Tolkien sort of codified high fantasy as the standard for fantasy, all the other stuff became too unrealistic compared to the grounded seminal works and ended up largely becoming the domain of young adult fiction (comic books, cartoons, and the like) - and I think part of the problem AoS faces is that it reminds people more of cartoons than the more serious, grounded stuff. It's a problem of respect, not necessarily exposure.
Also, I've never read Moorcock, but I was under the impression that Elric and the like were closer to heroic fantasy/swords and sorcery like Conan - more swashbuckling than the trials and tribulations of gods.
At least some element of Tolkien fantasy is everywhere because he is one of those that paved the way. Nonetheless, his fantasy is not high magic. Not even the Old World one. Tolkien is different from the "usual" gritty fantasy because is superficially more optimistic, is more heroic, even if is actually full of sadness for the world that was that is fading etc... The power level in Tolkien is the one of Gritty Fanatasy, the tone is High Fantasy. But Tolkien is just ONE author.
AoS, with its planes/worlds, and big scope, remembers me more of a DnD setting. Think about Planescape*, the great wheel. Stuff like that. The concept behind AoS is not revolutionary but doesn't matter. I can be very interesting and could be executed very well if not written by underpaid interns.
I agree with the poster above - is just built around Sigmarines without any love for creating something - does not matter unique, but coherent or well made.
Plumbumbarum wrote: I doubt that whfb was doing that bad, and for sure it was able to sustain itself.
All the most credible sources out there were pretty universal in agreeing WFB was a money sink for GW.
We'll never know the true figures, but come on...
Nah, Hastings reported that whfb was profitable right before it was destroyed and before End Times as well. That whfb was losing money was a made up Chinese whispers argument from people who wanted to justify AoS existence and GW disgusting behaviour around it's release.
Not to mention that GW could have fixed whfb but that would mean a lot of work and they didn't give a gak about it. The reason for whfb death is greed.
In your world, sure.
You think GW is evil, we get it.
Just let it go dude, you are a broken record of bitterness.
Spend your time on something you like, instead of lingering on things you clearly hate and have no control over. It would be better for all parties.
Also, I've never read Moorcock, but I was under the impression that Elric and the like were closer to heroic fantasy/swords and sorcery like Conan - more swashbuckling than the trials and tribulations of gods.
I have not read any of the books about Elric, but have read about prince Corum and there are a lot of similarities there - Moorcock has always been an inspiration for GW.
I have read and re-read each and everyone of them. They were my first introduction to fantasy back when I was a 14-year old boy.
The concept of GW chaos gods is clearly inspired from Moorcock's own chaos gods. The way they interact with mortals, Chaos as ever-changing and mutating, inner rivalries and infighting between chaos factions, daemons as creatures of pure chaos that manifest in the mortal realm.... just about everything short of actual names is there. Even the 8-pointed star as its symbol)
The law and chaos conflict (and in later novels, the Balance also as a third player on its own, above the two others) is central to Moorcock's work. In the end all characters recognize being pawns in the big game.
While I played WHFB for two decades, and I enjoyed the old world... I was glad to see us progress past the old world and into something new.
I know where I am, no one bought whfb retail pretty much ever. We had a stream of new players regularly and they all except for the odd divergent once in a blue moon bought their armies 2nd hand.
This was also commentary that I had heard from many people over many locations so I can definitely agree with WHFB wasn't selling and being a money sink. Our GW store manager concurs that in almost three years he barely was able to sell ANY fantasy, and fantasy hasn't really been stocked in any of our five local FLGS in years because it never sold (caveat - one store had the same inventory for years, the tournament store had a small offering but stock did not really have any justifiable velocity, it often just sat there as well)
Thats as close to the real numbers as I will get.
AOS now makes up a good sized chunk of our local GW's sales, and our local GW has a plaque that states that our city lead north american sales last year.
We have a campaign starting in two months at the store that has twenty people registered as attending. Last summer we had 24 people signed up for end times, so we are only four players less than we were last year.
From where I am, AOS is growing and growing and will surpass our former active fantasy playerbase next year.
No I like them and they seem to get better lately. I am not deluded though.
Just let it go dude, you are a broken record of bitterness.
I'm not bitter, I'm happy. If whfb 9th from GW had some of the illustrators that AoS has, it would be spoiled for me forever. I already had trouble looking at some of the FFG stuff for warhams. Now, if sigmarines got introduced to the Old World... i don't want to even think about it.
I am eternally grateful to GW for killing the Old World, believe me. Also, I was never bitter, at first I was actualy eager to see the new game, expected something really good. Then I saw the ruleset and sigmarines and has been laughing my ass off ever since. It's only the dryness of Internet communication that makes me look bitter.
Spend your time on something you like, instead of lingering on things you clearly hate and have no control over. It would be better for all parties.
What if I like discussing AoS? It's quite fascinating actualy, not the game ofc but the story of it's release.
Btw I don't hate AoS, I don't even root for it too fail anymore. I only reacted to claims that it's something oh so new and original that it makes people uneasy, please. It's one thing to like it but making up ridiculous theories to move the blame for it's initial failure from GW onto the playerbase is another.
In a vacuum, it's a standard fantasy world with awful space marine wannabes shoehorned in and if it wasn't for them and the context of its release, I could actualy like it a bit, it surely isn't anything special or fresh though.
Just patiently waiting for the bretonnia and tomk kings replacement.
Because they will come have no doubt.
But instead of worshipping a lake lady it will be Sigmar.
And TK will have a different look to be the new main army of tje dead. Dattebayo.
Davor wrote: All I see in AoS is Space Marines without bolters. I see a space station over a planet.
...And lastly. Bolt Stormers? GW can't do better than Bolt Stormers? Yeah these are not SPACE MARINES. I win. End of Story. (kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)
You know it has always puzzled me how people think of space marines when they see the stormcasts miniatures and not of these guys for example:
https://youtu.be/UYmUirZQNiY?t=34 , but I guess when the SM image is so deeply ingrained in one's consciousness he can't help but associate anything with it before any other options. Pauldrons are widespread in the game industry. Elevated, immortal warriors are not something unheard of in common lore. GW may have done a disservice to themselves with the image of the SM being so widely spread.
Those guys from Diablo look much more fantasyish than sigmarines, including pauldrons. Not to mention, it is be hard to say what would be worse, space marines in fantasy or ripping off Blizzard for whfb succesor heh.
They really are fantasy Space Marines, reforged for their chambers heh. I think GW actualy tries to emphasize this fact, with naming, structure and all the similarities. Not sure why fight it, it's obvious and obvious by design.
Great I like space marines.
Now liking space marines and saying you dont like stormcast because they look like space marines... now thats weird. Its as if someone was grasping at straws for some reason.
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
I'll assume you mean GW's motives, and the answer is - so what? Or, even if there is some shady machiavellian scheme in play here, what would you suggest?
They're a business, so thinking ill of them for trying to improve profitability is insane. If things don't work out, they either go bust or try doing something else. That's kind of how businesses work.
You either like and/or buy their product, or you don't.
Case in point, Mantic.
I don't buy their stuff because frankly the quality of their output is highly variable and their business model appears to be something akin to a Ponzi scheme.
If I did like their stuff, then the fact I think they are riding on GW's coat tails intentionally wouldn't bother me. I'd buy it.
We're not talking blood diamonds or sweat-shop clothing here.
Ah is this Fantasy? With the talk of Space marines, space stations and power armouredd orks all around I tought it was another sci fi setting.
You know whats funny? It's that the Stormcast despite their oomph aren't that powerfull at all in the fluff. You should read one of the novels. Loved the fury of gork. Warbeast was pretty good aswell.
They fit pretty well this new setting. Its some of the old stuff that does not fit properly like the Empire or free people if you prefer.
I do prefer the regular humans. I have Imperial Guard aswell. I like the average joe going against the horrors of the setting. Now why do you think brets were discontinued? Their theme would be very similar to the new humans that are coming im sure. Same with Tomb Kings on death faction.
But this "universe" is just starting. Its not meant to be WHFB. Its something different. If you dont like it, alright. You have 9th age and KoW.
I also didn't like file and rank. But loved the old lore tho. Shame that I never saw Estalia.
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
I'll assume you mean GW's motives, and the answer is - so what? Or, even if there is some shady machiavellian scheme in play here, what would you suggest?
They're a business, so thinking ill of them for trying to improve profitability is insane. If things don't work out, they either go bust or try doing something else. That's kind of how businesses work.
You either like and/or buy their product, or you don't.
Case in point, Mantic.
I don't buy their stuff because frankly the quality of their output is highly variable and their business model appears to be something akin to a Ponzi scheme.
If I did like their stuff, then the fact I think they are riding on GW's coat tails intentionally wouldn't bother me. I'd buy it.
We're not talking blood diamonds or sweat-shop clothing here.
No I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sete wrote: Ah is this Fantasy? With the talk of Space marines, space stations and power armouredd orks all around I tought it was another sci fi setting.
You know whats funny? It's that the Stormcast despite their oomph aren't that powerfull at all in the fluff. You should read one of the novels. Loved the fury of gork. Warbeast was pretty good aswell.
They fit pretty well this new setting. Its some of the old stuff that does not fit properly like the Empire or free people if you prefer.
I do prefer the regular humans. I have Imperial Guard aswell. I like the average joe going against the horrors of the setting. Now why do you think brets were discontinued? Their theme would be very similar to the new humans that are coming im sure. Same with Tomb Kings on death faction.
But this "universe" is just starting. Its not meant to be WHFB. Its something different. If you dont like it, alright. You have 9th age and KoW.
I also didn't like file and rank. But loved the old lore tho. Shame that I never saw Estalia.
Yes if you like it as scifi then it makes sense.
For me, 40k is already space fantasy, not sure what's the point of introducing a spaceish fantasy with low tech space marines, other than pushing more space marines.
I usually don't listen to these things, but thought if it improved my view on the fluff of AoS, so be it. It did nothing to it. It didn't deter my view on AoS or make it more positive.
Saying "I'm going to leave this here." I was expecting something Grandiose. That right there made this a total fail for me. Went on too long trying to explain what a fantasy setting can be, that there is lots of versions on it, and I got lost on how this applies to AoS. Guess my attention span wondered.
So what is the point of it? Not being negative, just wondering I didn't get it.
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
I'll assume you mean GW's motives, and the answer is - so what? Or, even if there is some shady machiavellian scheme in play here, what would you suggest?
They're a business, so thinking ill of them for trying to improve profitability is insane. If things don't work out, they either go bust or try doing something else. That's kind of how businesses work.
You either like and/or buy their product, or you don't.
I love "the question of motives." Are these people seriously trying to create a product that appeals to people and sells? Are they trying to make money by making things people want? This is some nefarious business.
Speaking from someone that is heavily in the software industry, gaming industry, and music industry since the 90s (I am a software architect, i work in gaming, and am a musician that works on original music to include the selling of said music) - people want things for free and expect things for free or next to no cost.
Entertainment items should be free or next to no cost and is expected to be free or next to no cost.
Artists, musicians, and software people should be paid in good will and a pat on the back and maybe a bag of cheetohs and six pack of mountain dew.
Entities that sell entertainment items that pull a profit are largely considered the devil and are only in it to pull a profit from their players.
Some people will be more reasonable and say that entities that pull *excessive* profit are the devil, but no one will really define what excessive profit is though some will say plastic figures should not cost more than $1 a model, but 99% of us don't know what it costs to produce miniatures in the first place, let alone where to begin costing the product to where you can pull a profit and pay your rent, employees, artists, etc (and in GW's case stockholders) - we just say "a plastic model costs I think 5 cents or so to produce in material so should not cost more than $1 a figure or else that is excessive - totally ignoring the many other costs of production.
I know my attempt at a miniature game had four factions, each with 10 or so individual models and the initial cost not counting actually producing the figure, just the moulds and art was $50,000. This is largely why I have not moved into producing models for my game and have left it on the digital screen for now (and even then, it costs a good chunk of money for decent artists to make 3d meshes of your models for four factions as well)
I usually don't listen to these things, but thought if it improved my view on the fluff of AoS, so be it. It did nothing to it. It didn't deter my view on AoS or make it more positive.
Saying "I'm going to leave this here." I was expecting something Grandiose. That right there made this a total fail for me. Went on too long trying to explain what a fantasy setting can be, that there is lots of versions on it, and I got lost on how this applies to AoS. Guess my attention span wondered.
So what is the point of it? Not being negative, just wondering I didn't get it.
That Age of Sigmar is a different type of fantasy, which allows it to do different things that the Old World doesn't have.
It's always been my pet hate with digital content; I have no problem paying for it, but what annoys me is I've never figured a justification for when it costs *more* than the physical, excepting (for example) a retailer selling off DVDs to clear stock.
As for the contention " I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen."
You do know what happens to creative businesses that don't sell, right?
Suggesting the sales and creative process should be totally separate in any business is either mad or naive.
RoperPG wrote: As for the contention " I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen."
You do know what happens to creative businesses that don't sell, right?
Suggesting the sales and creative process should be totally separate in any business is either mad or naive.
You can safely ignore any post Plumbumbarum makes in the AoS forums. He's always hated the game and GW, and he'll say pretty much whatever he can to make them look bad, regardless of how irrational or hypocritical it may be. So treat his AoS comments more as a manifestation of his disgust rather than as an invitation for reasoned discussion.
On a side note, I've been reading the campaign books recently and I'm starting to get into the setting. I don't have the attention span to read a half dozen novels, so having the quick and dirty summaries works for me. They are written with just enough color that they have more character than a history book, but don't get bogged down in it. And I was somewhat surprised to find that there are actual story arcs, with character progression and even plot twists. I'm actually somewhat curious where they will be going with this. I'm hoping that the Realmgate Wars actually comes to an epic and satisfying conclusion. I always sort of saw AoS as cool looking armies fighting each other in cool looking realms, but didn't think there was much more to it than that. This is partly because I only read Gates of Azyr, which is literally just one battle between two cool looking armies and little else.
Sqorgar wrote: On a side note, I've been reading the campaign books recently and I'm starting to get into the setting. I don't have the attention span to read a half dozen novels, so having the quick and dirty summaries works for me. They are written with just enough color that they have more character than a history book, but don't get bogged down in it. And I was somewhat surprised to find that there are actual story arcs, with character progression and even plot twists. I'm actually somewhat curious where they will be going with this. I'm hoping that the Realmgate Wars actually comes to an epic and satisfying conclusion. I always sort of saw AoS as cool looking armies fighting each other in cool looking realms, but didn't think there was much more to it than that. This is partly because I only read Gates of Azyr, which is literally just one battle between two cool looking armies and little else.
I would like to dwell a bit deeper into the fluff as well, but haven't bought any books yet.
Would you recommend any of the 3 main campaign books just for the fluff?
None in my little circle of AoS players have any Stormcasts or Khorne armies, so I doubt we'll play the scenarios as intended - But maybe they can be played with any armies?
Sete wrote: Great I like space marines.
Now liking space marines and saying you dont like stormcast because they look like space marines... now thats weird. Its as if someone was grasping at straws for some reason.
To be fair if you liked Space Mariens they already existed before Sigmarines were invented so you could just have played 40K? There are lots of similarities between the games.
auticus wrote: Speaking from someone that is heavily in the software industry, gaming industry, and music industry since the 90s (I am a software architect, i work in gaming, and am a musician that works on original music to include the selling of said music) - people want things for free and expect things for free or next to no cost.
Were you around the 80s when all the crap started coming out? Maybe you will know why people are like they are now.
Bantha Poodoo. All I will say it's not that people want things for free, it's we are sick and tired of things that are crap that people are charging allot for what they offer. Make good music. (Not against you, it's the music industry I am talking about.) Make good movies. Make a good product. Then people will buy. We have been conditioned on crap coming out and people are tired of buying stuff now. Hell GW has conditioned a lot of us not to buy their product and look else where for "better value".
We don't need your music. (not picking on you, just the example you said those business do.) We don't need your movies. We don't need Games Workshop. Want my money? Make a product I desire. Make a product I want. Make a product where I find value in what you are offering.
As for your comment about molds and stuff like that, it's called "THE COST OF DOING BUISNESS". I shouldn't have to pay for you to lean how to sing, or how to play guitar or what ever. We don't care how something is made. We just want to find value in the product.
Does GM or Ford or Toyota or any other company out there charge us for making their product? Car companies don't complain the prices of their cars are expensive because of research and development. They don't complain about the prices of molds. They don't complain about having a warehouse or it costs money to run a shop. It's the COST OF BUISNESS to sell these things.
For Games Workshop it's just an excuse. We are tired of excuses now. Just give us a product WE WANT/DESIRE and we find VALUE in it. If they can't offer that, then don't complain when we keep our money and not giving it to them.
I would like to dwell a bit deeper into the fluff as well, but haven't bought any books yet.
Would you recommend any of the 3 main campaign books just for the fluff?
None in my little circle of AoS players have any Stormcasts or Khorne armies, so I doubt we'll play the scenarios as intended - But maybe they can be played with any armies?
First, the scenarios don't need to be played with any specific armies. They are generic scenarios that are kind of thematically similar to the story events. So the story might be about the Stormcast defending a realm gate from Khorne, but you could just as easily play it as the Seraphon defending a gate from the Sylvaneth. The scenarios are story agnostic. Not sure if the Battletomes are more specific though.
As for the campaign books, they are just too expensive to recommend outright, but I'm glad that I'm reading them and intend to get more. I picked them up kind of like a chronicle of the hobby - a sort of documentation of how AoS has grown and changed over time (and they are great for that) - and only recently started reading them. I think it does a good job summarizing the fluff such that even if I don't read the full set of novellas, I still know who the major characters are, their motivations, and general personality. I mean, it really is JUST a summary of all these different battles and events, but I think it gives me enough of the fluff that I know the broad strokes of what is going on (and am actively engaged in it).
But I did read Gates of Azyr when it first came out and that section of the campaign books was a bit of a retread of material I was already familiar with, so it was kind of a drag going through. I'd say that if you are reading the fiction at all, the campaign books might be somewhat redundant.
Sete wrote: Great I like space marines.
Now liking space marines and saying you dont like stormcast because they look like space marines... now thats weird. Its as if someone was grasping at straws for some reason.
To be fair if you liked Space Mariens they already existed before Sigmarines were invented so you could just have played 40K? There are lots of similarities between the games.
Sarcasm my fellow citizen.
I dont think they compare at all.
And I play 40k. But I rather play fantasy.
Between Star wars and LoTR I prefer the later.
As for the contention " I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen."
You do know what happens to creative businesses that don't sell, right?
Suggesting the sales and creative process should be totally separate in any business is either mad or naive.
Mad or naive, both in fact. Still I think that a creation that has to be defended like you just did is nothing exceptional really.
Fun fact though, noone actualy wanted fantasy space marines and I doubt anyone asked for them. Not only was it their inner salesmen, it was a bad salesman who pushed the move based only on sales graphs in a vacuum or sth. Even funnier, actual and honest creative work in this case would probably earn them more money and much more respect.
And even if you're ok with it, there's that question of motives.
I'll assume you mean GW's motives, and the answer is - so what? Or, even if there is some shady machiavellian scheme in play here, what would you suggest?
They're a business, so thinking ill of them for trying to improve profitability is insane. If things don't work out, they either go bust or try doing something else. That's kind of how businesses work.
You either like and/or buy their product, or you don't.
I love "the question of motives." Are these people seriously trying to create a product that appeals to people and sells? Are they trying to make money by making things people want? This is some nefarious business.
But they didn't. The launch was a failure as confirmed by Games Workshop.
They also don't sell fething washing machines. If you think that crude attempts at sales in made up universes business are ok, that surely explains you not having a problem with AoS.
They created something noone asked for, and created it with sales in mind. Fail 101.
Unless it was all buzz back then as well with awkward minority of haterz.
RoperPG wrote: As for the contention " I just like my game settings driven by creative minds instead of salesmen."
You do know what happens to creative businesses that don't sell, right?
Suggesting the sales and creative process should be totally separate in any business is either mad or naive.
You can safely ignore any post Plumbumbarum makes in the AoS forums. He's always hated the game and GW, and he'll say pretty much whatever he can to make them look bad, regardless of how irrational or hypocritical it may be. So treat his AoS comments more as a manifestation of his disgust rather than as an invitation for reasoned discussion.
Sure but it's actualy you who summoned me with bs claims that can be summed up as "People didn't get AoS universe". It's not true, AoS universe is generic, obvious and cliche. It doesn't make it bad by default ofc, what made it bad was GW's half hearted attitude that added a weak game, bad artwork and atrocious handling of its release. They actualy had the resources to make it a quality product but it's not, it's mediocre at best and it's only now they are trying to improve it.
I hope you will admit that your initial argument back there was crap. I know from your other posts that you can do better.
Sure but it's actualy you who summoned me with bs claims that can be summed up as "People didn't get AoS universe". It's not true, AoS universe is generic, obvious and cliche. It doesn't make it bad by default ofc, what made it bad was GW's half hearted attitude that added a weak game, bad artwork and atrocious handling of its release. They actualy had the resources to make it a quality product but it's not, it's mediocre at best and it's only now they are trying to improve it.
SOME people absolutely didn't get it. I've seen several posts by people (here, reddit, BoLS, etc) that were some variation of, "I was down on AoS and its fluff, but after giving it a chance, I rather like it". Maybe they were biased and angry, with the passage of time easing their anger enough to give the game a fair shake, but it's also a bit of having the wrong first impressions. I think some, or even most of them saw something different in the AoS fluff initially and came to a better and more agreeable understanding later.
And I include myself in that. Though I was okay with what I thought AoS fluff was, as I said, I recently started reading the campaign books and was pleasantly surprised to find something more interesting than I anticipated. I mean, I had a handle on the general AoS universe, but I was completely distanced from the ongoing plot or characters. That's changed because I now realize that the ongoing plot and characters may be worth paying attention to after all. And this was in the first campaign book, which has been out almost as long as Age of Sigmar.
I don't think YOU have the wrong impression about AoS. I think you just like being a Negative Nelly. But some people - enough people - had the wrong impressions about what the Age of Sigmar fluff was and was trying to do. When you are looking at a goal and see the ball go off in a different direction, it seems like the game is being played poorly, but in this case, GW was just aiming towards a different goal that wasn't as obvious.
And as for the fantasy space marines - I love the Stormcast. They remain my favorite faction and I think their design (especially the Prosecutors) is amazing. I'm thinking of grabbing some more Stormcast just so that I can paint them as Celestial Warbringers or Knights-Excelsior units. So, I guess GW's cynical cash grab was super effective on me.
I wont give GW a pass on this one, they did a terrible job. They marketed poorly, they rehashed art, they wanted to do this on the cheap and it shows. The game is ok, Its not brilliant, its not innovative, its just mediocre. The idea of a quick easy core set of rules made perfect sense. IT was a good idea. They executed poorly. The rules are substandard for a company of their calibre. A company that can make WHFB, 40k, Mordheim, etc... could have and should have done better. for factions, I personally hate the stormcast, cant stand em. but that is too bad. They are there. I did not care for a good many models, so I just dont buy them. That does not mean that the models themselves are bad. The stormcast are well made. They go together easy, have some good options, and while I despise their look, they hit the mark of what they are trying to do damn well. The fluff, well I think the fluff is lazy and uninspired. Some folks think the same of the old world.
I firmly believe they should have made a clean break. I believe they failed utterly with their rollout. They were never realistically going to keep a majority of their fanbase with such a radical departure anyway. So dont try. You will fail and look stupid for it, and will win neither favour nor love from either side. So Just go all in. And they did not do that. Make the round bases standard and get it done. Get rid of the obviously old world armies, completely. Roll out new factions. I would guess that the fyreslayers, stormcast, and whatnot sell pretty good. The entry price has been handled well. You do not have to spend alot for AoS. Almost nothing really. BUT if you do need to buy models, they are on the whole cheaper, and they have not dropped quality, whether or not you like the look of them, the quality is still damn good. While you dont NEED to spend alot for an army, most people will. They will want to. That is success. On that front with GW ramping up on AoS , this game has a future. It will sit comfortably somewhere in the middle of the pack for miniature games, and will do so for the foreseable future. It is already changing and adapting to players expectations with this new generals book coming out.
Sure but it's actualy you who summoned me with bs claims that can be summed up as "People didn't get AoS universe". It's not true, AoS universe is generic, obvious and cliche. It doesn't make it bad by default ofc, what made it bad was GW's half hearted attitude that added a weak game, bad artwork and atrocious handling of its release. They actualy had the resources to make it a quality product but it's not, it's mediocre at best and it's only now they are trying to improve it.
SOME people absolutely didn't get it. I've seen several posts by people (here, reddit, BoLS, etc) that were some variation of, "I was down on AoS and its fluff, but after giving it a chance, I rather like it". Maybe they were biased and angry, with the passage of time easing their anger enough to give the game a fair shake, but it's also a bit of having the wrong first impressions. I think some, or even most of them saw something different in the AoS fluff initially and came to a better and more agreeable understanding later.
Ok but you suggested people were raised with Tolkien clones and somehow weren't equipped to appreciate AoS and that's not it.
I don't think YOU have the wrong impression about AoS. I think you just like being a Negative Nelly.
I don't like being negative, I don't enjoy the part where I insult the game you people like. On the other hand, I don't make a fool of you in from of a girl you like or kill your cat or sth so I consider it not a big deal really and sth a normal guy should take no problem. But it's not nice and I don't enjoy it.
I very much enjoy the freedom to say what I really think though.
And as for the fantasy space marines - I love the Stormcast. They remain my favorite faction and I think their design (especially the Prosecutors) is amazing. I'm thinking of grabbing some more Stormcast just so that I can paint them as Celestial Warbringers or Knights-Excelsior units. So, I guess GW's cynical cast grab was super effective on me
Each their own and all if it hits exactly your tastes but it's not about whether you like them or not. It's about the decision to put space marines lite into Warhammer Fantasy which is a bit like Lucas decision to put Ewoks into RotJ to sell toys. But hey apparently it's mad or naive to hate sth like that.
I doubt fantasy space marines were sth they always wanted to do but just a cash grab yes and it takes away from the universe when you see such motives as its foundation. It's less genuine.
If sigmarines were just a little more subtle and fantasyish, they could grow on me too. Can't stand the marked pauldrons, chambers and all that sm stuff. Just something closer to Blanche's vision would be much, much better.
Sete wrote: Just patiently waiting for the bretonnia and tomk kings replacement.
Because they will come have no doubt.
But instead of worshipping a lake lady it will be Sigmar.
And TK will have a different look to be the new main army of tje dead. Dattebayo.
They could also worship the life goddess or even Tyrion. I really hope they put a ton of those kinds of options for the future Free People. Different beliefs, civilisations, tactics and what gods are worshipped depending on what realm they're native to.
Definitely eager for Bret-expies but am building up Stormcasts and wanderers in the meantime. Make for a appealing force of holy paladins and eldritch rangers.
(Welcome to the forum, btw, Sete. )
Sete wrote: Great I like space marines.
Now liking space marines and saying you dont like stormcast because they look like space marines... now thats weird. Its as if someone was grasping at straws for some reason.
I prefer Stormcasts to Space marines, myself. Never can understand the hate for space marines that seems to always come up. They're just sci-fi knights.
I usually don't listen to these things, but thought if it improved my view on the fluff of AoS, so be it. It did nothing to it. It didn't deter my view on AoS or make it more positive.
Saying "I'm going to leave this here." I was expecting something Grandiose. That right there made this a total fail for me. Went on too long trying to explain what a fantasy setting can be, that there is lots of versions on it, and I got lost on how this applies to AoS. Guess my attention span wondered.
So what is the point of it? Not being negative, just wondering I didn't get it.
The video's just pointing out what fantasy tropes and genre AoS is focusing on. With it's setting of gods battling it out and champions overcoming trials it's leaning towards mythic and epic fantasy like a mix between the tales of Hercules and DnD.
23:00 gives the best sum up. Heroic fantasies always give rewards at the quest's end, sword and sorcery (WFB) is a reward of suffering as the heroes are wounded and try to survive, Epic fantasy (DnD) gives a mighty reward of power or salvation, Mythic fantasy (Hercules) is a reward of more trials as the champion ever seeks to prove himself.
I am one of the people that began this hobby because of the Age of Sigmar. I had never played Warhammer before, it always interested me but never dove in. When AOS was released i was blown away! The rules were simple to learn, the story i found (find) amazing and the concept just got me addicted. I have no say on what it was like before AOS but one look at the art, models and concept and i was hooked!
Jayjayphoto wrote: I am one of the people that began this hobby because of the Age of Sigmar. I had never played Warhammer before, it always interested me but never dove in. When AOS was released i was blown away! The rules were simple to learn, the story i found (find) amazing and the concept just got me addicted. I have no say on what it was like before AOS but one look at the art, models and concept and i was hooked!
Now if a few months from now Games Workshop announces that Age of Sigmar has failed and they were returning to the mass
combat setting and everything you bought would need to be rebased, buy all new game material to play the game correctly.
I guess you would be kind of upset...This is what happened to the people that played the game for the last 20 years.. hence the anger..
I am one of the old grouchy warhammer players that dislikes AoS, not because I didn't give it a fair shake.. I played it a number of
times and just don't care for the world, the rules or the fact that all models keep getting bigger and bigger in scale..
I don't work for Games Workshop so I don't know what is facts or not... But if there is smoke...there should be fire..
Warhammer was not selling to the level of 40k. but it never did.. 40k has always been the golden child for games workshop.
To boost sales they went with a new direction that is more science fiction than fantasy.. even replacing the statue in front
of GW Headquarters to show they are "all in" on the new direction, so I know AoS is not going away any time soon no matter how it sales.
Only reason GW even linked to the old game is to help move the remaining stock of miniatures. So a year from now they will have removed
any existence of the old world and I am fine.. No one forces me to buy anything.. well food.. I have trouble living without it..
But they changed the rules, the background, base type, went with no point system and also changed the scale... what did they expect
the reaction from their costumers would be.. If star wars battle made the same announcement tomorrow.. would it improve sales or hurt sales?
Sete wrote: Great I like space marines.
Now liking space marines and saying you dont like stormcast because they look like space marines... now thats weird. Its as if someone was grasping at straws for some reason.
I prefer Stormcasts to Space marines, myself. Never can understand the hate for space marines that seems to always come up. They're just sci-fi knights.
I very much like space marines (prefer csm tough) but hate sigmarines. I think they are out of place and stick out.
See, I don't like the design of the basic sigmarine but what really kills it for me there are the blue pauldrons with markings, it would look much better if they all had ornate ones or sth. But no, they had to hammer it down so noone misses it - they're just like space marines, forming chambers reforging and owning stuff left and right with righteous anger! They don't look fantasyish but they're not scincefictious either, all I see is a mess.
If the nods to sm were subtlier and artwork was better (the one I posted is just ok at best imo and still among the better ones really), I'm sure GW would be able to win me over, they almost did with Tau heh. I find the design of the Retributors better than basic sigmarines, I'd just make a force of them and use as basic guys. As is, each time I try to like it ( like yesterday when I was checking the art again looking for Bosch), sigmarines stick out and spoil it so much that I give up.
Thanks baron I have been around since 2014 but mostly I just lurk I not a fan of bright colors on sigmarines aswell thats why im going with the Anvils of Heldenhammer color.
Gives me that Black Templar vibe
Now if a few months from now Games Workshop announces that Age of Sigmar has failed and they were returning to the mass
combat setting and everything you bought would need to be rebased, buy all new game material to play the game correctly.
I guess you would be kind of upset...This is what happened to the people that played the game for the last 20 years.. hence the anger..
This has been covered a thousand times in this forum. WHFB wasn't selling. Whether it was because the WHFB playerbase was shrinking or WHFB players just playing with the same 20 year old models instead of buying new ones, WHFB was financially unsustainable. That's not the fault of Age of Sigmar. That's on the WHFB players. Don't blame GW. Blame yourself or god.
To boost sales they went with a new direction that is more science fiction than fantasy..
AoS is not science fiction. Like, at all.
Only reason GW even linked to the old game is to help move the remaining stock of miniatures.
That's not even remotely true. They've removed models, sure, but they've kept quite a few of the old models (even if they changed the fluff on them, like the Flesh-Eater Courts or Seraphon). They've rebased more models than they've replaced.
23:00 gives the best sum up. Heroic fantasies always give rewards at the quest's end, sword and sorcery (WFB) is a reward of suffering as the heroes are wounded and try to survive, Epic fantasy (DnD) gives a mighty reward of power or salvation, Mythic fantasy (Hercules) is a reward of more trials as the champion ever seeks to prove himself.
I guess that is the problem. Waiting till 23:00 of the answer. Then again, it's like how I talk on the forums, ramble on before I get to the point LOL.
Sqorgar wrote: That's not the fault of Age of Sigmar. That's on the WHFB players. Don't blame GW. Blame yourself or god.
Rubbish.
GW released a new edition with significant changes that cost them a significant chunk of the player base right off the bat, a situation that could have been avoided with more customer engagement, advertising and pre-release marketing. This was on top of the damage done by the horrible imbalance of Daemons, Dark Elves, Vampires and High Elves from the second half of 7th Edition.
WHFB failed because GW failed at the basics of running a retail business.
Sqorgar wrote: That's not the fault of Age of Sigmar. That's on the WHFB players. Don't blame GW. Blame yourself or god.
Rubbish.
GW released a new edition with significant changes that cost them a significant chunk of the player base right off the bat, a situation that could have been avoided with more customer engagement, advertising and pre-release marketing. This was on top of the damage done by the horrible imbalance of Daemons, Dark Elves, Vampires and High Elves from the second half of 7th Edition.
It cost them a significant chunk of a player base that wasn't really buying anything to begin with.
That's the part you left out of his post and which was a big reason why they've done AoS. People weren't buying things. The people who weren't buying things tended to overlap with the people who got bent out of shape with the shift to AoS and "quit"(I say that in air quotes because despite them saying they're quitting, you'll find them talking about playing 9th Age or 8th).
Customer engagement, advertising, and prerelease marketing don't mean a damn thing when you're talking about the neckbeards who complain about every little aspect of AoS.
WHFB failed because GW failed at the basics of running a retail business.
WHFB failed because players didn't actually support it and hadn't supported it for years.
I'm only going to address the bit that's even a little worth responding to.
Kanluwen wrote: It cost them a significant chunk of a player base that wasn't really buying anything to begin with.
That's the part you left out of his post and which was a big reason why they've done AoS. People weren't buying things.
This support that the players supposedly weren't giving WHFB was still an eight digit number, and bigger on it's own than almost any other competitor in the market (to the best of my knowledge, pre-X-wing, only PP had a supposed turnover number that could match that), and it's at least twice as much as Mantic's entire business now.
Oh come on. People were not buying Fantasy to begin with is because why would people want to buy when GW didn't support alot of armies insane prices and price increases poor balance and no communication.
So it comes back to GW again. It's not the players fault they were not buying.
Davor wrote: Oh come on. People were not buying Fantasy to begin with is because why would people want to buy when GW didn't support alot of armies insane prices and price increases poor balance and no communication.
No communication is something that had been going on for how long at that point?
GW didn't support a lot of armies because players didn't buy them. Think back to all the threads about how historicals made great proxies for Bretonnians/Empire. And you wonder why they dumped the stuff that could basically be covered by historicals?
There haven't been actual price increases for a loooooooong time. They've been doing "stealth" price increases by splitting boxes down to fewer contents and making things more expensive that way.
So it comes back to GW again. It's not the players fault they were not buying.
That's not how GW views it. In prior years, whether the rules for something sucked or not it would sell.
Long story short: Yeah. It is the players' fault that GW took the actions they did. GW is all about that money, and when the line stopped being profitable why should they continue it?
Sqorgar wrote: WHFB wasn't selling. Whether it was because the WHFB playerbase was shrinking or WHFB players just playing with the same 20 year old models instead of buying new ones, WHFB was financially unsustainable. That's not the fault of Age of Sigmar. That's on the WHFB players. Don't blame GW. Blame yourself or god.
Just stop. Whfb lost players on 7th ed daemon book and then 8th edition changes. Still, End Times books sold in seconds, something that has yet to happen with AoS.
It's GWs fault that it wasn't selling better or attracting more players, they could have fixed it but went the easy way of new start, convenient when you want to shoehorn space marines into fantasy.
Also it was selling, most probably better than AoS is. GW reported a loss in sales in a year of AoS starter and plastic 30k, would never happen if the starter was whfb.
The fact that whfb was unsustainable is made up. It was profitable, just wasn't earning enough in the heads of execs dreaming of more, more, more space marines.
Players killed whfb because they didn't support it, same players were not well read enough to get AoS. You are on fire.
Long story short: Yeah. It is the players' fault that GW took the actions they did. GW is all about that money, and when the line stopped being profitable why should they continue it?
What? A-are you Tom Kirby p-perhaps?
If a product is failing, is the responsibility of the producer to fix it, not of the players to buy it regardless. People used to buy WH anyway, previously, because:
1) there was less acceptably good competitors 2) the imbalances were, or at least were perceived, as less dire 3) the entry cost was smaller. In 5th, my Realm of Chaos book had a 1000 points example army composed by 1 Mounted character, 5 knights and 12 chaos warriors. Not easy against bolt throwers and high Elven bullcrap magic, but was an entry army.
GW did not improved, competitors did. GW churned out lots of miniatures, pushed bug monsters and big units, cut corners, fired designers, did not edited/supervised them considering codex writing secondary, discontinued army disenfranchising people that said "never again" (DoW). If you do not update Bretonnia, people will not buy it. If An army sucks or is updated, people will buy less. Resurgence of the Dark Eldar in 40k 5th edition, anyone?
How is all of this anything else than GW complete failure?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Just stop. Whfb lost players on 7th ed daemon book and then 8th edition changes. Still, End Times books sold in seconds, something that has yet to happen with AoS.
This. The Talented mr Ward destroyed Warhammer Fantasy with one death blow. Is like the Sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade. Costantinople fell to Turks, but it was already dead. The death blow was inflicted by the 4th crusade. I witnessed directly people go to tournaments, see only Dark Elves, Vampires and Demons, and quit the week after. In my town tournaments were great aggregator (they were not competitive, people went to fight and show the work, there were mandatory painted armies and such).
8th edition is the Turks. 7th ed daemon book is the Sack of Constantinople.
And another comment concerning the "WHFB was not selling". I am not sure about this, but wasn't GW saying to judges that the revenue from WHFB was more than relevant, resolving the lawsuit, in the whole Chapter House thing?
Long story short: Yeah. It is the players' fault that GW took the actions they did. GW is all about that money, and when the line stopped being profitable why should they continue it?
What? A-are you Tom Kirby p-perhaps?
If a product is failing, is the responsibility of the producer to fix it, not of the players to buy it regardless.
Hur hur hur, is funneh cause you make snarkeh comment.
Read the post I wrote, rather than what you decided to take away from the post.
GW took the actions they did because sales were down. It doesn't matter that sales were down because of GW's actions to GW's eyes, what did matter was that people weren't buying.
GW did not improved, competitors did.
Mantic begs to differ. They're still doing okay, but their entire schtick is being "not-GW complete with former GW designers!" and they haven't really done anything to up their game in terms of quality.
They churned out lots of miniatures, pushed bug monsters and big units, cut corners, fired designers, did not edited/supervised them considering codex writing secondary, discontinued army disenfranchising people that said "never again". If you do not update Bretonnia, people will not buy it.
It didn't matter if Bretonnia got an updated book or not. Bretonnia as a faction had people buying historical models, whether or not the models are good. It's not like it was hard to make a Bretonnian army out of just historicals. The Perry Brothers line would have allowed you to make an army at a fraction of the cost, with the only stuff you'd miss out on being the more fantastic stuff(Pegasi, Damsels, Louen, and maybe the Trebuchet).
If An army sucks or is updated, people will buy less. Resurgence Dark Eldar in 40k 5th edition, anyone?
Dark Eldar in 40k 5th edition was an entire overhaul of a range. What's your point?
Seriously, you do understand that in spite of Dark Elves being given an overhaul of their range that it didn't do well yeah?
How is all of this anything else than GW complete failure?
I'll let you stop and think about things.
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Just stop. Whfb lost players on 7th ed daemon book and then 8th edition changes. Still, End Times books sold in seconds, something that has yet to happen with AoS.
This. The Talented mr Ward destroyed Warhammer Fantasy with one death blow. Is like the Sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade. Costantinople fell to Turks, but it was already dead. The death blow was inflicted by the 4th crusade.
8th edition is the Turks. 7th ed daemon book is the Sack of Constantinople.
Translation:
"Hurr durr hurr Mat Ward's bad hurr durr hurr."
Oh, and btw?
End Times books did not "sell out in seconds". That happened with ONE book only; End Times: Khaine.
Nagash sold out in a week, Glottkin in the course of a weekend, Khaine in the first 5 minutes of preorders, and Archaon's collector edition sold out before the regular.
And really, saying that the AoS books didn't sell out as some kind of downside?
You don't need the books. There's an app with all of the rules you'd need for the models and to play the game.
If a product is failing, is the responsibility of the producer to fix it, not of the players to buy it regardless.
An equally valid course would be to drop the product altogether and make something new - a course that is continuously regarded as the inferior one as the FB players at the time of the culling still wanted to play FB (I think that people loathe drastic changes of all kind). Miniature games are a set of rules (+optional setting) plus a set of miniatures. Any one of them or both can be dropped and made anew. GW decided that part of the miniatures could still hold for some time and dropped the rules and setting altogether to make a new one. People that demanded a fixing and were already financially entangled with FB would naturally be against the drop atleast in the beginning (and perhaps after it). Groups that have never heard of FB, have stopped playing, didn't like the rules etc. would be altogether unaffected initially. If numbers say that the latter groups are worth the risk investing into then such a sudden change would naturally be worth it.
The way I think about it, even though GW is this massive company, at its heart is a handful of designers, sculptors, artists etc etc it just seems like none of them wanted to continue with WHFB and wanted to try something new with the fantasy setting.
I think that really comes across in AoS that this is something the GW studio are enjoying to create and I look forward to seeing it evolve.
At the same time the GW studio can be a bit insular and out of touch with the player base. We saw that with the lack of balanced play in the initial outset as they didn't feel it was needed because they are all gamers who don't use those sorts of rules. But in hindsight they can see that was a mistake and are now making amends.
AoS is an incredibly exciting game to be a part of right now, and I am loving it.
It really sucks if WHFB was your thing and you were heavily invested in the setting - but it seems the design studio just wanted to try something new rather than retread the already well beaten path.
So it's not about "fixing" WHFB in my opinion. Their hearts weren't in it anymore and that's why we have AoS. At the end of the day the creative output of GW is just a couple dozen of people.
Bottle wrote: The way I think about it, even though GW is this massive company, at its heart is a handful of designers, sculptors, artists etc etc it just seems like none of them wanted to continue with WHFB and wanted to try something new with the fantasy setting.
You know, I've been thinking this for a long time and haven't really given it any credit in my head 'cause GW is a big company and in my experience, when you work for a big company and you're not one of the bigwigs, you do what you're told to do and not what you'd want or think is right to do. If the designers really put their heart to it and wanted it this way I'll be very happy. I'm feeling more optimistic about this hypothesis now
Jayjayphoto wrote: I am one of the people that began the hobby because of the Age of Sigmar. I never played Warhammer before, it always interested me but never dove in. When AOS was released i was blown away! The rules were simple to learn, the story i found (find) amazing and the concept just got me addicted. I have no say on what it was like before AOS but one look at the art, models and concept and i was hooked!
Awesome to hear that AoS has hit all the right notes for you.
I do miss the old setting abit but the new one is moving along nicely which is really great and keeps pumping out amazing models and kits which is always aces!
Now if a few months from now Games Workshop announces that Age of Sigmar has failed and they were returning to the mass
combat setting and everything you bought would need to be rebased, buy all new game material to play the game correctly.
Except you don't have to rebase or buy anything extra to play a game of AoS with a army out of 8th edition.
I'd say a more appropriate example would be to say that GW changed the setting back to the old world or old world-lite, made entirely new rules that forced your forces to always be 1" between models and have a facing along with other regimental rules and that the AoS lines were slowly being discontinued in favor of armies of slightly smaller models.
You were tempting the devil . There's already 1 dislike.
Doh!
Sete wrote: Thanks baron I have been around since 2014 but mostly I just lurk I not a fan of bright colors on sigmarines aswell thats why im going with the Anvils of Heldenhammer color.
Gives me that Black Templar vibe
Ah, sorry, I assumed the few posts meant a new user.
I like both the bright and darker Stormcast colors. Makes a cool contrast to eachother when put together in a force.
23:00 gives the best sum up. Heroic fantasies always give rewards at the quest's end, sword and sorcery (WFB) is a reward of suffering as the heroes are wounded and try to survive, Epic fantasy (DnD) gives a mighty reward of power or salvation, Mythic fantasy (Hercules) is a reward of more trials as the champion ever seeks to prove himself.
I guess that is the problem. Waiting till 23:00 of the answer. Then again, it's like how I talk on the forums, ramble on before I get to the point LOL.
Haha, better than my ramblings which usually swerve off-topic!
Bottle wrote: The way I think about it, even though GW is this massive company, at its heart is a handful of designers, sculptors, artists etc etc it just seems like none of them wanted to continue with WHFB and wanted to try something new with the fantasy setting.
You know, I've been thinking this for a long time and haven't really given it any credit in my head 'cause GW is a big company and in my experience, when you work for a big company and you're not one of the bigwigs, you do what you're told to do and not what you'd want or think is right to do. If the designers really put their heart to it and wanted it this way I'll be very happy. I'm feeling more optimistic about this hypothesis now
Yeah, we've still got Brian Nelson sculpting orcs, we've still got Jervis writing scenarios. The Orruk Megaboss was Brian's first take on an Orc from the mortal realms - does it not feel like a designer unleashed? A Orc no longer constrained by pose - base size - model size or any 'old world' trappings. The Orruk Megaboss is like an Orc straight out of the artwork.
Take the scenarios as well. Jervis has been doing old world scenarios for what 30 years? the 8th edition brb certainly had some fun ones (like the Bugman's delivery scenario). But now we have fights on ice and a-regular shaped boards. Is this not Jervis unleashed in the same way?
Many criticise AoS for being a cold marketing decision - and maybe the Stormcast are only that? - but there is oodles of GW designer personality coming through in AoS. If it had been a play-it-safe marketing call we would have seen points from the outset because that's what all the popular competitors have - instead we get something that comes across like the design team let loose imo. Only now are they being reigned in to cater to the masses.
Hur hur hur, is funneh cause you make snarkeh comment. Read the post I wrote, rather than what you decided to take away from the post.
Sorry for the snark, but is just something Kirby could say. Words have a weight. You used the word "fault" (error, mistake imperfection, right?) where NOTHING like this can be attributed to players. I took you as much seriously as the sentence you wrote allowed.
GW took the actions they did because sales were down. It doesn't matter that sales were down because of GW's actions to GW's eyes, what did matter was that people weren't buying.
It turns out that such decisions devoid of an analysis of why the sales were down are prone to dire consequences...
Mantic begs to differ. They're still doing okay, but their entire schtick is being "not-GW complete with former GW designers!" and they haven't really done anything to up their game in terms of quality.
Yes, but the overall market of competitors is growing and chewing up space.
It didn't matter if Bretonnia got an updated book or not. Bretonnia as a faction had people buying historical models, whether or not the models are good. It's not like it was hard to make a Bretonnian army out of just historicals. The Perry Brothers line would have allowed you to make an army at a fraction of the cost, with the only stuff you'd miss out on being the more fantastic stuff(Pegasi, Damsels, Louen, and maybe the Trebuchet).
This is a valid point, but in this case, leaving the faction in a limbo instead of squatting and moving on is utterly dishonest toward those who planned to start a bretonnian army. Furthermore, if I feel something different from contempt for a mini company (not the case of GW), I can even decide to support such company if the products are source of fun and not of frustration.
Seriously, you do understand that in spite of Dark Elves being given an overhaul of their range that it didn't do well yeah?
The game was already dead when that happened. Undead, or dying, let's say. Update factions is important ALONG with reasonable price ALONG with good ruleset. Is not rocket science, MOST people get it, you know.
I'll let you stop and think about things.
I think you should reserve such condescending attitude for when you write posts with a content appropriate for such attitude. Next time, bring actual arguments or avoid comments like this, for the sake of the discussion. Furthermore, is quite embarrassing to read. Thanks. (see below).
Translation: "Hurr durr hurr Mat Ward's bad hurr durr hurr."
Nice comeback. I am almost too astonished by your argument to answer. Such high quality posting. Your 20k+ posts are all like this? This is an... original use of bytes and time, let's say. I will try: Mr Ward is actually talented. Ward had may good ideas and his codex were usually codex with all the models at least usable. Ward was a "wild talent" that needed an editor, an editor saying "Matt this is great" and "Matt this is bad". He did what he did not out of malice. But: - In lotr, he started a trend of models completely crazy in term of lore like orc shamans. In my experience, this drove people away from lotr sbg - In 5th edition 40k, GK and necrons, and the start of an arms race trend - in fantasy, demons. Like it or not, THAT codex was actually the first book of the End of Times.. in a way.
So Ward, maybe not because his choices but because was "following orders", set up a lot of bad trends, and we can see the effects today. Now if you have an actual comeback to this, ok, but after 2 "hurr dhurr" I think is just the case to put you on Ignore.
Bottle wrote: But now we have fights on ice and a-regular shaped boards.
The reliance on the realms of battle boards is a little weird. It's obviously opened up some options as far as creating irregular shaped playing fields and standardizing terrain features - but the realms of battle boards are the definition of luxury: completely optional and stupidly expensive. And yet the game scenarios are obviously built around these things.
I like how they are creatively used, but it just seems absurd to base Age of Sigmar around a game element that pretty much nobody wants or could afford. I'm hoping that when they release the new realm of battle AoS board, it will be more reasonably priced (or at least, purchased incrementally, $50 at a time rather than $300 all at once).
If a product is failing, is the responsibility of the producer to fix it, not of the players to buy it regardless.
An equally valid course would be to drop the product altogether and make something new - a course that is continuously regarded as the inferior one as the FB players at the time of the culling still wanted to play FB (I think that people loathe drastic changes of all kind). Miniature games are a set of rules (+optional setting) plus a set of miniatures. Any one of them or both can be dropped and made anew. GW decided that part of the miniatures could still hold for some time and dropped the rules and setting altogether to make a new one. People that demanded a fixing and were already financially entangled with FB would naturally be against the drop atleast in the beginning (and perhaps after it). Groups that have never heard of FB, have stopped playing, didn't like the rules etc. would be altogether unaffected initially. If numbers say that the latter groups are worth the risk investing into then such a sudden change would naturally be worth it.
Of course. drop or fix - but admit the faults, not blame the customers... because that is just insanity.
Time will tell if it was a good move. I'd say not
Sqorgar wrote: But now we have fights on ice and a-regular shaped boards.
The reliance on the realms of battle boards is a little weird. It's obviously opened up some options as far as creating irregular shaped playing fields and standardizing terrain features - but the realms of battle boards are the definition of luxury: completely optional and stupidly expensive. And yet the game scenarios are obviously built around these things.
They're build upon 2x2 square blocks - you can buy those quite cheap. The realms of battle boards add minimal elevations and mostly land detail (like cracks etc.) - they're more pretty than uniquely functional.
Oh, and btw?
End Times books did not "sell out in seconds". That happened with ONE book only; End Times: Khaine.
Nagash sold out in a week, Glottkin in the course of a weekend, Khaine in the first 5 minutes of preorders, and Archaon's collector edition sold out before the regular.
Aaand, the nitpick of the week award goes to... mr. Kaaaanluuuweeeen.
And really, saying that the AoS books didn't sell out as some kind of downside?
You don't need the books. There's an app with all of the rules you'd need for the models and to play the game.
Fair enough.
What the End Times book selling in... erm, fast, showed though was that there was potential in the setting and the game.
Many criticise AoS for being a cold marketing decision - and maybe the Stormcast are only that?
There's another option though. GW lately is doing a lot nostalgia driven releases and uses a lot of old ideas. I remember reading somewhere that Fantasy space marines is an old idea in GW, maybe someone dug it out and they felt justified because it's old or sth.
It doesn't change the fact that the idea back there was as much a cash grab as it is today and doesn't absolves the current staff of going for it in my eyes, but it would make it look better than just pulling sigmarines with bolt stormers out of their asses now.
Also, while I'm the first to confirm that it's a cold, marketing decision, no matter if made now or then, it's not that sigmarines are only that. The moment Blanche is made to draw it and someone else to write them, they become something more, pop art or sth heh. Having something born out of the salesmen checklist is bad and spoils a lot imo but the idea itself still might be good (this one discussed here is not imo heh, might have said that before) despite being tainted like that.
Might have been an unlikely defence from me lol. But really I can't stress enough how great it was from GW to not introduce them straight to Old World, that way people who like the idea can have it without ruining the Old World for guys like me. They showed a drop of respect at least between bad jokes and killing the game thousands still played.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: The way I think about it, even though GW is this massive company, at its heart is a handful of designers, sculptors, artists etc etc it just seems like none of them wanted to continue with WHFB and wanted to try something new with the fantasy setting.
I think that really comes across in AoS that this is something the GW studio are enjoying to create and I look forward to seeing it evolve.
At the same time the GW studio can be a bit insular and out of touch with the player base. We saw that with the lack of balanced play in the initial outset as they didn't feel it was needed because they are all gamers who don't use those sorts of rules. But in hindsight they can see that was a mistake and are now making amends.
AoS is an incredibly exciting game to be a part of right now, and I am loving it.
It really sucks if WHFB was your thing and you were heavily invested in the setting - but it seems the design studio just wanted to try something new rather than retread the already well beaten path.
So it's not about "fixing" WHFB in my opinion. Their hearts weren't in it anymore and that's why we have AoS. At the end of the day the creative output of GW is just a couple dozen of people.
There were rumors I think about a split in GW about AoS but don't remember whether respected source or just random bs.
Anyway maybe the designers were told to do it, and did it. It's been said for years that the creative is under the suits boot and even Rick Priestley said something along those lines. How do you tell that it's what they wanted?
It's like with Blanche sigmarines concept art. Did he do it because he wanted to, or because he was asked by his friends/ bosses? I'd love to know.
Lexington wrote: The fact that AoS is only told in grand, mythic scale is another one of the setting's big problems. Contrast is an important tool. Throwing it out is foolish.
I'm happy to be corrected, but I can't think of an equivalent example from WFB where this doesn't apply?
We're talking about different things, here, but this is an important related point - you're very right on this, so long as you're only counting the last several years of WHFB. GW's had a brain-drain going on for some time now, but it was somewhat obscured by the earlier work that grounded their IP. To anyone paying attention, AoS's setting probably didn't come as much of a surprise, even if it might be a shock to see just how shallow GW's creative talent pool really is anymore.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Now this I completely disagree with. Have you read the campaign books? Have you looked at some of the maps? Quest for Ghal Maraz has the Stormcast fighting on an ocean of silver (while it's melting no less) in their quest to track down a teleporting fortress... and that's just the first campaign book. As for models, we have the Fyreslayers release of near-naked Dwarves given supernatural might by the magical runes hammered directly into their skin who tunnel by controlling magma and have guns which shoot globs of lava.
This isn't particularly 'weird' stuff - it'd be right at home in Warcraft, all told. The current IP regime at GW just doesn't have the wherewithal to understand that there's more to the fantastic than the big and the impossible. Right here in this thread, there's a lot of chatter about other works that AoS is supposed to resemble, but it always comes out looking worse for the comparison because there's nothing under the setting's' surface level. It doesn't have H. Bosch's dark psychological edge, and GW's conservative sensibilities are never going to allow the wild abandon of Moorcock and classic Heavy Metal if for no other reason than the fact that GW is allergic to sex. Hell, they can't even replicate 'Masters of the Universe's kitsch appeal, because too much of their audience is deathly afraid that someone might view their fantasy hobbies as unserious. It's an empty setting, designed by salesmen to say nothing and offend no one. No wonder it hasn't gained much of a fanbase.
Lexington wrote: Right here in this thread, there's a lot of chatter about other works that AoS is supposed to resemble, but it always comes out looking worse for the comparison because there's nothing under the setting's' surface level. It doesn't have H. Bosch's dark psychological edge, and GW's conservative sensibilities are never going to allow wild abandon of Moorcock and classic Heavy Metal if for no other reason than the fact that GW is allergic to sex. Hell, they can't even replicate 'Masters of the Universe's kitsch appeal, because too much of their audience is deathly afraid that someone might view their fantasy hobbies as unserious. It's an empty setting, designed by salesmen to say nothing and offend no one. No wonder it hasn't gained much of a fanbase.
Exactly this. It's not really good at what it wants to be.
I'd add cheap and cartoonish in a bad way cgi art, it really doesn't help mr. Roundtree, have some class ffs.
It's a bit sad because mythical Warhammer as an idea has potential to be mind blowing but AoS is not.
Hopefully the Age of Roundtree (saw someone else mention this, I think it fits perfectly) will change this and actually make Age of Sigmar actually really good.
Davor wrote: Wow some good points made what AoS really is.
Age of Lawyers and Accountants.
Hopefully the Age of Roundtree (saw someone else mention this, I think it fits perfectly) will change this and actually make Age of Sigmar actually really good.
That would be me.
Also, it's hilarious that you don't realise just how much work lawyers and accountants do for businesses. There's a good deal of messing about involved behind the scenes.
Many many things are influenced by the advice businesses receive from lawyers and accountants.
I never gave it much thought angleofvengence, until recently thought Accountants and Lawyers could actually mess up a very good product.
Now seeing why the name changes when they really didn't need them, it actually makes the game look more sillier and childish, something not to be taken serious.
At least as you said angleofvengence The Age of Roundtree is looking to change things around. Sadly small "hic ups" are starting to show up now, so I am hoping the AoR is not done and will flourish.
Well at least warhammer generic fantasy battles is done.
What a boring setting.
It was dead on the water. Completely failed.
Glad they moved on pass that dead beaten horse.
I'd be weary of claims that someone knows the internal thinking and decision making process of GW, from intent to product rollout. Anyway, the GW of the past year has been excellent IMO and it keep getting better for miniwargaming with the overall amount of and quality of options we have from game companies, accessory companies and global community.
Sete wrote: Well at least warhammer generic fantasy battles is done.
What a boring setting.
It was dead on the water. Completely failed.
Glad they moved on pass that dead beaten horse.
*opens mouth to speak, closes again before I say something mean*
AoS has exactly one more chance for my gaming group, if it doesn't get this points system and FAQ's spot on then It will have lost any interest my gaming group had in it. You know how so many peopled slated Batman vs Superman because it just jumped straight into things without any build up when compared with the Avengers, that spend several years of character and world building before plunging to the kind of story lines that only work with fully invested viewers. I believe AoS has the same problem. It jumped straight into Stormcasts and Khorne to the exclusion of all else, where I believe if the initial release focussed on more familiar factions in relation to this new world and they spent a little while tip toeing around the more fantastical aspects of AoS when they actually dived in it wouldn't have alientated so many players.
GW has been improving on this front, the Iron Jaw and Flesh Eater Court where good battle tomes and actually gave us concepts we know in different settings, but in a way it was well recieved. If it had done this in the first place I feel my friend group at least would be more interested.
Im gonna be honest. Avengers was boring. I dunno why people like it. BvsS was by far a better movie. Perspective amd taste. I reckon.
I just made a post similar to a few I have read around here. Just changed AoS for WHFB. Not pleasant if you are a fan is it? Just trying to prove a point.
So from the looks of it AoS' future is a handful of saddies claiming it's the world's most popular and successful game on the internet and it continuing to have TERRIBLE sales until GW panics.
There's literally no reason to say "never" about any of GW's options, all the reasons people have given so far are, well meaningless. The board of directors could decide to make 9th edition tomorrow and several months later they'd be selling 9th edition in stores. In the same way they decided to change course and come out with lots of board games again.
The lesson of Warhammer Fantasy Battles is that it's not the product that was failing, it's the company. If you do a bad job maintaining the game, treat your customers poorly, and act as if you can't fail while competitors eat your former market share up, your profits will drop. AoS was a weird, misguided, group-think desperation move, and very few people want it. Again, their rethinking of board games shows their executives are in such a desperate situation that they can no longer afford to throw good money after proven bad ideas.
frankelee wrote: So from the looks of it AoS' future is a handful of saddies claiming it's the world's most popular and successful game on the internet and it continuing to have TERRIBLE sales until GW panics.
Actually that's the past/present since its already happened, minus the hyperbole of course.
The board of directors could decide to make 9th edition tomorrow and several months later they'd be selling 9th edition in stores. In the same way they decided to change course and come out with lots of board games again.
Its been well established they have roughly a two-year lead time, so it would be a while before we'd see anything that dramatic.
The lesson of Warhammer Fantasy Battles is that it's not the product that was failing, it's the company. If you do a bad job maintaining the game, treat your customers poorly, and act as if you can't fail while competitors eat your former market share up, your profits will drop. AoS was a weird, misguided, group-think desperation move, and very few people want it. Again, their rethinking of board games shows their executives are in such a desperate situation that they can no longer afford to throw good money after proven bad ideas.
I agree that is the true lesson, and I think GW didn't figure it out until the terrible AoS launch. But this year they have started to change the way they do business for the better, we'll see how well they stick to it and how it turns out going forward.
frankelee wrote: So from the looks of it AoS' future is a handful of saddies claiming it's the world's most popular and successful game on the internet and it continuing to have TERRIBLE sales until GW panics.
There's literally no reason to say "never" about any of GW's options, all the reasons people have given so far are, well meaningless. The board of directors could decide to make 9th edition tomorrow and several months later they'd be selling 9th edition in stores. In the same way they decided to change course and come out with lots of board games again.
The lesson of Warhammer Fantasy Battles is that it's not the product that was failing, it's the company. If you do a bad job maintaining the game, treat your customers poorly, and act as if you can't fail while competitors eat your former market share up, your profits will drop. AoS was a weird, misguided, group-think desperation move, and very few people want it. Again, their rethinking of board games shows their executives are in such a desperate situation that they can no longer afford to throw good money after proven bad ideas.
Awww, you're just sad that you are a dinosaur, and not part of the future (of AoS). :-)
But fortunately for you, there is a section of the forum just a few clicks down from this one, where you can harp on and on the greatness of the old days of WHFB with the few others still left there. Or you can move on and spend your time on something positive instead of trying to "poison the well" here.
frankelee wrote: So from the looks of it AoS' future is a handful of saddies claiming it's the world's most popular and successful game on the internet and it continuing to have TERRIBLE sales until GW panics.
There's literally no reason to say "never" about any of GW's options, all the reasons people have given so far are, well meaningless. The board of directors could decide to make 9th edition tomorrow and several months later they'd be selling 9th edition in stores. In the same way they decided to change course and come out with lots of board games again.
The lesson of Warhammer Fantasy Battles is that it's not the product that was failing, it's the company. If you do a bad job maintaining the game, treat your customers poorly, and act as if you can't fail while competitors eat your former market share up, your profits will drop. AoS was a weird, misguided, group-think desperation move, and very few people want it. Again, their rethinking of board games shows their executives are in such a desperate situation that they can no longer afford to throw good money after proven bad ideas.
Awww, you're just sad that you are a dinosaur, and not part of the future (of AoS). :-)
But fortunately for you, there is a section of the forum just a few clicks down from this one, where you can harp on and on the greatness of the old days of WHFB with the few others still left there. Or you can move on and spend your time on something positive instead of trying to "poison the well" here.
I tried to get my gaming group to like AoS, I really did. But my gaming group contained 2 Brettonians a Tomb King player, both of whom simply dropped GW all together in favor of Ninth Age because they felt they've been mishandled. The ones who remained where the people who played for the game play, not the narrative, but those people lost interest when things like rolling for initiative and massive charge ranges took most of the tactical edge out.
I follow other peoples AoS, I really enjoy the Realmgate Wars battle reports on this forum. But the kind of narrative they forge just isn't the kind of thing we were into, and why bother balancing the game ourselves when we could just play Ninth, a game we are already familiar with and know we enjoy without having to work to hard at it? As i said, the new way to play AoS will define a lot of its future. If it makes pick up games easy to coordinate and somewhat balanced I will play AoS alongside Ninth, but one game can never replace the other.
Its opened a new experience up to new players thats good imo, you cant judge gw to harshly if whfb really was selling as badly as we heard then its lucky it didnt just get cut loose. End times send off and then reboot/refresh is as good as anyone could hope. I feel the crit that fantasy as a product wasnt broken it was the company is bunk its by the same guys as 40k/30k yet they thrived, i cant believe they'd burn there ip with out serious reason thats got to be one hard move. I think aos will likely never be 40k big but it will develop in to a new creature quite different from whfb or 40k a new age action rpg.
frankelee wrote: So from the looks of it AoS' future is a handful of saddies claiming it's the world's most popular and successful game on the internet and it continuing to have TERRIBLE sales until GW panics.
There's literally no reason to say "never" about any of GW's options, all the reasons people have given so far are, well meaningless. The board of directors could decide to make 9th edition tomorrow and several months later they'd be selling 9th edition in stores. In the same way they decided to change course and come out with lots of board games again.
The lesson of Warhammer Fantasy Battles is that it's not the product that was failing, it's the company. If you do a bad job maintaining the game, treat your customers poorly, and act as if you can't fail while competitors eat your former market share up, your profits will drop. AoS was a weird, misguided, group-think desperation move, and very few people want it. Again, their rethinking of board games shows their executives are in such a desperate situation that they can no longer afford to throw good money after proven bad ideas.
Awww, you're just sad that you are a dinosaur, and not part of the future (of AoS). :-)
But fortunately for you, there is a section of the forum just a few clicks down from this one, where you can harp on and on the greatness of the old days of WHFB with the few others still left there. Or you can move on and spend your time on something positive instead of trying to "poison the well" here.
More future than WHFB as of now. Getting back on topic, these last few releases seem to have sold pretry well.
Ironjaws was well recwived as fleash eater court.
And Silver tower was a sucess aswell.
Such bad news for a game with no future.
AoS is going to last for a while, GW's too stubborn to do anything but that.
My prediction is that give it five to ten years, and if the company is still standing, they'll release kits with square bases, and a Warhammer Fantasy setting in an attempt to do to AoS what Warhammer 30K did to 40K
My prediction is that give it five to ten years, Games Workshop will go out of business due to the outrage caused when the Sisters of Battle are opened up to male members out of fear that the website The Gary Stu will label them misandrist. Also, Supreme Commander Trump of Earth will declare war on the Martians because they made fun of his tiny hands. Also, in ten years, pants will be considered horribly dated and everybody will instead be wearing skolts (that's a skort (shorts + skirt) mixed with a kilt).
Many criticise AoS for being a cold marketing decision - and maybe the Stormcast are only that?
There's another option though. GW lately is doing a lot nostalgia driven releases and uses a lot of old ideas. I remember reading somewhere that Fantasy space marines is an old idea in GW, maybe someone dug it out and they felt justified because it's old or sth.
It doesn't change the fact that the idea back there was as much a cash grab as it is today and doesn't absolves the current staff of going for it in my eyes, but it would make it look better than just pulling sigmarines with bolt stormers out of their asses now.
Also, while I'm the first to confirm that it's a cold, marketing decision, no matter if made now or then, it's not that sigmarines are only that. The moment Blanche is made to draw it and someone else to write them, they become something more, pop art or sth heh. Having something born out of the salesmen checklist is bad and spoils a lot imo but the idea itself still might be good (this one discussed here is not imo heh, might have said that before) despite being tainted like that.
Might have been an unlikely defence from me lol. But really I can't stress enough how great it was from GW to not introduce them straight to Old World, that way people who like the idea can have it without ruining the Old World for guys like me. They showed a drop of respect at least between bad jokes and killing the game thousands still played.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: The way I think about it, even though GW is this massive company, at its heart is a handful of designers, sculptors, artists etc etc it just seems like none of them wanted to continue with WHFB and wanted to try something new with the fantasy setting.
I think that really comes across in AoS that this is something the GW studio are enjoying to create and I look forward to seeing it evolve.
At the same time the GW studio can be a bit insular and out of touch with the player base. We saw that with the lack of balanced play in the initial outset as they didn't feel it was needed because they are all gamers who don't use those sorts of rules. But in hindsight they can see that was a mistake and are now making amends.
AoS is an incredibly exciting game to be a part of right now, and I am loving it.
It really sucks if WHFB was your thing and you were heavily invested in the setting - but it seems the design studio just wanted to try something new rather than retread the already well beaten path.
So it's not about "fixing" WHFB in my opinion. Their hearts weren't in it anymore and that's why we have AoS. At the end of the day the creative output of GW is just a couple dozen of people.
There were rumors I think about a split in GW about AoS but don't remember whether respected source or just random bs.
Anyway maybe the designers were told to do it, and did it. It's been said for years that the creative is under the suits boot and even Rick Priestley said something along those lines. How do you tell that it's what they wanted?
It's like with Blanche sigmarines concept art. Did he do it because he wanted to, or because he was asked by his friends/ bosses? I'd love to know.
The second White Dwarf on the Silver Tower goes quite in depth into the design process of the game and I would recommend it!
While the decision to add "Fantasy Space Marines" may have been a decision from up top, the rest of the design process seems to be in the hands of the studio and begins with Blanche and Gallagher concept art, moves through to miniature design and then has fluff and rules written for it.
Again, with the shake-up of fantasy, it may have been called by the bigwigs up top, but the design team must have had full autonomy on how to go about it. I say this because we have design decisions (like the absence of points) which firstly go against the grain of all the competition (making it a bizarre risk to take - bigwigs usually like safe bets) and secondly are known to be the preference of the studio team leaders (we all know Jervis was a big fan of no points since his citadel journal article deploring them).
Rick's comments are obviously dated to the time he still worked at GW, and we can believe it was so until he left (although with a pinch of salt considering his new company is "hey we're GW making all your fav GW games before they turned evil" - so he obviously plays it up). But I think AoS has many hallmarks of the personalities leading the design studio (firstly the aforementioned lack of points - secondly the strong emphasis on a-symmetrical battles and narrative driven campaigns).
From Sad Panda we know Silver Tower has been fully complete since the launch of AoS. From the most recent article we know everything from the Silver Tower's setting, miniature design, rules design and even the idea to make a dungeon crawl boardgame based on the original Warhammer Quest were all decision handled by the design team and not the board members or whatever, it seems the culture which forced Rick Priestly to leave is no longer the status quo. If the Silver Tower had a similar development time to AoS (seems likely, the sculptor who did the Doomseeker did so immediately after completing the Fyreslayer range) - it would seem that the design team had lots of freedom in the creation of AoS too.
Maybe too much freedom. Which is why they are now being reigned in to include matched play (something the player base is desperate for - but is something the studio team don't seem to care for).
Sete wrote: Well at least warhammer generic fantasy battles is done.
What a boring setting.
It was dead on the water. Completely failed.
Glad they moved on pass that dead beaten horse.
Sete wrote: Im gonna be honest. Avengers was boring. I dunno why people like it. BvsS was by far a better movie. Perspective amd taste. I reckon.
I just made a post similar to a few I have read around here. Just changed AoS for WHFB. Not pleasant if you are a fan is it? Just trying to prove a point.
Well if you really thought that it was boring, generic, fail, dead beaten horse then why wouldn't you post it, pleasant or not. Only crap part would be that it's good that it's dead, there were actualy posts like that, "I'm glad that it's dead". I was like wtf, if you hate it just go somewhere else, why would you ever wait for this particular company to bring you what you want. I mean I hate Warmachine aesthetics (game is ok) but I'm not sitting here waiting for it to disappear from the face of earth. I'm accused here of being the AoS hater at all cost but I wouldn't like it to die because that would be crap towards those that invest serious money into it now, Sure a little dance on its grave maybe in the heat of the moment heh but I would immediatly say it's a dick move from GW instead of justifying it with pseudo economics bs let alone blaming the consumer base like numerous AoSers, kings of not being a douche, do here.
You also accidently touched part of the problem here. Yes whfb was generic and 40k is an amalgamate of blatant ripoffs where I have a hard time naming a single original thing. What made both stand out is a grimdark twist and OTTness where GW really excells (or excelled maybe looking at AoS), sadly AoS has none of it but is just as generic. Without the trademark GW edge there is nothing to really differentiate it from countless video or card or board game universes, whfb was something established and respected that al the others in the industry looked up to for inspiration but then GW decided to ripoff its own ripoffs for some reason and entered their turf of overly hopeful, epic, magical, colorful, planar and shining fantasy. And they got beaten already imo, without even mentioning the price.
Sure, Warhammer Fantasy was essentially generic fantasy. But can we really say that AoS isn't really generic?
I mean what do we have in AoS? When you drag it down to basics (in the same way you drag WHF down to it's basics to call it generic), AoS is a bunch of poorly defined worlds, fighting, in a battle between Generic Fantasy Humans, Generic Fantasy Dwarfs, Generic Dwarf Fortress Dwarfs, Lizardmen, Trees that will rape and eat you and Generic Fantasy Elves vs Big Necromancer and Generic Undead with some vaguely out there undead monsters vs Orcs and Ogres which are now basically just big orcs vs Skaven, Chaos Daemons, Beastmen and Warriors of Chaos, none of which have changed dramatically
And most of the specific original stuff within factions existed back in fantasy as well as in AoS
Bottle wrote: The second White Dwarf on the Silver Tower goes quite in depth into the design process of the game and I would recommend it!
I wouldn't exactly put too much stock into this. There have been a lot of "behind the design process" articles in White Dwarf over the years, yet none of them had a bored, irritated Rick Priestley muttering "this is what we were told to work on by Sales, even thought we didn't want to." It's almost as if White Dwarf isn't an independent journalistic investigation into GW, but some form of...advertising.
Bottle wrote: Again, with the shake-up of fantasy, it may have been called by the bigwigs up top, but the design team must have had full autonomy on how to go about it. I say this because we have design decisions (like the absence of points) which firstly go against the grain of all the competition (making it a bizarre risk to take - bigwigs usually like safe bets)
On the other hand, we do have actual independent journalism, as well as public statements in investor's reports, showing that Tom Kirby, the bigwig at GW during AoS' development, thought game rules aren't important except as a mechanism to sell miniatures - which makes a whole lot of sense when you break down its major design components, especially in relation to GW's earlier productions.
The problem there being that the game rules can have a drastic effect on the purchasing of figures if the gamers care about rules
For example, I never started a Skaven army in Warhammer, mainly because the game would have demanded I have a metric fuckton of models (both to buy and to paint), making it a much more difficult investment than with say, Ogres or Bretonnians
Bottle wrote: The second White Dwarf on the Silver Tower goes quite in depth into the design process of the game and I would recommend it!
I wouldn't exactly put too much stock into this. There have been a lot of "behind the design process" articles in White Dwarf over the years, yet none of them had a bored, irritated Rick Priestley muttering "this is what we were told to work on by Sales, even thought we didn't want to." It's almost as if White Dwarf isn't an independent journalistic investigation into GW, but some form of...advertising.
Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!
Bottle wrote: Again, with the shake-up of fantasy, it may have been called by the bigwigs up top, but the design team must have had full autonomy on how to go about it. I say this because we have design decisions (like the absence of points) which firstly go against the grain of all the competition (making it a bizarre risk to take - bigwigs usually like safe bets)
On the other hand, we do have actual independent journalism, as well as public statements in investor's reports, showing that Tom Kirby, the bigwig at GW during AoS' development, thought game rules aren't important except as a mechanism to sell miniatures - which makes a whole lot of sense when you break down its major design components, especially in relation to GW's earlier productions.
We're in agreement here. The people at the top didn't care for the rules and so gave the design studio full say in it. With Jervis leading it up, that's how we get a game with no points and narrative scenarios (as it fills his "director and film" idea of wargaming). There's probably more involvement from the top now considering the rocky start AoS had as a result of the rules + narrative.
Sqorgar wrote: My prediction *REDACTED*....also, in ten years, pants will be considered horribly dated and everybody will instead be wearing skolts (that's a skort (shorts + skirt) mixed with a kilt).
*speaks into lapel mic* He knows too much, He knows about the skorts! Bravo team, take him, NOW! Move, move, move!
Sete wrote: More future than WHFB as of now. Getting back on topic, these last few releases seem to have sold pretry well.
Ironjaws was well recwived as fleash eater court.
And Silver tower was a sucess aswell.
Such bad news for a game with no future.
Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!
You have to appreciate that WD has some form of bias to it - everything is the best thing ever! The writers will never mention anything they didn't like about it, so it's not a good source of information (except maybe partial background).
Sete wrote: More future than WHFB as of now. Getting back on topic, these last few releases seem to have sold pretry well. Ironjaws was well recwived as fleash eater court. And Silver tower was a sucess aswell. Such bad news for a game with no future.
Do you have any evidence for any of that?
Really? You don't read the forums? It was WELL RECIEVED on the forums. Someone somewhere always has to put a negative spin on something AoS or GW.
Sete wrote: More future than WHFB as of now. Getting back on topic, these last few releases seem to have sold pretry well.
Ironjaws was well recwived as fleash eater court.
And Silver tower was a sucess aswell.
Such bad news for a game with no future.
Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!
You have to appreciate that WD has some form of bias to it - everything is the best thing ever! The writers will never mention anything they didn't like about it, so it's not a good source of information (except maybe partial background).
Iron Jaws has got a lot of positive comments on DakkaDakka. It doesn't mean that AoS in itself is doing well as a game but these particular models seem to have been well received.
I've also seen some appreciation for Silver Tower as a game not just as a source of cheap figures.
Of course some people would say that what users say on DakkaDakka is irrelevant in the context of the greater scheme. (Which itself is an interestingly reiterative point.)
alex2781 wrote: Wondering people's opinions on GW's next long term move, do they push on with AOS or do they try and go back in time again before the end times etc. Apologies if there is already a thread like this, I had a brief look and couldn't find anything
*I'm not seeing every post so apologies if this is redundant.*
Alex2781, in short, I'm positive GW will stand behind and support AoS in the long term. While a specialist game or RPG or whatever may take players back to the World That Was eventually I really don't see WHFB returning (though BloodBowl will continue it its unique version of WHFB world). I think you should play more with scenarios, whatever models you like (instead of what you are told are "good" units) and never, ever play straight up pitched battle or straight starter box games. No point in rehashing shoulda-coulda-woulda but we have scenarios and they make the play experience even better. If you're looking to connect with the growing AoS community I recommend checking out TGA (tga.community) as its recent opening to the public serves as a fantastic hub to go find more players, sites, suggestions, sample scenarios, hobby blogs, and more. They aim to connect players with resources to go and enjoy our gaming experience.
AoS is getting more releases and this handbook will be a welcome and much-needed resource, though I doubt every tournament or event will organize solely on whatever matched play system looks like, or maybe they will. But it's a good start for those who desire an official system from GW. Fair enough. And if you are not getting the full experience you want on a forum go try TGA, look at multiple forums or if you do FB there are some wonderful (and large!) groups. If you or those in your area want to explore creating your own local scene there are excellent posts by Ben Curry (Bad Dice) on just that. What matters, of course, is that you enjoy your hobby. Despite whatever the Internetz says--good or bad or just ridiculous--none of us know what actually happens inside GW and we probably never will, so don't put too much stock in that. Finally, GW is open to feedback now and if you have a request, praise or complaint or question, email them and let them know. It apparently happens very very little, so we cannot expect GW to mine the various forums for info.
I think as a concept Age of Sigmar will do better in the long run. I'm a 40k player that wanted to get into WHFB but the entry price is insane. I would have to build gigantic detachments of units unless I played ogres. Fantasy didn't have formations or allied detachments or multiple CADs. Its restricting. The ability to get into a game by literally just buying whatever you think looks cool? That's a much better way to entice people to play. Especially when models are so expensive, not everyone has time or money to buy/build filler units.
And yes that's for people getting into the game, about the actual game itself? Watching battle reports its honestly not much different from 40k even without the 300 pages of rules (funny huh). I mean its lacking a lot of the variety but the game is new and in time that problem will fix itself with more releases. The thing that people are the most upset about is the randomness of the armies, which GW is already fixing with the future point system.
Yea, I'd be pissed if a game I played got discontinued. No gak, we all would be. But to say that AoS has NO future? Please. In fact more people have been interested in getting into the fantasy setting more than ever now than when 8th edition was a thing.
While I concur that is has a future, I have seen absolutely nothing that would convince me that it is more or even as successful as warhammer was. I am actually a solid player of AoS and can tell you from MY experience ( and I readily concede that it is a regional thing) getting a game of AoS is harder than finding a snipe in Estes Park. The game is not well received and I have taken to hunting for opponents here online, when I used to be able to simply walk into any local store with my army and get a game.
thekingofkings wrote: While I concur that is has a future, I have seen absolutely nothing that would convince me that it is more or even as successful as warhammer was. I am actually a solid player of AoS and can tell you from MY experience ( and I readily concede that it is a regional thing) getting a game of AoS is harder than finding a snipe in Estes Park. The game is not well received and I have taken to hunting for opponents here online, when I used to be able to simply walk into any local store with my army and get a game.
Yea gutting half their model line didn't help either. I think they need the updated rules right away and to show people that it works (if it works, hopefully). From my experience 40k has always been more popular in stores, and I wonder if Scifi is just more exciting to most people. I mean its hard to compare anything in fantasy/AoS to the goddam Baneblade or Imperial Knights. 40k gets scifi fans, modern combat fans AND ww1-ww2 fans interested.
SCiFi is usually more popular in the US and I usually see it more, too. But 40K has its own problems now. AoS is working through its growing pains but there's also so much changing in the hobby in general over multiple games so, we live in interesting times Still see this as a golden age of miniwargaming though.
Don Savik wrote: The ability to get into a game by literally just buying whatever you think looks cool? That's a much better way to entice people to play.
Sadly I believe that the Generals Handbook is going throw this statement away and people will be taking the "best" choice instead of taking what is cool or what they want. It can be like 40K and Fantasy Battles all over again.
Don Savik wrote: The ability to get into a game by literally just buying whatever you think looks cool? That's a much better way to entice people to play.
Sadly I believe that the Generals Handbook is going throw this statement away and people will be taking the "best" choice instead of taking what is cool or what they want. It can be like 40K and Fantasy Battles all over again.
Davor, I can understand that concern but I guess that comes to down the people you play, options and trial and error. We've been having a blast playing our Open Match, using a player made comp or just houserules. While we're eager to see Narrative PLay (we kinda do that already) I doubt we will have to be relegated to a situation where the matched play becomes the only and least appealing option. We've got options and networks like TGA to connect us and discuss interests in the game, armies and hobby before we show up and meet for a game.
Anyway, bed time and fading fast but I hope you get the gist of this post.zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz
Bottle wrote: Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!
Speaking as someone who's worked on similar internal promotional publications, well...I'm glad some people will still believe everything they read. Means my industry's not going away any time soon.
Bottle wrote: We're in agreement here. The people at the top didn't care for the rules and so gave the design studio full say in it. With Jervis leading it up, that's how we get a game with no points and narrative scenarios (as it fills his "director and film" idea of wargaming). There's probably more involvement from the top now considering the rocky start AoS had as a result of the rules + narrative.
Oh, the c-levels absolutely cared about the rules - in so much as they either helped or hindered the sales of miniatures. After all, there's no more restrictions on what can be bought and used, either from differing army lists or from points values. You just buy exactly what you want and feel free to use it in any scenario. The simplicity of the rules and low buy-in were almost certainly handed down from on high as a reaction to the (very real) shortcomings of WHFB as well. The designers may or may not like this stuff, who knows, but they didn't just happen to craft a ruleset that acts as a frictionless sales tunnel for GW's primary product. GW's declining sales volumes were a big factor in how AoS was crafted and pushed.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with frictionless sales tunnels, mind you. Matching business goals with consumer wants is what companies should always try to do. AoS, tho, was always weighted too heavily and too obviously towards the former, which was made all the worse by GW's arrogant assumption that they could simply dictate the latter with impunity. It's been nice to watch the customers teach them one hell of a lesson regarding that particular Business 101 concept. Hopefully GW's current turn towards apology by way of engagement isn't as insincere and short lived as it has been in the past.
Bottle wrote: Sure, you can believe they are lying through their teeth if it helps with your conspiracy theories!
Speaking as someone who's worked on similar internal promotional publications, well...I'm glad some people will still believe everything they read. Means my industry's not going away any time soon.
I can see our conversation slowly devolving into smarmy belittling comments, and I'd rather not. Sure I understand White Dwarf will have a positive spin on everything but I do not think they outwardly lie about anything as you are suggesting. The bias in White Dwarf is only as real as the anti-GW bias Rick Priestly will bring to interviews and media outlets will spin for clicks.
My main point was to counter everyone citing AoS's design as something handled solely by accountants and marketing when the design choices can just as easily be related to the preferences of the Design Studio (and especially Jervis).
In truth, it's only speculation from either side - but when met with tides of forum users shouting on side only as truth, it only makes me want to voice the other side too.
In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.
All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.
As has been reported many times, the default scenario is indeed mixing in the middle and rolling a load of dice. Play scenarios instead. The game opens right up.
The complaint about AOS being a board covered in elite minis doesn't make sense to me because that was exactly my experience with WHFB as well. Min/max gameplay has been around as long as there has been an internet.
If anything I see much more diverse armies in AOS than I ever did in WHFB in any edition. WHFB was the same copy/paste armies over and over again. 8th edition was the definition of this to include taking as many wizards as you can to max out on six dicing for the win "tactic".
My inclination is once AOS official points are a thing that that will happen to AOS as well, but for now things are more diverse on any table I've played on in pretty much twenty years.
In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.
All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.
Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.
seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.
Seriously, all I got from that post was you miss ranking up and core tax.
Which is fine if that's what you want to see, but not exactly objective criticism of AoS as they don't apply to a number of popular game systems either.
Gimgamgoo wrote: In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.
All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.
Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.
seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.
If you say so or you can create wedges that can only be wounded on the tip then they can pile in and attack with more force, or curves that can get more than a rank worth of models into combat, hollow squares for bubble wrap or to use as collapsible traps. or you know you can just scrum in the middle... thing is if you have blocked infantry you cant do the formations ive mentioned but you can still scrum all your stuff in the middle, huh? guess AOS does have tactics guess, you just have to use your head a bit.
Gimgamgoo wrote: In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.
All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.
Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.
seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.
If you say so or you can create wedges that can only be wounded on the tip then they can pile in and attack with more force, or curves that can get more than a rank worth of models into combat, hollow squares for bubble wrap or to use as collapsible traps. or you know you can just scrum in the middle... thing is if you have blocked infantry you cant do the formations ive mentioned but you can still scrum all your stuff in the middle, huh? guess AOS does have tactics guess, you just have to use your head a bit.
Probably true, I'm not disputing it as I don't have enough experience of the game.
However, GW are not doing themselves any favours. All their photos seem like models set up in an overly massive mix to sell them. That Total War photo set up looked like an actual game that people might be having fun with.
Maybe if GW had photos making AoS look like a game rather than a massive diorama they'd have more chance of winning people back.
Any skirmish game allows you to make such formations because you've got freedom of movement of the models.
Historical games feature formations like wedge or square if they are historically accurate.
The difference in a more detailed historical game would be fore example the morale bonus from being in square versus cavalry and the penalty against artillery.
A lot of the AoS battle report pictures by "real players" not GW do show block formations. However GW are selling an exciting dream, not practicality.
I think there's a difference here between photos of a game in progress and photos of models set up to look like they're fighting.
Which to be fair, GW has a lack of the former because that's not really what they're trying to "sell". They want to promote the cinema of the game, rather than the game itself. Which again is pretty common across most games manufacturers. You don't see many official photos from PP, Mantic or whoever that show people with tape measure in hand - they show photos of Commander Sorcha storming the Cygnar fortress, the Infected attacking security forces, etc.
RoperPG wrote: I think there's a difference here between photos of a game in progress and photos of models set up to look like they're fighting.
Which to be fair, GW has a lack of the former because that's not really what they're trying to "sell". They want to promote the cinema of the game, rather than the game itself. Which again is pretty common across most games manufacturers. You don't see many official photos from PP, Mantic or whoever that show people with tape measure in hand - they show photos of Commander Sorcha storming the Cygnar fortress, the Infected attacking security forces, etc.
It wasn't the people in the shot that made it look 'gamey'. It was the way the table was laid out.
GW's current style of photos is just to cram as many as possible on a board. The overcrowded chaotic mess does not look like it will lend itself to a game. All they have to do is make the units look like part of a game. It doesn't need people with official GW tape measures in hand to have a good photo of a game. They don't have to have game photos like this all the time, but once in a while would make it feel like AoS is a game, not just an advert for minis.
Part of the problem of getting any of my ex-WFB friends to even try AoS (including myself), is the misconception that it's all about pushing your models to the middle and rolling dice. GW's own photos do nothing to dispel that idea - more likely they add to it.
Also, White Dwarf weekly used to have photo's of the editorial team and use them by name in articles. It made it feel personal and the games playable. Now it's become even more corporate advertising than it was. Hopefully some of these obnoxious changes will be reversed under this new (seemingly better) regime at GW,
Gimgamgoo wrote: GW's current style of photos is just to cram as many as possible on a board.
It's not really a new style from GW, I can open any old army book or rulebook from the 90's and find pics of huge armies positioned about 4" away from each other. Maybe they were just a bit more varied back then (like, they had battle reports of games to somewhat offset the scenes that are just meant to look like a spectacle
Pushing your models to the middle and rolling dice is a feature of WFB, WarMachine and a lot of other games---unless somebody's defending, running a gunline, etc. and turtling up on one table edge. In those cases it's move the models to the other guy's edge or remain in your own table half and roll dice for ranged attacks.
Google warhammer fantasy battle report and look at the immediately obvious center table fighting that's going on in the majority of the photos.
Gimgamgoo wrote: In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.
All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.
Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.
seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.
Yeah had thought the same when I skimmed through it in my local game store. Just re-enforces what I feel was a big mistake from GW in completely abandoning WHFB as it really was a missed marketing opportunity; it also looks silly to any prospective customers or people looking in who see the old WHFB ranked up stuff in the videogame and wonder what's happened to it.
Gimgamgoo wrote: In the latest White Dwarf.... The saddest thing was seeing that shot of the Total War crew playing Warhammer on a full size table....
It looked interesting. Like they were playing a proper game. They had clearly defined units.
Those shots in White Dwarf made me long to buy a box of troops and paint them up to add to a game of Warhammer, but sadly, those days have gone.
All I see of AoS is a board covered in elite minis in a random mix of all over the board.
From all the pics I see of AoS, I get the impression it's a mass of elite models and all you do is make sure they mix in the middle and roll a load of dice using MtG style combos.
Meh.
Remove the models from GW games there's nothing of worth left.
seems to sum up GW for me. And GW are removing half the models themselves.
Yeah had thought the same when I skimmed through it in my local game store. Just re-enforces what I feel was a big mistake from GW in completely abandoning WHFB as it really was a missed marketing opportunity; it also looks silly to any prospective customers or people looking in who see the old WHFB ranked up stuff in the videogame and wonder what's happened to it.
ya pretty much. You play total war see ,assive amounts of troops fighting a giant, or a spider. Calvery trying to flank ect. Walk into a GW witha AoS game going on and you see 5 elite choices ( a moving) into the center while two kids throw dice at each other. Everyone wants to be the one of a kind hero to kill everythig, no one wants to be a trooper. When everyone is heroes the game is boring, I actually thought silver tower would replace AoS play a hero get everything.
Plus the game looks sloppy and un attractive, nothing throws off a game more then seeing a ork warboss with a group of ogres running across the world.
privateer4hire wrote: Pushing your models to the middle and rolling dice is a feature of WFB, WarMachine and a lot of other games---unless somebody's defending, running a gunline, etc. and turtling up on one table edge. In those cases it's move the models to the other guy's edge or remain in your own table half and roll dice for ranged attacks.
Google warhammer fantasy battle report and look at the immediately obvious center table fighting that's going on in the majority of the photos.
People tend to forget that aspect of WFB a lot these days
Indeed. In fact one of the biggest complaints from 2010-2011 (the first year of 8th ed) was that most games degenerated into smacking bellies in the center of the table waiting for one mega death star to run and lose the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as much as I love frostgrave, we often spend some time in the center smacking each other around until we kill enough (in FG you don't flee)
ya pretty much. You play total war see ,assive amounts of troops fighting a giant, or a spider. Calvery trying to flank ect. Walk into a GW witha AoS game going on and you see 5 elite choices ( a moving) into the center while two kids throw dice at each other. Everyone wants to be the one of a kind hero to kill everythig, no one wants to be a trooper. When everyone is heroes the game is boring, I actually thought silver tower would replace AoS play a hero get everything.
Plus the game looks sloppy and un attractive, nothing throws off a game more then seeing a ork warboss with a group of ogres running across the world.
Oh don't you worry, the lord and hero spam is on the way for total war.
True that AoS favors elite skirmishes but large armies of core troops piling into eachother after marching in ranks, surrounding giant monsters to wear them down and making more formations than just blocks such as squares to protect artillery and casters can also be seen at times. To say nothing of the solo heroes, the firing into combat mechanics and use of powerful (and very hard to kill) cavalry to get the enemy's guarded wizard or ranged units in their flanks and rear.
Really i think AoS just lacks routing when it comes to the overall similarities to TW.
True that AoS favors elite skirmishes but large armies of core troops piling into eachother after marching in ranks, surrounding giant monsters to wear them down and making more formations than just blocks such as squares to protect artillery and casters can also be seen at times. To say nothing of the solo heroes, the firing into combat mechanics and use of powerful (and very hard to kill) cavalry to get the enemy's guarded wizard or ranged units in their flanks and rear.
Really i think AoS just lacks routing when it comes to the overall similarities to TW.
I don't know that I'd go so far to say that AoS has a 'firing into combat' mechanic. It just doesn't tell you that you can't, which isn't the same thing. Total War has friendly fire which is affected by unit positioning, unit height, and so forth.
AOS has lots of really excellent Battleplans (i.e. scenarios).
You only end up in a big mob in the middle if you play all melee in scenario-less "kill everything" games. But then isn't that the point.
Even then I myself play with a backfield Dwarf Artillery group and forward ranging skirmish troops. The latter is cheap, and spread out in numbers. Corresponding my opponents have learned to use fast units to flank around my skirmish line to get at my Artillery (and the Cogsmith) - instead of getting bogged down in the middle.
For once, it would help to diversify the armies in AoS. Fluff-wise the "righteous" factions surely wouldn't recklessly fire into their own ranks for obvious reasons. However, I can see Orcs n Goblins doing the same thing, since they have a similar disregard for their allies' wellbeing.
BertBert wrote: For once, it would help to diversify the armies in AoS. Fluff-wise the "righteous" factions surely wouldn't recklessly fire into their own ranks for obvious reasons.
Stormcast eternals are shown in the fiction to frequently shoot in melee. They even go so far as to target the front ranks of the enemy engaged with their own front ranks - this is attributed to the supreme skill of the judicators lore-wise.
It's still a stretch to call it a mechanic. Troops in melee are treated just like troops standing in the open for the purposes of being targeted by shooting. There's no penalty, no chance of hitting your own guys, nothing.
I'd like to see more shooting into combat, myself, and not just with skaven - but there needs to be some sort of downside. Not just for the purposes of balancing, but also because it seriously breaks immersion. What, every goblin with a curved branch and bit of grimy string is Legolas now?
I think the 'good guys' should be able to do it as well, but I also think they should be roundly mocked by their opponent every time they shoot one of their brave champions of order in the back
BertBert wrote: I see. I'm not too famiiar with AoS publications. So you're saying they shoot into melee because they are skilled enough to never hit an ally anyway?
Yes. The front line soldiers have absolute faith in them not to hit them and so far it has not happened. Also, they have been shown to use quick and coordinated tactics like dispersing their frontline troops so that crossbow men can shoot through the gaps which are swiftly closed afterwards.
hobojebus wrote: Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.
I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?
You know that's the only reason..
As BertBert said though, I always thought the greenskins should have that as well since they couldn't care less about eachother's well-being.
BertBert wrote: I see. I'm not too famiiar with AoS publications. So you're saying they shoot into melee because they are skilled enough to never hit an ally anyway?
Indeed, their bolts are also made of magical energy so another justification can be that their armor is made to be immune to their own shooting via repelling that energy. In the similar manner of how Romans made their armor to resist being shot by their own weapons(such as ballista bolts)in case an enemy captured and used them.
@Spinner, that could be a good idea. Maybe a bravery penalty or doubling the battleshock casualties by shooting into combat.
Thanks for elaborating! Stormcast could be the exception, then.
For the rest of the armies, however, a change might be in order.
At least for Skaven, since using their own units as literal cannonfodder has always been an integral part of their character and battle tactics. It's really weird that suddenly they can blast and bomb the battlefield without repercussions.
I'd suggest making it a high-risk-high-reward-thing, akin to how the ratling gun worked back in WHFB.
For example: Add +1 to all hit rolls if the target unit is engaged in melee with a friendly unit. If the unit is hit, roll another D6: If the roll is 1-2, the damage is allocated to your own unit instead (or to both units)..
This would reflect the treacherous nature of the skaven and also represent the enemy being pinned down by a horde of rats, not being able to dodge incoming fire.
@Spinner, that could be a good idea. Maybe a bravery penalty or doubling the battleshock casualties by shooting into combat.
I dunno - as I understand the AoS rules, that means that if you're winning, there's absolutely no penalty for firing into combat. Something like BertBert's suggestion for skaven makes more sense to me, but I'd honestly prefer 'misses hit your own troops'. It's simple, requires no extra rolling, and draws a clear line between skilled and unskilled archers.
hobojebus wrote: Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.
I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?
yeah, and the reason is that skaven are massive d-bags to each other and would do that. I could see orcs doing it, but as an accident (due to incompetence)
hobojebus wrote: Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.
I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?
yeah, and the reason is that skaven are massive d-bags to each other and would do that. I could see orcs doing it, but as an accident (due to incompetence)
I could see them doing it as a laugh. Or because Ratgit in that mob over there spat on the archer's favorite boots, so who cares if he gets shot in the back? Or the archer's buddy Groblug is bored and bet him five teef and his second-best squig that he couldn't put an arrow in that stunty's eye before Morgash krumps him. Or...
hobojebus wrote: Only army that should fire into combat is skaven.
I know I'm going to regret asking, but... do you have anything other than "because that's what used to happen" as an explanation?
yeah, and the reason is that skaven are massive d-bags to each other and would do that. I could see orcs doing it, but as an accident (due to incompetence)
I could see them doing it as a laugh. Or because Ratgit in that mob over there spat on the archer's favorite boots, so who cares if he gets shot in the back? Or the archer's buddy Groblug is bored and bet him five teef and his second-best squig that he couldn't put an arrow in that stunty's eye before Morgash krumps him. Or...
Greenskins are the best.
Love it, I love my night goblin/grot force, they are ridiculous little doofus army, I even traded for silver tower to add the spidergrots
Baron Klatz wrote: In the similar manner of how Romans made their armor to resist being shot by their own weapons(such as ballista bolts)in case an enemy captured and used them.
That's not the case at all. Romans used softer metals for their pillum tips so they'd bend in the ground after being thrown and were useless as returning fire. No way could segmenta lorica (spelling?) withstand a ballista bolt.
I guess you could magic away the risk of hitting your own guys, but making everyone so good at it they can't cause friendly fire is like something out of a video game. Maybe make the odds of SCE causing friendly fire rare (like on 1's), but make it pretty likely for skaven/goblins/beastmen
Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).
We use two house rules for firing during/into melee to make it more risk reward anyways, try them out:
Into melee: to hit rolls of a one are resolved against friendly models.
During melee: models in base to base contact cannot shoot ranged attacks unless they have the hero or monster keyword.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).
I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.
It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.
In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).
There have been a few cases in history where a commander in a position called down artillery on his own location as he was being overrun by an enemy attack. It is very unusual, though.
I think in 40K some armies should be allowed to shoot at their own men pretty routinely. I can see IG, Orks and Tyranids doing it.
Kilkrazy wrote: There have been a few cases in history where a commander in a position called down artillery on his own location as he was being overrun by an enemy attack. It is very unusual, though.
Sorry, that happens, but it's a last resort and normally when the unit is essentially already lost. It's not something you'd do in a normal battle.
I think in 40K some armies should be allowed to shoot at their own men pretty routinely. I can see IG, Orks and Tyranids doing it.
For the IG at least, life is regarded as cheap, so risking shooting at your own men seems fair enough if the reward is right, but I don't think the same would apply to fantasy and AoS in particular. Maybe Chaos would find it reasonable to kill some of their own to bring down a Sigmarine?
I like Warmahordes how you can target your guys, though soon can't charge them, rightly. But I was hoping that was the case but I see how the rules say enemy model. Oh well, still funny at times.
Kilkrazy wrote: There have been a few cases in history where a commander in a position called down artillery on his own location as he was being overrun by an enemy attack. It is very unusual, though.
Sorry, that happens, but it's a last resort and normally when the unit is essentially already lost. It's not something you'd do in a normal battle.
I think in 40K some armies should be allowed to shoot at their own men pretty routinely. I can see IG, Orks and Tyranids doing it.
For the IG at least, life is regarded as cheap, so risking shooting at your own men seems fair enough if the reward is right, but I don't think the same would apply to fantasy and AoS in particular. Maybe Chaos would find it reasonable to kill some of their own to bring down a Sigmarine?
Well the khornates upon first seeing a stormcast were pushing past each other and trampling others to get into combat. They were that excited to see a new foe.
I think that it makes more sense when you realise there is no 'locked in' combat in AoS. Merely that if you are within 3" of an enemy unit you can pile in and attempt to attack, you can also leave that bubble (with a small penalty). Why does it make more sense for a unit to be able to shoot the enemy when they have friends an inch away from them in WFB. Cos they aren't locked in combat and you are looking at it with some abstraction? Do the same with AoS.
Dai wrote: I think that it makes more sense when you realise there is no 'locked in' combat in AoS. Merely that if you are within 3" of an enemy unit you can pile in and attempt to attack, you can also leave that bubble (with a small penalty). Why does it make more sense for a unit to be able to shoot the enemy when they have friends an inch away from them in WFB. Cos they aren't locked in combat and you are looking at it with some abstraction? Do the same with AoS.
Well, in WHFB abstraction made sense, while in AoS there is absolutely no need for abstraction, since they went down in scale. Each model does now represent exactly and only itself and the rules should be able to cope with that. If you are not a super-soldier (which, granted, many individuals in AoS may be) you will not switch to a ranged weapon when engaged in close combat. It's a question of priority and reason.
@Herzlos, just to clarify, by bolts I mean those dart-like projectiles, not the javelins they usually shoot that would skewer a horse. (It was shown on a documentary with test-firing that the armor could survive the impact.)
We're getting a little off topic here (par the course as usual), I was comparing the shooting in combat to TW not RL.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).
I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.
It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.
In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).
Really I think WW had many instances of such things happening and short range arrow fire into two blocks of infantry fighting doesnt equal 50/50 unless you generally close your eyes when you shoot?.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).
I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.
It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.
In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).
Really I think WW had many instances of such things happening and short range arrow fire into two blocks of infantry fighting doesnt equal 50/50 unless you generally close your eyes when you shoot?.
Have you ever tried firing an arrow at a target that's moving back and forth? I can barely hit a static one. It's probably not 50/50, as it'd depend on the number of bodies moving about in your way, but it's a whole lot lower than 100%.
Zognob Gorgoff wrote: Meh real life disagrees about shooting into combat otherwise there would be less use of the terms green on green, friendly fire and collateral damage. Personally I think its fine (the game mechanic, that is).
I can't think of a single example of friendly fire that hasn't been due to misidentification or incompetence - No-one in real life is stupid enough to open fire on an enemy whilst there are friendlies in the area, unless it's absolutely critical.
It's an absolutely crazy tactic and no sane general would try it, unless treachery is afoot, or your using conscripts or foreign soldiers or something.
In game, shooting into melee / scrums there should be about an even chance of hitting your own guys (like every other game).
Really I think WW had many instances of such things happening and short range arrow fire into two blocks of infantry fighting doesnt equal 50/50 unless you generally close your eyes when you shoot?.
Have you ever tried firing an arrow at a target that's moving back and forth? I can barely hit a static one. It's probably not 50/50, as it'd depend on the number of bodies moving about in your way, but it's a whole lot lower than 100%.
Arrow no, gun yes, but thats not the point as im not trained in either and am not in a fantasy world being portray via a 'game' so what ever but seriously if your replying to my whole point then, it never was 100%, lets take SCE judicators who are mortal heroes reforged by a godly being, they hit on a 3+ so whats that two thirds of the time they hit, as of the game they care not if it is a charging horse, a static gun line or a swirling melee, they find there mark 2 out of 3 shots, so i'm not changing that part as thats a can of worms right there and as no one else is either pointing out that obvious discrepancy, i see little issue with the melee part if you dont draw issue with the to hit versus charging cavalry vs static gun line part but after all thats another tangent, back too melee shooting, my house rule was they hit friendlies on a 1, as they hit on a 3+ that leaves hitting nothing on a 2, seems like a fair spread, Id rather not have it so there's zero chance of hitting the ground after all, that being the largest target. As for my point to answer the 'goodies' not shooting into combat and there apparently not being a single example of such things what do you reckon happened to all the people in no mans land during WW1/2 that got wounded or just went to ground out of fear or failed charge when they started shelling the each others trench lines again? Thats not accidental green on green, that the horrible truth of wars. For a more thematic example, romans used to throw javalins at short range over the front lines of melee and I'm sure there has been plenty of times when a block of infantry has been failing or being routed and the commander orders volleys of arrows down onto its foe, or you know he could wait for everyone to die first while the enemy obviously stay put and dont advance while thats happening so they can take turns like in the game?! Seriously shooting into/out of combat maybe op as a game mech but canonically it makes senses and logically is totally plausible. If you wanna nerf it more be my guest this is a game you play with friends try out different stuff. You wanna further put the pressure on how about you use my hit friendlies on a 1 rule and add that any friendly casualties count against the shooter for bravery tests, then you could have some flee as they dont like the idea of friendly fire. You could further the effect with a to hit chart for shooting into combat: To Hit 2+ = miss on 1 = no FF (super human) To Hit 3+ = miss on 2 = FF on 1 (highly skilled) To Hit 4+ = miss on 3 = FF on 1 or 2 (averagely skilled) To Hit 5+ = miss on 4 = FF on 1, 2 or 3 (reckless abandon) To Hit 6+ = miss on 5 = FF on 1, 2, 3, or 4 (legally blind)
If people like the models then its likely, as GW seem to be recently positively progressive, which is not normally in there vocab i can see it winning a lot of favor long term as the more stubborn and apposed see more and more changes in GW that they like and agree with.
So they hit 2/3rd of the time, what happens when they miss? Where's the risk/reward part of the strategy? If nothing can go wrong, then it's an automatic to shoot in. If your misses cause hits on your own guys, or the target is randomized somehow, then you at least get to decide if it's worth it.
It's one of these things that for me at least breaks immersion.
Re trenches - a lot of people were killed by suppressing barrages, but the enemy lines were separated.
Re Romans throwing pilum over the front rank; there's still a huge difference between throwing a spear over the man in front of you into an enemy unit you haven't engaged with yet (I don't believe they did it whilst engaged? but even if they did, the risk is pretty low unless you really feth up).
Re opening fire on destroyed friendlies, fair enough.
I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.
Whilst I'm sure I'll get accused of goalpost shifting here (because I was too vague earlier), you still haven't given me a single example of real life willful friendly fire that is an equivalent to the in-game effect we're discussing.
Herzlos wrote: I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.
You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?
Herzlos wrote: I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.
You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?
Which is exactly why a free pass for every faction does not work. They need to differentiate between the armies, and we need a rule to represent it. As it is, it is just shallow.
Herzlos wrote: I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.
You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?
Which is exactly why a free pass for every faction does not work. They need to differentiate between the armies, and we need a rule to represent it. As it is, it is just shallow.
It is a bit shallow but like. loath or indifferent, thus far AoS just does not want to make things that complicated (faction wide special rules that change core mechanics).
Herzlos wrote: So they hit 2/3rd of the time, what happens when they miss? Where's the risk/reward part of the strategy? If nothing can go wrong, then it's an automatic to shoot in. If your misses cause hits on your own guys, or the target is randomized somehow, then you at least get to decide if it's worth it.
It's one of these things that for me at least breaks immersion.
Re trenches - a lot of people were killed by suppressing barrages, but the enemy lines were separated.
Re Romans throwing pilum over the front rank; there's still a huge difference between throwing a spear over the man in front of you into an enemy unit you haven't engaged with yet (I don't believe they did it whilst engaged? but even if they did, the risk is pretty low unless you really feth up).
Re opening fire on destroyed friendlies, fair enough.
I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.
Whilst I'm sure I'll get accused of goalpost shifting here (because I was too vague earlier), you still haven't given me a single example of real life willful friendly fire that is an equivalent to the in-game effect we're discussing.
Personally I don't think it matters. The game is very much a game, not a simulation, and it's a very simple game. The designers have chosen to allow missile units to shoot in and out of melee, presumably to make them a bit more valuable and effective.
That's what it is. I don't see it affecting the future of AoS in any significant way. Everyone who dislikes that rule enough probably already has decided not to play
Except it's littered with dozens of special rules for pretty much anything. It's not a particularly simple game.
Anyway, to me, something like that totally breaks immersion, and is another place where strategy seems shallow. I can't see it changing in the future or having any real impact, no.
I suspect that if one found several hundred chaps and spammed "no shooting in CC or sales are going to suffer" on GW's facebook page there's a chance that they'd cave in/ If nothing else the addition of points, softback books, FAQs and main story line driven by events showed that nowadays if the customers demand something from GW hard enough there is a good chance they'll get. (either as a threat to hurt sales or the promise of a boost if enough people give their voice for it)
Herzlos wrote: Except it's littered with dozens of special rules for pretty much anything. It's not a particularly simple game.
Anyway, to me, something like that totally breaks immersion, and is another place where strategy seems shallow. I can't see it changing in the future or having any real impact, no.
There aren't many special rules that cannot be found on warscrolls though. I suppose they could put such a special rule on every warscroll with CHAOS/ORDER/DESTRUCTION/DEATH keyword and that has a shooting attack. It would nerf shooting units a fair amount though given the speed of things and largely short range of missile weapons in this game. It isn't something that particularly bothers me but I could live with it.
Not sure I would like to see it filtered down much more than that though.
Edit - dozens of special rules for pretty much anything is a bit much, most units have 2-3 tops and even many of them are fairly standardised such as usually re-rolling 1's to hit for 2 hand weapons.
Back to the future of AoS, By next summer (only my guess) I expect to see:
the results of this summer campaign weighing in
all older models repackaged or revamped
next stage in meta after RGW
New factions splash release for all the remaining legacy army/races
more terrain
significant fluff development by BL tounaments using matched play, but events using narrative or open play
Aelfs in fullplay
Seige rules (or equivalent, like 40K has planet strike - realm strike?)
Replacement for TK & Brets
...hmm, what else?
I ask, as I think they have been quite clever with siege/assault games in terms of leveraging the core rules.
The Dreadhold Warscrolls add some bits and pieces, like garrisoning towers, but the core rules alone make storming walls a very, very difficult proposition. Basically, unless a model is tall enough to sweep the ramparts (or can fly), you simply cannot take the walls if there are defenders all along them (because of the way the move rules work and that you cannot charge through enemy models, so there is just no room for you). You need to clear the walls first with spell and missile support which ain't easy for most armies. The other option is to storm the gates - which, as anyone who has tried it can tell you, is a complete bear if there is so much as a sprinkling of defenders around it.
I have been quite impressed by these games, even without additional rules!
Seriously. I understand the game is not a simulation but come on.
To open the gate you have a tug of war with the other side to prevent the gate from opening / open the gates?
Some of the rules are ok but that one right there kills it for me.
I added siege rules to Azyr Empires that are based more on the old siege rules from 5th edition where you have to break down the gates... not tug of war them open.
I ask, as I think they have been quite clever with siege/assault games in terms of leveraging the core rules.
The Dreadhold Warscrolls add some bits and pieces, like garrisoning towers, but the core rules alone make storming walls a very, very difficult proposition. Basically, unless a model is tall enough to sweep the ramparts (or can fly), you simply cannot take the walls if there are defenders all along them (because of the way the move rules work and that you cannot charge through enemy models, so there is just no room for you). You need to clear the walls first with spell and missile support which ain't easy for most armies. The other option is to storm the gates - which, as anyone who has tried it can tell you, is a complete bear if there is so much as a sprinkling of defenders around it.
I have been quite impressed by these games, even without additional rules!
Rrrrrrreally? Cool, didn't know that. Less and less ways for my gaming buddies to avoid using big terrain Hear that, Mortal Realms hosts? We're trying out these rules. I know you're watching...
To open the gate you have a tug of war with the other side to prevent the gate from opening / open the gates?
Well, those are the mechanics (it is on an opposed roll for those of you not familiar). But think of it this way: that bit in the Lord of the Rings (or any fantasy movie with a siege in it, really) where the guys from Rohan are trying to hold the gate against the Uruk-Hai. This reflects that perfectly.
If it helps, think of it less as pushing and more as the attackers battering away while the defenders desperately try to shore the gate up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VeteranNoob wrote: Less and less ways for my gaming buddies to avoid using big terrain
And speaking of that...
In Fantasy Battle, you kinda had to prep for a siege assault game - special scenario, rules, units, etc.
Not with the Dreadhold - you can pull it out for pretty much any scenario (be it a single Skull Keep, Magebane Wall or entire fortress), and it will just work with no additional thought/preparation needed.
Seriously, give it a whirl. I have been properly impressed with the Dreadhold, from the ease it slides into games to the way you can build up a huge fortress in little bite-sized chunks that do not hurt your wallet. Someone at GW sat down and thought long and hard about this kit.
Herzlos wrote: I'm not saying fethups don't happen, what I'm saying is that if you were a real general, and one of your units was engaged with an enemy, you wouldn't order another unit to open fire on that melee (with any weapon) unless you had some sociopathic lack of concern for your own men.
You mean like orcs would have? Or chaos? Or undead? Or skaven? Or even a simple nobelman who had just ordered a rabble of worthless peasant militia to engage the enemy's elite soldiers to hold them in place so his archers can kill the much more valuable enemy troops?
Which is exactly why a free pass for every faction does not work. They need to differentiate between the armies, and we need a rule to represent it. As it is, it is just shallow.
Alternatively, the base rules allow for the commanders who WOULD do that to do that without needing special rules, and you, as the commander, get to make a choice whether you would do that yourself or not.
It's a bit easier to say "you can do this, unless you don't want to" than it is to say "you can't do this unless you're X Y Z"
Alternatively, the base rules allow for the commanders who WOULD do that to do that without needing special rules, and you, as the commander, get to make a choice whether you would do that yourself or not.
It's a bit easier to say "you can do this, unless you don't want to" than it is to say "you can't do this unless you're X Y Z"
Except then nobody would actually use this rule, because it'd be a severe handicap. It would also never be used in an "official" context like tournaments and many people would be outright opposed to such a modification because "it's not in the official rules".
I'd rather have a comprehensive ruleset with more restrictions that I can trim down if needed, than a loose ruleset where I have to make things up myself and pray that my opponent is ok with them.
Alternatively, the base rules allow for the commanders who WOULD do that to do that without needing special rules, and you, as the commander, get to make a choice whether you would do that yourself or not.
It's a bit easier to say "you can do this, unless you don't want to" than it is to say "you can't do this unless you're X Y Z"
Except then nobody would actually use this rule, because it'd be a severe handicap. It would also never be used in an "official" context like tournaments and many people would be outright opposed to such a modification because "it's not in the official rules".
I'd rather have a comprehensive ruleset with more restrictions that I can trim down if needed, than a loose ruleset where I have to make things up myself and pray that my opponent is ok with them.
What rules modification are you making? I'm saying that YOU can decide that YOUR commander/troops would not fire into combat. The enemy commander still gets to choose whether or not they will. No rule modifications in place.
It's the same as deciding whether or not your force uses unit X or unit Y. Don't need to convince anybody to adopt anything, you just need to not do what you don't want to do.
What rules modification are you making? I'm saying that YOU can decide that YOUR commander/troops would not fire into combat. The enemy commander still gets to choose whether or not they will. No rule modifications in place.
It's the same as deciding whether or not your force uses unit X or unit Y. Don't need to convince anybody to adopt anything, you just need to not do what you don't want to do.
I could do that, but my opponent might not want to deliberately gimp his own units the same way. In that case I'd have achieved nothing except handicapping myself. If there were a rule in place, my opponent would be bound to do the same thing, esuring a certain degree of fairness and common sense, and we could still discuss exceptions.
I guess my overall opinion on it is that it's a fluff issue. It should be handled in fluff rather than crunch.
Adding a rule that says you can't do it gives arbitrary restrictions on what can be done in game and/or necessitates additional special rules (as if warscrolls aren't cluttered enough as it is! Now we need to add a rule for Skaven, Orc, Chaos, seedy humans, Dark elf, incredibly skilled archers and any other warscroll that can justify shooting into melee. Or entirely remove it as an option.
I don't think it's a shortcoming of the game that it allows you to choose whether to shoot into a melee or not.
edit: just wanted to add that you HAVE achieved something. Playing your army according to the fluff of your army.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Restrictions are a crucial part of any game, and AoS is no exception. They decided to include shooting into melee in order to simplify the game, which is fair enough, but by doing that we are stuck with a highly counter-intuitive mechanic, when instead we could make a meaningful tactical decision, which could add some well needed diversity to the different armies.
Counter intuitive to some but not everybody. Very likely that if WFB had always allowed shooting at anything during the combat phase or if there were no 'locked in combat' in WFB/40k that this would not even be an issue.
BertBert wrote: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Restrictions are a crucial part of any game, and AoS is no exception. They decided to include shooting into melee in order to simplify the game, which is fair enough, but by doing that we are stuck with a highly counter-intuitive mechanic, when instead we could make a meaningful tactical decision, which could add some well needed diversity to the different armies.
I don't find shooting into and out of melee highly counter-intuitive.
You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?
Spinner wrote: You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?
No more than the existence of the giant in the first place.
If I wanted realism, I'd play historicals. I like my fantasy gaming.. well, fantastical.
Spinner wrote: You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?
No more than the existence of the giant in the first place.
If I wanted realism, I'd play historicals. I like my fantasy gaming.. well, fantastical.
Some of us like our fantasy at least a little believable.
What's intuitive about firing into/out of combat? By this I mean "once combat has been entered", and not "whilst closing into combat".
There's fantasy and then there's fantasy. I'll buy that a dragon can fly or that orcs are a thing, but I've never liked handwaving obviously implausible elements as 'oh, it's fantasy, away with your realism'. There's got to be logical cause and effect and consistency. Maybe it could work for an exceptionally heroic character, but Steve Stormcast pulling off shots into a swirling melee without scratching a single one of his buddies? Or, better yet, Freddy Freeguilder doing the same from horseback while being swarmed by plague monks and their choking death-incense?
Other people may set the bar at different places, of course, but that argument is one of those that never sat right with me.
Spinner wrote: You don't find a dude with a crossbow firing it across the battlefield without penalty while an angry green giant is trying to wrench it out of his hands and force-feed it to him a little counter-intuitive?
The thing is that even in fantasy, some basic things need to be maintained in order to make it believable. This is why everyobody is fighting with swords and axes, and not with marshmallows on sticks. Stormcast Eternals are clad in thick armor, because they are supposed to resemble actual knights (although heavily stilized).
The whole context of Warhammer, and even AoS, is derived from a very real context. When we see a soldier with a bow shooting a heavily armoured enemy, our first instinct is that the bow should probably be ineffective. A two-handed Hammer, on the other side, should do just fine in making the guys head ring.
In the same vein, we expect troops to flee when the battle is going against them and we instinctively assign roles to different unit types, because that's how it did work in the real world, back when these types of battles actually took place.
You can't ignore realism, becuase it's realism what makes these things accessible in the first place.
There is something in what you say. Most fantasy games are essentially spiced up mediaeval battles.
But surely the point of fantasy (and SF) is that it doesn't have to follow historical precedents. All sorts of imaginable things can be played with as workable game rules! If not, just stick with historical rules. There's plenty of variety available in that genre already.
One of my complaints about AoS is that it isn't fantastic enough. It's just a retread of the familiar tropes of generic fantasy fiction and combat.
Some of the intuitive and highly gamist elements of AOS do indeed turn me off. Shooting into combat with no penalties, or indeed the ability to be engaged fully in combat and able to just turn around and shoot at something outside of combat is to me the pinnacle of gamey gamist gamism that does for the most part wreck immersion for me.
However I have found that the vast majority of people that I play games with simply don't care about immersion or mind gamist gamey things. They are just rules mechanics to them. So I have a choice... deal with it or find something else to do with my time.
One of my complaints about AoS is that it isn't fantastic enough. It's just a retread of the familiar tropes of generic fantasy fiction and combat.
I'd agree here, AoS should be more fantastic. But it isn't; it is as you say, medieval gaming with some fantasy thrown in. But since it's using familiar tropes in pretty standard ways, they should behave something like you'd expect. A humanoid archer* would be expected to behave like a humanoid archer and being able to fight someone with presumably 1 or more limbs** whilst loading and firing a bow* is pretty much impossible, no matter how much you shout magic.
So aye, they should try and be more original, but until they do that, they should probably try and remain credible for the low fantasy world they are using.
*Why are they using a conventional looking bow? Couldn't they be using some sort of magic bolt shooter*** or bug-sling or something?
**Why have they still only got 2 arms? If they had 4, they could totally fight with 2 and shoot with 2. Why not give them 8 and let them fight twice and shoot twice?
***I know Sigmarines have magic Bolt Stormers, but everyone else has pretty mundane looking weapons.
Funny thing is in todays movies shooting into combat is something you see all the time. Pretty boy elf guy in LoTR did in every battle. Hawkeye dies it all the time kind of his thing. Almost all the Robin Hood movies have it. Braveheart had it, heck even the amazon in Hercules did it.
So where it would seem unrealistic it does make great entertainment , and in the end thats what its about.
I would be more accepting of a hero being able to do it. Like Legolas, or Robin Hood or any heroes really wouldn't bother me.
But we're not just talking heroes. We're talking every unit in the game doing it.
Indeed they did it in Braveheart. And they killed their own guys doing it.
If you could hurt your own guys by choosing to shoot into a combat I'd also be fine with it, because I'd expect that to be a consequence.
I find it grossly immersion breaking when I shoot a regular old mortar into a combat and magically only the other guy is hurt by it. Or a regular old cannonball blasts into a foray but magically only my enemy is ever hurt by it.
No, no. People are actually getting hit, it's just that it's only the other side.
Auticus and Herzlos summed up my thoughts on it. If shooting into/from combat without penalty was only for heroic archer types, or the game was entirely about incredibly skilled demigods and daemons battling each other in the service of deities (which, honestly, sounds like a much cooler game - they could have just set it in the Realm of Chaos and arrrgh I'm thinking of another way they could have done their open-ended blank-canvas-setting skirmish game better), then I wouldn't have a problem with it...especially if they took a moment to say "these guys are superhuman archers, they'll always find the chance to get that one shot in" or something like that.
But it's not. You've got Stormcast fighting Skaven, Chaos Warriors fighting Goblins, and so on and so forth. The individual power of warriors runs the gamut from god-like to snotling, and every single one of them can fire while trying to fend off a charging boar-monster just as well as if they were safely on a hill behind a comforting wall of spears, and the reason for that is simply because the rules don't say otherwise. It's less a mechanic or quirk of the setting and more 'the designers didn't have time/want to be bothered', much like a lot of other things about Age of Sigmar.
I should think that sort of thing would be top priority if you're trying to make a cinematic narrative-forming experience (tm), but hey.
Spinner wrote: No, no. People are actually getting hit, it's just that it's only the other side.
Auticus and Herzlos summed up my thoughts on it. If shooting into/from combat without penalty was only for heroic archer types, or the game was entirely about incredibly skilled demigods and daemons battling each other in the service of deities (which, honestly, sounds like a much cooler game - they could have just set it in the Realm of Chaos and arrrgh I'm thinking of another way they could have done their open-ended blank-canvas-setting skirmish game better), then I wouldn't have a problem with it...especially if they took a moment to say "these guys are superhuman archers, they'll always find the chance to get that one shot in" or something like that.
But it's not. You've got Stormcast fighting Skaven, Chaos Warriors fighting Goblins, and so on and so forth. The individual power of warriors runs the gamut from god-like to snotling, and every single one of them can fire while trying to fend off a charging boar-monster just as well as if they were safely on a hill behind a comforting wall of spears, and the reason for that is simply because the rules don't say otherwise. It's less a mechanic or quirk of the setting and more 'the designers didn't have time/want to be bothered', much like a lot of other things about Age of Sigmar.
I should think that sort of thing would be top priority if you're trying to make a cinematic narrative-forming experience (tm), but hey.
I agree, but I think its rather a case of "we don't want to bother the players with too many rules" and I'm not sure that's much better. No matter what form of entertainment, be it music, movies, literature or (PC-)games: There is a disturbing trend of making everything less complex and less sophisticated, which for me translates almost always into "less satisfying".
Some of us are actually firmly in the 'sure, shoot into combat without penalty, just make sure it makes sense in the setting and for the guys involved.' camp. Which it doesn't.
I agree, but I think its rather a case of "we don't want to bother the players with too many rules" and I'm not sure that's much better.
That could very well be it too. On the one hand, simplifying rules bloat is a good thing. On the other, they cut the wrong ones and then added five billion rules for shield types immediately after...
In terms of immersion, it only really breaks when you drop trebuchet shots onto a character in the middle of a swirling melee. Even when it's my cannon crew shooting out of combat into another unit across the board, I usually imagine a hilarious "Pirates of the Caribbean" style fight scene where my crew duck and jump over sword swipes whilst loading their cannon.
In a game where the ebb and flow of battle is structured into turns of one side moving followed by the other, I think we can abstract that some of the shooting into combat may have come before the charge struck or during a respite in the fighting. Or maybe they're only aiming at the back ranks away from friendlies? In 8th the opposite could be true, as you could never shoot into combat (IIRC) there would be times when a perfect flank manoeuvre on a massive bus unit would give you ample targets to shoot into, but you couldn't.
I think it's important to think about AoS missile units too. There are hardly any war machines left in the game, they were one of the keywords to be most heavily dropped and since AoS we have not seen a single new war machine. We haven't really seen much traditional missile units either, the only real example being the Judicators and the Knight Venator (which are super human demi-gods), otherwise the ranged attack comes from things like Fyreslayer throwing axes and such, which seem perfectly reasonable to have being thrown into combat.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just to add a little bit more. I don't think I've ever had someone complain about 40k where pistols and other small firearms can be used in combat, yes you are not shooting out of your combat into another, but in reality you would still have bullets flying all over the place hitting friendlies left right and centre. It's a mechanic we're used to. And for WHFB veterans, not being able to shoot into combats is also a mechanic people are used to.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Too add a little bit more:
You can think about it narratively like this;
I am playing a game where in a single turn my opponent moves forward with a caster, which summons up a unit of nasties about 9" away from me and then they charge into my ranks of archers and start wreaking havoc.
If they couldn't shoot into that combat, I guess I have to imagine my archers where just staring at the flowers and butterflies whilst the nasties charged them. Although a 6' by 4' table realistically represents the size of a car park, from the way we set up terrain (with 3 trees being a "wood" and two buildings being a "village" - that 9" could represent quite the distance).
If we're allowed to shoot into the combat, you could instead imagine that all those shots come from the units reacting to the charge by the nasties before they reached the enemy lines or something.
"Just to add a little bit more. I don't think I've ever had someone complain about 40k where pistols and other small firearms can be used in combat"
Its the concept of the unit in combat turning around and using their small firearms at another unit outside of the combat that they are in. That is to my knowledge not represented in any media I have ever written or watched.
We're also talking about a unit of goblin archers firing blindly into combat and only hitting the enemy.
I can deal with a hero doing it. They are heroic. I can't meld my mind into a unit of goblins doing it.
From a gamist standpoint...who cares. Immersion doesn't really matter if the game is the most important factor.
For someone like me that uses the game as a vehicle to write stories, I find the stories to be very outlandish in some instances. Its hard to write about how a warmachine explosion only hurts the enemy all the time because it doesn't operate like any representation of a warmachine would operate save for one that is magically geared to only target the enemy... which is how all warmachines are now.
The giant rock you flung into combat spreads somehow to only hit the enemy.
It is silly.
If immersion isn't really a goal of enjoyment, then it is not a problem.
I don't mind shooting into combat. I mind that there are no consequences of doing so because shooting into a swirling melee should mean your buddies can also get hit. For things like heroes I can forgive that, as the media produced legolas shooting into combats, and I'm fine with that... but non heroes shouldn't be able to do that with impunity IMO.
For me that was a big problem and likely will be throughout my lifecycle of playing AOS.
I see the point people are making, and although I offered a few explanations (like the shots were fired when the unit was still charging and yet to have arrived) I can see there are some instances that would seem silly not matter what way you looked at it (for example rocks landing only on a character in a giant combat that has been going on for turn after turn).
It's an interesting point on how willing people would be to house rule against it. In a competitive setting I wouldn't want to, as I think it is there mechanically to prevent units taking cover in combat like they could in, say, 3rd edition 40k with "sweeping advance". It is especially needed in my opinion as AoS allows for double turns (letting you charge and destroy a unit, with the chance to charge again).
In a narrative setting I would be fine to ban shooting into combats, but where do you draw the line? A troll vomiting into combat, archers shooting into combat and rock lobbers lobbing rocks into combat are all covered by the same rules.
And they all fall foul of the same issue; there are no consequences.
I think maybe it's a perspective thing. I like my fantasy low (grubby humans fighting large but believable monsters) and have experience in dozens of games where shooting into combat is handled sensibly (it's either forbidden or there's some risk of friendly fire). If you've got the other perspective (elite armies of heroes fighting other elite armies of heroes) then superhuman abilities suddenly start to seem more reasonable and statements like "that'll never happen" become less likely.
I probably find the (lack of) rules here a lot more jarring because they could have fixed it in 22 words
If you shoot into a combat involving a friendly unit, any misses count as a hit the friendly unit. Resolve as appropriate
Or even less (10 words)
When shooting into combat, randomize the target before resolving hits
But apparently this never came up once during either play test.
When shooting into combat, randomize the target before resolving hits
But apparently this never came up once during either play test.
If it only said this then units shooting into a combat they were part of would have to randomise to see if they had hit themselves. (e.g. A unit of Judicators in combat with some Bloodbound Would have a 50/50 chance of shooting themselves?)
Combats with more than 7 units would be a pain to randomise too and you might have a very "big" combat that resulted in something like an 8" range throwing axe hitting the battlesmith in the face 20 inches away.
If there is 100 goblins in combat with a single hero, do I have a 50/50 chance of hitting either unit? Seems silly
If there is 100 goblins in combat with 2 heroes, am I 2/3rds more likely to hit the heroes than the goblins? Even sillier.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Do you randomise targets, hits, wounds or damage? If you randomise before damage you get odd happenings like cannon shots either hitting all of one side or all of the other side (as each cannon ball is one shot but D6 damage) if you randomise before damage, how do you calculate save rolls?
Is it always 50/50 to shoot? Here is a recent photo of one of my games. A battle wizard in combat with Nagash:
Should it be 50/50 to hit if I shot into this combat? Or do you want to add in extra rules about units with certain keywords like 'Monster' being able to be targeted?
I don't think there can be an eloquently written rule. Instead you would need pages to go over everything and for what real worth?
How we did it before my community said no more houserules ever was that a 1 to hit hits a friendly model.
Was real quick and easy and gave *some* consequence to doing so.
If a model was by itself, this would not apply (meaning a troll by itself in combat vomiting) but if a cannon on the troll's side fired into the troll's combat, a 1 to hit would hit the troll instead.
IMO this worked great and lowered the "jarring shock value of immersion breaking" for me, but my community are largely competitive and don't want any house rules involved so they were all for the most part nixed with the exception of whatever SCGT uses since SCGT is to the community the same as "official GW" now.
I think it was considered, and binned.
AoS is far more fluid and wandering than WFB was. Units typically move farther, cover a wider area, and most importantly spend a lot more time in combat. It's not WFB or KoW where a gun line can pretty much sit back and wait, so you need to think about ranged troops differently.
You either ban shooting into combat, allow it, or have to figure out the complicated middle ground. As Bottle's example shows, even a simple attempt at making melee shooting 'believable' can still be ridiculous.
The middle ground is too complicated for a rule set as simple as AoS, and banning it doesn't exactly chime with the overall permissive tone of the game, especially as combat will come up *a lot*.
Played a 3-way game Saturday and they play with no shooting into/out of combat and it wasn't really a big diff. but it was interesting to play again with no shooting that way. I thought it would be more impactful to step out of that play style again but it was really meh. No pelting the foe with slightly annoying nerf axes, though no chance to bleed magma on the enemy in shooting as well as combat phase. But we were discussing how little it actually mattered for our immersion in playing.
When shooting into combat, randomize the target before resolving hits
But apparently this never came up once during either play test.
If it only said this then units shooting into a combat they were part of would have to randomise to see if they had hit themselves. (e.g. A unit of Judicators in combat with some Bloodbound Would have a 50/50 chance of shooting themselves?)
Combats with more than 7 units would be a pain to randomise too and you might have a very "big" combat that resulted in something like an 8" range throwing axe hitting the battlesmith in the face 20 inches away.
If there is 100 goblins in combat with a single hero, do I have a 50/50 chance of hitting either unit? Seems silly
If there is 100 goblins in combat with 2 heroes, am I 2/3rds more likely to hit the heroes than the goblins? Even sillier.
I thought this game was all about using a framework to discuss the best way to do stuff with an opponent?
Fair enough then, how about "When shooting into combat, resolve any misses as hits against a friendly unit of your opponents choosing". 17 words.
I genuinely don't think it was considered at all. I'm convinced the game was built around Sigmarines with everything else tacked on afterwards.
Fair enough then, how about "When shooting into combat, resolve any misses as hits against a friendly unit of your opponents choosing". 17 words.
So now I shoot into combat and any misses can be resolved against one of my units not even in the combat?!
Hmm, this rule writing is hard isn't it
That's why games companies have professional writers and play testing
Bear in mind, I've spent a total of a couple of minutes on this with no testing, editing or reviewing, whilst waiting on stuff to compile at my real job.
"When shooting into combat, resolve any misses as hits against a friendly unit in that combat of your opponents choosing"
Where it'll probably break down if it's a 3+ way battle and there are no friendly units.
RoperPG wrote: ...but that then means that shooting at a combat is 100% accurate...
Well if you fire an arrow into a large mass of people, you're going to hit *something*, you just can't decide who. The shots that miss entirely are going to be statistical outliers?
RoperPG wrote: ...but that then means that shooting at a combat is 100% accurate...
No. That is why you roll to hit first. Once you have a "hit" then you resolve who is it against. 50/50 just like how LotR did it. And only the bad guys could do that.
Oh I was so hoping that AoS would have been based of LotR rules, game would have been oh so much better in the beginning.
RoperPG wrote: ...but that then means that shooting at a combat is 100% accurate...
No. That is why you roll to hit first. Once you have a "hit" then you resolve who is it against. 50/50 just like how LotR did it. And only the bad guys could do that.
Oh I was so hoping that AoS would have been based of LotR rules, game would have been oh so much better in the beginning.
Uh, no. The roll to hit means you hit someone regardless of result. There's no room for "total miss" in Herzios' system.
You can't argue that ranged troops never hit their own side through training or whatever isn't realistic, then claim that they'll never miss a big target is.
Add +1 to hit rolls when firing on a unit that is currently engaged in melee. Roll another die for every hit. If the result is 1-3, resolve the damage on the other unit instead. If there are more than two units engaged in the same melee, throw a die to determine which unit is hit instead of the original target.
This way, shooting into melee becomes a tactical decision. Do you want to risk peppering your own troops for a better chance of hitting in the first place? Are your units more expendable? Are your troops more resistant to missile fire than the enemy?
BertBert wrote: Add +1 to hit rolls when firing on a unit that is currently engaged in melee. Roll another die for every hit. If the result is 1-3, resolve the damage on the other unit instead. If there are more than two units engaged in the same melee, throw a die to determine which unit is hit instead of the original target.
This way, shooting into melee becomes a tactical decision. Do you want to risk peppering your own troops for a better chance of hitting in the first place? Are your units more expendable? Are your troops more resistant to missile fire than the enemy?
So there's 3 River trolls within vomit range of 100 zombies in combat with a goblin hero. There's now a 50/50 chance of the Trolls vomiting on the Goblin Hero rather than the Zombies. Seems more ridiculous than shooting into combat risk free in my opinion.
BertBert wrote: Add +1 to hit rolls when firing on a unit that is currently engaged in melee. Roll another die for every hit. If the result is 1-3, resolve the damage on the other unit instead. If there are more than two units engaged in the same melee, throw a die to determine which unit is hit instead of the original target.
This way, shooting into melee becomes a tactical decision. Do you want to risk peppering your own troops for a better chance of hitting in the first place? Are your units more expendable? Are your troops more resistant to missile fire than the enemy?
So there's 3 River trolls within vomit range of 100 zombies in combat with a goblin hero. There's now a 50/50 chance of the Trolls vomiting on the Goblin Hero rather than the Zombies. Seems more ridiculous than shooting into combat risk free in my opinion.
Vomit is not very accurate and can splatter all over the place Jokes aside, the rule needs tweaking, in order to account for all eventualities. Many of those could be covered by adding a unit treshold, enabling only units within shooting distance to be affected in the first place, and so on.
No. No it isn't. As has already ably been shown, trying to get the situation to 'model' produces results that are just as unrealistic in their own way.
Murder your darlings, as they say.
Nah, we're suddenly at a lot more realistic, even if the wording needs a bit of work.
Of course, it's suddenly a lot less cinematic as well.
I like Malifaux's way of doing it (it's a low model count skirmish game): for each model in combat, you use the cards to randomly select a target (highest drawn card gets hit) and then resolve shooting as normal. There are a couple of special rules that manipulate it, but that's the jist of it.
So in AoS you could have something like: "When shooting into a combat, randomly select one of the engaged units and resolve attacks against them." I think it's fair to leave the randomly part up to the user, because it's irrelevant. You can either go for a Dx where x is the number of units, or roll for each unit and the highest/lowest gets hit.
That covers you for 3+ units being engaged, but it does mean that a single hero is as likely to get hit as a 60 goblin horde. I think that's a fair compromise for the sake of simplicity (because you don't want to go down the route of randomizing models or factoring in size or dexterity).
Sure, not everyone will be happy, but it's better than nowt.
I'd go with something like roll to hit, then again for any hits - any misses on the 2nd roll are treated as hits but assigned to another unit in the combat by the owner of the original target unit. Hits on the second roll are assigned to the target unit.
Still not ideal though.
I feel shooting into combat, and shooting in general, would be less of an issue if people used more terrain and added LoS blocking walls and such...I never played WHFB but it seems to me like terrain wasnt a very big part of the game and AoS rules for placement only enforces playing with few pieces. If everything can hit anything whenever, it makes shooting that much stronger. My two cents.
(kidding about the I win part, but yeah go on and say how great Bolt Stormers are to show that these are not Space marines who's leader is on a Space Station.)
