judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Replacing a turd with a bigger turd will only attract the applause of Coprophiliacs

Shrug, I thought Age of Sigmar was absolutely utter gak until I saw others playing it, and then played it myself, and realized it's a really goddamn fun little skirmish game. It's the first fun thing GW has made since shedding all of their veteran games designers in the late 2000's.

More power to you

 Manchu wrote:
It is certainly easier to remember something fondly when it's gone. I feel a kind of nostalgia for the Old World now completely unsupported by any affection for it circa 2014.

To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

I personally said my good-byes five years ago. Warhammer 8 was like a bizarre Weekend at Bernie's, watching a handful of people having fooled themselves into thinking it was still alive and responsive.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Hey! I didn't say I liked it. I said I didn't mind
I mean it still had potential for further genocide and it's still better than blowing up the entire fething world....

True! In the context of the wider carnage it wasn't much, but it could still have been handled better. I get the image of GW as a guy, hat and coat on, stuffing as much office stationary into his briefcase as possible before he runs out the door and away from the wastepaper fire he just started:

"Almost done... what's that? The elves? The sundering? Well, er... um... Malekith was king all along. Byeee!"

RoperPG wrote:You only have to look at the perpetual cycle of litigation between Apple, Samsung and Google for an example of IP policing that only really benefits lawyers.

Well they had to fix up something when the hog farming fad died off.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW have trademarked the newly invented name "Ratiocinator" for a new type of Sigmarine for the Games and Toys category.

Not sure if serious.

Google.

Okay then.

judgedoug wrote:Regardless, WTF is Chapterhouse doing in this thread?

An example of how shortsighted GW was and how it might have contributed to their current apparent shortsightedness?

The best thing to happen to Warhammer was the End Times and Age of Sigmar. Otherwise we would have had the same stagnant Warhammer world that we've had since 1982 whose only advancement would be in how many times any plot advancement could be quickly hushed and forgotten

Who needed advancement? The Empire itself had about 2,500 years of grimdark history and battles to explore, and the rest of the world a few thousand years before that, too. Arguably more than historical gamers have to play with. (Although it's balanced by Warhammer cultures being a bit less diverse and a lot more static.) One of the most interesting White Dwarf articles in my short time as a WFB fan was a two-parter potted history and scenario campaign about the War of the Beard. Also the 6th/7th ed revisits of the Battle of La Maisontaal; the Return of the Lichemaster; various articles about Lustria, including campaigns and rules for amazons, norse settlers, vampire pirates; lots of variant army lists; Warhammer Chronicles, The Wayfarer's Companion, Olde Weirde's Incunabulum...

and how many new regiments/unit types could suddenly appear out of nowhere - oh gak, well of COURSE the Empire always had demigryph knights! The Empire always had clockwork steam powered steeds!

Well, can't argue there. Even with steam tanks, clockwork horses, griffons (jade or otherwise), battle wizards etc., I thought demigryph knights was when the Empire jumped the shark from relatable, struggling, stoic humans to just another fantasy race with big, goofy, vaguely WOW-ish stuff.

Though I'd suggest it's because GW's attitude of 'they'll buy anything we sell, that's the hobby' turned round and bit them on the arse. They had to keep releasing new stuff for all armies, running out of space in their shops etc. because the players had been conditioned to expect it. For all the sniggers at the idea of the GW hobby = buying GW products, I've seen a few people express how that's what they look forward to for each new edition or army book.

Although I'm not totally with judgedoug on this, I can see where he's coming from.

Warhammer Fantasy was officially killed off in 2014, but in truth, I have to admit the Warhammer Fantasy I came to love had been dead for a while when the AoS hammer struck. In fact, my feeling of near-absolute disconnexion with what Fantasy had become in its 8th edition is perhaps the reason I wasn't truly bothered by the End Times and what came after that.

 Vermis wrote:

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Hey! I didn't say I liked it. I said I didn't mind
I mean it still had potential for further genocide and it's still better than blowing up the entire fething world....

True! In the context of the wider carnage it wasn't much, but it could still have been handled better. I get the image of GW as a guy, hat and coat on, stuffing as much office stationary into his briefcase as possible before he runs out the door and away from the wastepaper fire he just started:

"Almost done... what's that? The elves? The sundering? Well, er... um... Malekith was king all along. Byeee!"

Spot on, good Ser. Spot on

 judgedoug wrote:
To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

I personally said my good-byes five years ago. Warhammer 8 was like a bizarre Weekend at Bernie's, watching a handful of people having fooled themselves into thinking it was still alive and responsive.

I also pretty much stopped playing Warhammer in 8th. I had high hopes for what they would do with "9th edition"... but like you said, I had already made my peace with it, and am happy to move on to Kings of War personally (since my group is, along with the tourney circuit, which is something I always aim for with large army projects).

However, even though you apply the terms to yourself, I really think terms like "pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing" is the kind of thing that polarizes the argument so much. You (and I) had already said our goodbyes, and so were fine - but for others who felt gut-punched (and had, say, bought everything in End Times leading up to AoS, and suddenly no longer had a group that wanted to play) of course they had a strong reaction (again, just like how you felt in 2010). So no need to use belittling language like that towards those who had not yet "said goodbye" to fantasy, just because you / I / some others had!

It is actually a bit of a wider warning in my mind, that GW is willing to basically can anything that isn't 40k (LOTR, specialist games, and now fantasy - although it's fantastic specialist games might see some sort of new life after a long time in the "unsupported" grave). This is also why I'm hesitant to pick up AoS - I can see GW is highly committed to it and investing in it, but that doesn't mean they won't remove support for it or go in another direction if things don't work out, just like with fantasy. I personally think they'll stick with it for a long time, and the dwarf release should really help show where they want to go with it outside of marines / khorne, but I am not going to take the chance... same reason I don't use most GW paints after they kept making key paints OOP that I was using and I had to panic-buy up a lifetime supply

GW management decided they needed more narrativeplay and the design studio thought a story arc is what happens when you drive the plot bus off a cliff.

Thus WHFB died.

I guess they ended up with two settings on the WHFB dial: nothing happens and everything happens/ends. By contrast, a story of sorts is unfolding in the AoS campaign books although the plot is necessarily a setting for miniatures battles campaigns.

judgedoug wrote:fun little skirmish game

Well, that's the problem. I've seen people say its a fun, quick, little game, and that it's great to play with their kids, and so on, and I don't doubt them.

But you could say the same of Snakes 'n' Ladders or Ludo.

judgedoug wrote:To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

I personally said my good-byes five years ago. Warhammer 8 was like a bizarre Weekend at Bernie's, watching a handful of people having fooled themselves into thinking it was still alive and responsive.

I said my goodbyes before that, sometime during 7th edition. Though I had already lost most of my interest in 6th ed, ironically the same edition I jumped in on. But like I said - despite clunky rules, staggering prices, and the increasing OTT nature of the fluff - there was still a lot of explorable background, interesting models, and 'true' hobby potential to hook me and keep me hooked in that short time.

Why am I still here, pouring out my nerd tears and gnashing my geek teeth? There are plenty of other, deeper, sleeker, cheaper, better games out there. I guess it's because, like others, I haven't said all my goodbyes and I am still hooked. I don't know if GW really chases the young-teen starter-set crowd, or if that's who really propped up GW; but there was always a little bit of hope that GW would haul itself out of the stupor it was in, and recognise that a big chunk of it's (lapsed) fanbase were older gamers, who still liked the background, might prefer more tactical, less chromey rules, and didn't like being jerked around with rules churn and insulting prices.

Warhammer was in bad shape at the end of 8th, but it only died because GW killed it. There were some basic, fundamental issues that GW could have recognised and improved. (And no, that's not the mythical hundred-and-one contradictory power boosts that an 'unpleasable'* fanbase screamed and wishlisted for) If the last few editions of WFB were meandering downhill, in the opposite direction of those issues, then AoS was like jumping off a cliff. Not only did they make the rules even less tactical and a lot more chromey, and the prices even goofier despite the unsustainable smaller starting point, they even wiped out almost the whole background that had successfully hooked gamers since 1982. As stagnant as it might have been. And somewhere down the line, the old world minis we might use in other games, whether from ebay or elsewhere, will soon disappear. The Warhammer world disappeared in the fluff, and it might soon fade away in the real world too. Some of us with a little hope left, suddenly have a lot less.

Now a lot of it is just watching GW's ford escort careening down the road, right into the path of that 8-wheeler roaring in the other direction. Will they straighten up in time and avoid that almost inevitable, morbidly fascinating crash? With a Sigmarine at the wheel...?

*If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years.

 Vermis wrote:
*If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years.

Perfect example of unpleasable fan comment.

 Vermis wrote:
background that had successfully hooked gamers since 1982

Or maybe had not successfully hooked gamers since 2002?

The conversation cannot move forward until posters realize that (a) AoS is not being designed for the kind of people who hate it for not having points, being too "chromey," or having OTT fluff and (b) saying AoS is not enough like the product line it replaced is an argument in favor of AoS.

Can you report a mod for trolling?

If you're going to sit there and mock me, give me a better reason for it than the extremely lame "ho ho ho that's just what someone like that would say". Don't just snort at one throwaway line; pick my whole post apart. Tell me all the magical, excellent stuff that GW has done recently, that has outweighed horrible rules, horrible prices, horrible business practises, horrible behaviour, and sent their sales figures soaring into the stratosphere.

 Vermis wrote:

I said my goodbyes before that, sometime during 7th edition. Though I had already lost most of my interest in 6th ed, ironically the same edition I jumped in on. But like I said - despite clunky rules, staggering prices, and the increasing OTT nature of the fluff - there was still a lot of explorable background, interesting models, and 'true' hobby potential to hook me and keep me hooked in that short time.

Why am I still here, pouring out my nerd tears and gnashing my geek teeth? There are plenty of other, deeper, sleeker, cheaper, better games out there. I guess it's because, like others, I haven't said all my goodbyes and I am still hooked. I don't know if GW really chases the young-teen starter-set crowd, or if that's who really propped up GW; but there was always a little bit of hope that GW would haul itself out of the stupor it was in, and recognise that a big chunk of it's (lapsed) fanbase were older gamers, who still liked the background, might prefer more tactical, less chromey rules, and didn't like being jerked around with rules churn and insulting prices.

Warhammer was in bad shape at the end of 8th, but it only died because GW killed it. There were some basic, fundamental issues that GW could have recognised and improved. (And no, that's not the mythical hundred-and-one contradictory power boosts that and 'unpleasable'* fanbase screamed and wishlisted for) If the last few editions of WFB were meandering downhill, in the opposite direction of those issues, then AoS was like jumping off a cliff. Not only did they make the rules even less tactical and a lot more chromey, and the prices even goofier despite the unsustainable smaller starting point, they even wiped out almost the whole background that had successfully hooked gamers since 1982. As stagnant as it might have been. And somewhere down the line, the old world minis we might use in other games, whether from ebay or elsewhere, will soon disappear. The Warhammer world disappeared in the fluff, and it might soon fade away in the real world too. Some of us with a little hope left, suddenly have a lot less.

Now a lot of it is just watching GW's ford escort careening down the road, right into the path of that 8-wheeler roaring in the other direction. Will they straighten up in time and avoid that almost inevitable, morbidly fascinating crash? With a Sigmarine at the wheel...?

*If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years.

Very well put.

I believe that a lot of people who had left Warhammer in 7th/8th still "cared" (so to say, of course) because they would be coming back if the rules had been improved as long as the fluff remained. Regardless of the stale taste that it had acquired, and for all the flak it takes, the Old World fluff was good enough to keep a quiting player's attention even after the game itself proved not to the player's liking - it kept them on the outskirts of the Warhhamer "thing".

Well "GW never even tries to please me" really is exactly what an unpleaseable fan would say. I mean, it's impossible to manufacture a more scathing parody (and it's not a parody; you actually posted that!) of the worldview which assumes you are the target of a series of releases that you don't like and that you not liking something means no one else possibly could.

 Manchu wrote:
Well "GW never even tries to please me" really is exactly what an unpleaseable fan would say. I mean, it's impossible to manufacture a more scathing parody (and it's not a parody; you actually posted that!) of the worldview which assumes you are the target of a series of releases that you don't like and that you not liking something means no one else possibly could.

"GW never even tries to please me" =/= "If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years."

Juuuuust sayin'.

Right, they are not the same exact words, it's merely the same exact sentiment. If someone does not even consider themselves a fan then they have even less reason to speak for all so-called fans.

 Manchu wrote:
The conversation cannot move forward until posters realize that (a) AoS is not being designed for the kind of people who hate it for not having points, being too "chromey," or having OTT fluff and (b) saying AoS is not enough like the product line it replaced is an argument in favor of AoS.

I've posted this before:

There's a very strange relationship between character/plot development and maintaining the status quo. Changing said status, if done poorly, may result in a Dork Age. A Dork Age is a period in a franchise, especially Long Runners, where there was a dramatic change of concept or execution, usually to stay current, and it simply did not work.

This fundamental change is often an attempt to attract new fans. Unfortunately, that usually does not work. Worse, the change does not go over well with the established fans. Generally, the more dramatically something diverts from its basics, the more likely it's the beginning of a Dork Age.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DorkAge

It sums up AoS perfectly for me. I agree that AoS is not built for me and gamers like me. That's the problem. GW didn't have to go chasing mythical new customers (more of a myth than points systems!) who so far don't seem to flocking to the product. (We'll see in a couple of years) They just had to turn one eye towards legions of existing gamers who have an eye turned towards them.

Oh, and:

saying AoS is not enough like the product line it replaced is an argument in favor of AoS

In what universe does that make sense, even if the AoS line turned out a little more restrained than it did?

 Vermis wrote:
In what universe does that make sense

The one in which we live. One reason GW felt it could so drastically change gears with AoS is likely that there was nothing to lose.

That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan. It's possible to make an observation like that without being a part of it, just like I could say "Warmachine caters to a competitive player base" without being competitive myself.

 Manchu wrote:
Right, they are not the same exact words, it's merely the same exact sentiment. If someone does not even consider themselves a fan then they have even less reason to speak for all so-called fans.

No, they are not - you are deliberately twisting what he said to make him sound like a whining fan when he's pretty much just points out a possible reason for the recurrent loss of sales experienced by GW these last few years.

If you bring customers in by giving them X or Y product (in this case a game that they enjoy) and then suddenly change to Z while keeping the façade that it's still X or Y, and pretty much keep selling them Z, guess what will happen? Your customers will be unpleased, will stop buying and your sales will drop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
In what universe does that make sense

The one in which we live. One reason GW felt it could so drastically change gears with AoS is likely that there was nothing to lose.

Translated: "Suck it up".

Good'un boss...

 Vermis wrote:
I agree that AoS is not built for me and gamers like me. That's the problem.

This is the perfect summary of what I have been talking about, the problem with trying to figure out how AoS is doing or will fare by reading Dakka Dakka. Just think about it from a completely generic angle. An existing customer base is by definition shrinking. If new customers are "mythical" then no product line could ever survive. Brands survive precisely because they are refreshed and reinvented. Whenever this happens, it tends to alienate some existing customers. There is a positive correlation between the risk of alienating existing customers and the size/profitability of the existing customer base. Rather than assume GW is run by witless clowns, I think it is more reasonable to guess that the drastic change AoS represents tells us a lot about just how poorly Eighth (and likely Seventh) were doing.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Translated: "Suck it up".

Not intended and in any case, seems inapplicable as Vermis has already explained he has been mostly over Fantasy for a while now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
I agree that AoS is not built for me and gamers like me. That's the problem.

This is the perfect summary of what I have been talking about, the problem with trying to figure out how AoS is doing or will fare by reading Dakka Dakka. Just think about it from a completely generic angle. An existing customer base is by definition shrinking. If new customers are "mythical" then no product line could ever survive. Brands survive precisely because they are refreshed and reinvented. Whenever this happens, it tends to alienate some existing customers. There is a positive correlation between the risk of alienating existing customers and the size/profitability of the existing customer base. Rather than assume GW is run by witless clowns, I think it is more reasonable to guess that the drastic change AoS represents tells us a lot about just how poorly Eighth (and likely Seventh) were doing.

No. It really shows that GW is run by witless clowns - only fools would sacrifice at least half of their Fantasy customer base and create massive negative word of mouth towards their new product in the vain hope some 40k-turned-fantasy will be so smashing it will turn that shot in the foot into some sort of Holy Grail.

Edited for clarity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As I said before, if GW had any idea of what to do (aka was not run by witless clowns) they would make the change an inclusive experience for all customers - instead of this antagonistic change - in order to keep the existing playerbase and add more to it through positive word of mouth.

And they could do that. They just didn't care enough to do it.

How was it? "otiose"

I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

 RiTides wrote:
That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan.

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:Regardless of the stale taste that it had acquired, and for all the flak it takes, the Old World fluff was good enough to keep a quiting player's attention even after the game itself proved not to the player's liking - it kept them on the outskirts of the Warhhamer "thing".

Heck, the fact that Oldhammer is a thing, has to count for something. There are people who quit in 3rd-4th ed, who still love the setting!

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:"GW never even tries to please me" =/= "If the fanbase is unpleased, it's because GW have barely made any attempt to please it in years."

Juuuuust sayin'.

This. This so much. Trying to gloss over the blindingly obvious, creaking deficiencies of GW as a whole, as - what? - somebody whining that their favourite unit got nerfed? That the book for my favourite army had changes in it? It's... just...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM

No. I'm far enough removed from the fiddly nitpicking and hyped model releases to see a bigger picture. Not all of it, but plenty. It looks like a mess to me.

And another blindingly obvious thing is I'm not the only one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
How was it? "otiose"

Ha.

 Manchu wrote:
I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

 RiTides wrote:
That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan.

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

It pleased them, once.

Actually, it pleased them enough to get them playing.

That being said, it shouldn't be hard for them to keep at it, if they knew what they were doing to begin with...

I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path. But hey...

 Manchu wrote:
I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product.

And again, that's the problem.

I'd much rather be skipping merrily into the GW store to buy a nicely priced box of minis to play a nice, tactical, streamlined game of Warhammer with, than sitting here watching your arguments squirm around like an eel, and wondering why I'm doing it when I already said I gave up, that time. But the demographic GW apparently tried to concentrate on is people who'll pay anything for minis, to play a random, convoluted game with. (WFB 8th or AoS, take your pick)

(a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is

It didn't have to be.

(b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

There's that 40K thing again. Why do you think everyone on this board is 40K focused, let alone the people criticising AoS? The most I've heard from some dedicated 40K players here, is that they were spurred to finally try out fantasy because of AoS, and all those marines in it...

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

Tell me why they won't be able - or weren't able - to please those fans. 'Cos that just sounds like exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW can rely on to excuse everything they do.

(Oh gee, this dismissive, sweeping generalisation thing is easy.)

To be honest the fact that GW didn't care enough to even bother asking their customers what they felt about destroying 30 years of hobby shows the amount of business sense they have... in that otiose kind of way, you know?

It's really hard to keep customers happy when you don't listen to them. And hey, happy customers are spending customers.

C'mon GeeDubs, have you never played a Tycoon/Theme series game??

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated ?Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

 Vermis wrote:
Why do you think everyone on this board is 40K focused, let alone the people criticising AoS?

I think (actually, know) the board is 40k-focused; I am not talking about any given user.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated ?Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

You know very well I'm talking about the Fantasy brand, not as a whole. Drop that.

 Manchu wrote:
I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

I think that in AoS, GW wasn't trying to please the broadest demographic at all; but rather, tap into non-traditional wargaming demographics, which is why so much angst with certain players. GW basically didn't care about what people who wanted competitive pickup games thought... now, since I fall into neither of those categories (I don't enjoy highly competitive lists, and almost never play pickup games), it's no skin off my back, but I do get why some peple are miffed.

Not that I don't think it wasn't a good idea or experiment. I think AoS as it is attracts a certain type of player, and is acceptable to certain other types of players. Over time, we'll see if it's a successful strategy for GW, both in terms of a sustainable ecosystem and a profit machine.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
That's really circular reasoning, to be honest - someone says GW didn't try to please the fanbase, and you say that makes them an unpleasable fan.

Again, read more carefully. The notion that the problem with GW is that it doesn't try to please its fanbase is exactly the sentiment of fans whom GW will not be able to please.

I think that the whole idea that GW doesn't try to please its fanbase is silly. The proof is in 40k -- the game has migrated *exactly* where fans have asked for it to with their spending. Tanks do well? Make more tanks. Space marines do well? make more space marines. Flyers do well? More flyers. People buy titans? More Titans. People want bigger titans? Bigger Titans.

Essentially, GW's game direction has gone exactly where fans choose to spend their money on models. I'm sure if people bought tons of infantry-sized models and no giant robot kits, that's what we'd see a lot more of. Instead, you see a lot of excitement around giant centerpiece models, so we get Knights, Stormsurge, Ghostkeel, Ta'unar, etc. $100 Primarch sells? Make the other 17. People spend big bucks on Cities of Death, so you get Wall of Martyrs, Sector Imperialis, AoS terrain kits, Khornetress, Tidewall, etc.

In a way, I would say that GW tries to please its fans to a fault -- a lot of what they do doesn't really make the game a better game, it just gives incentives to buy the models that people really wanted an excuse to buy anyways.

 Vermis wrote:
Tell me why they won't be able - or weren't able - to please those fans.

Not able? That's an interesting question, you can always please someone in a "fanbase" but likely only one at a time.

In all seriousness, my theory is GW chose a larger customer base over a smaller one. To what degree that larger base is actual or potential or merely hypothetical is an open question.

On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I'd say kids 10+ all the way up to young adults (until 23 I'd say?)... But then you got the hardcore fans that will loose those wallets up for the Archaon models and etc etc...

But that's just me.

It only makes sense that GW actually are trying to sell more boxes.

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

That's a great question - I think it's pretty clearly a younger, as-yet-untapped market. They've always aimed at that demographic, but fantasy in particular attracted an on-average older crowd interested in a more tactical game.

The problem is, I'm not sure if what they're doing will actually tap into that market - but they are definitely attempting to pivot!

Another side effect of the recent changes is the scale has gotten larger, and thus the price per model significantly higher, so that works against the demographic they seem to be going after a bit.

 Talys wrote:
I think that in AoS, GW wasn't trying to please the broadest demographic at all; but rather, tap into non-traditional wargaming demographics, which is why so much angst with certain players.

Yes you are probably a bit closer to the truth there. I used "broadest demographic" to contrast with the vague notion of "everybody" being tossed around, which seems to actually only cover the nichest niche of all, namely "me personally."

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I'd say kids 10+ all the way up to young adults (until 23 I'd say?)... But then you got the hardcore fans that will loose those wallets up for the Archaon models and etc etc...

But that's just me.

This is the thing that confuses me. The rules are clearly aimed at newer or younger gamers, but the game is priced to engage veteran players who are already invested enough to shell out large sums of earned money on new kits for an existing collection.

That 100$ varanguard kit for example is not priced for young or new gamers.

One more interesting note on the untapped market thing - GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it which I think is part of the reason they seem to be spinning their wheels. A lot of their advertising is word of mouth, and by pivoting away from those who would otherwise bring new players into the game, they have to rely mostly on their retail outlets to recruit new players.

I started wargaming because a friend invited me to, and while I'm sure there are folks who walked into a store and were convinced without any referral, it certainly makes generating momentum for the new line more difficult than otherwise (at least, without a marketing push to make up for the loss of word-of-mouth referrals).

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

You know very well I'm talking about the Fantasy brand, not as a whole. Drop that.

Okay, in that case there is no way anyone can save Fantasy and there is no reason for GW to even make Fantasy products.

Related - when it comes to games that emphasize learning/developing tactics and honing skill, GW is facing more competition than ever before. Gone are the days, for example, when historicals mini games are all musty saddle-stapled pamphlets of the lowest production qualities with nothing in the way of a supporting miniatures line absent stumbling through a bewildering array of garage-based companies.

 Manchu wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think that in AoS, GW wasn't trying to please the broadest demographic at all; but rather, tap into non-traditional wargaming demographics, which is why so much angst with certain players.

Yes you are probably a bit closer to the truth there. I used "broadest demographic" to contrast with the vague notion of "everybody" being tossed around, which seems to actually only cover the nichest niche of all, namely "me personally."

Care to elaborate where that little stunt you're saying happened? I am curious now. Do try not to twist other people's words while at it, though.

 RiTides wrote:
GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it

I would say the licensing ramp up is a form of marketing but licensed Fantasy products without exception seem to be set in the Old World.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Care to elaborate where that little stunt you're saying happened?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
if GW had any idea of what to do (aka was not run by witless clowns) they would make the change an inclusive experience for all customers

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it

I would say the licensing ramp up is a form of marketing but licensed Fantasy products without exception seem to be set in the Old World.

Exactly, it's like their left hand doesn't know what their right is doing - you've got a huge video game in Total War coming out in 2016 which would have been the perfect bridge for a younger / video-game focused demographic to make the jump to miniatures, but the setting they would have jumped to has been completely altered from what the video game will represent.

Additionally, as someone (I think judgedoug?) noted earlier in the thread, in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS, so even if one of these potential new recruits did make it into a shop, there's a pretty good chance they could be deterred from purchasing.

It is just interesting to watch, probably too interesting but as someone else mentioned, it's like a slow-motion trainwreck and you can't unglue your eyes...!

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

You know very well I'm talking about the Fantasy brand, not as a whole. Drop that.

Okay, in that case there is no way anyone can save Fantasy and there is no reason for GW to even make Fantasy products.

Related - when it comes to games that emphasize learning/developing tactics and honing skill, GW is facing more competition than ever before. Gone are the days, for example, when historicals mini games are all musty saddle-stapled pamphlets of the lowest production qualities with nothing in the way of a supporting miniatures line absent stumbling through a bewildering array of garage-based companies.

Alienating half of your brand's customer base and creating negative word of mouth at the same time surely isn't the way to save your brand, I can tell you that.

The increasing competition is also showing a light on GW's frailties - mainly its attitude towards customers as reflected in their actions on the more recent years. The fact that they refuse to reach out for customer feedback and pretty much rely on the power of their brand stinks of condescendence - at best they are witless clowns when it comes to running a business while at most they are arrogant @rses that think they know better than their customers... even after seeing their sales decline year after year.

 RiTides wrote:
in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS

Yes, this is something store staff need to get under wraps. All too often, staff themselves are talking down products. I saw this constantly with D&D 4E.

In addition to the Old World itself being gone, you're also missing many of the heroes that will play a pivotal role in the Total War game - so that connection for new gamers is also lost.

 Manchu wrote:

This is the perfect summary of what I have been talking about, the problem with trying to figure out how AoS is doing or will fare by reading Dakka Dakka.]

You’re assuming that reading dakka is the sum total of people’s perception of the hobby. It’s a useful metric for sure, but its not peoples only source if information. Confirmation bias on your part form what I can see, as it basically just seems to reinforce your own predetermined conclusions.

 Manchu wrote:

Just think about it from a completely generic angle.]

Replacing coke with new coke.

Aka the generic angle here is ignore the input, perceptions and points of view of people here that you’d rather not deal with and would prefer to dismiss out of hands – in this case a bunch of people who 'post on dakka' that you have pre-defined as having no value.

 Manchu wrote:

An existing customer base is by definition shrinking. If new customers are "mythical" then no product line could ever survive. Brands survive precisely because they are refreshed and reinvented. Whenever this happens, it tends to alienate some existing customers. There is a positive correlation between the risk of alienating existing customers and the size/profitability of the existing customer base. Rather than assume GW is run by witless clowns, I think it is more reasonable to guess that the drastic change AoS represents tells us a lot about just how poorly Eighth (and likely Seventh) were doing.

Do they show how poorly eighth was doing? Or do they show GW not understanding their game, their player base / customers, the consequences of their own decisions that have played a huge role in bringing them to this point in the first place, along with poor analysis skills in terms of asking ‘why’ and ‘what’ and treating the symptoms with amputation, rather than seeking out the underlying causes and addressing them instead?

If the customer base is shrinking, then surely asking ‘why’ is the order of the day, rather than taking it out for a walk in the field and shooting it in the back of the head. WFB was not unsalvageable. But GW don’t communicate. You know that whole thing about ‘market research’ etc that they dismiss. In a lot of ways, fantasy was being run down by the company themselves – I would argue deliberately, but that’s just me – and people walked away for a lot of reasons. A change of rules to eighth, the maintenance of huge levels of imbalance within the game, a new focus on lots of troops, whilst in and of itself fine, but when coupled to boxes of dudes whose price tags were skyrocketing, and whose contents was shrinking in equal measure makes a game both unfriendly to the current playerbase, but equally unappealing to new patrons. For me, there was also a lack of discipline in the ‘structure’ of the game – too many army lists to support, basically. There are a lot of reasons that brought WFB to this place, that for GW to simply say ‘axe it’ and ‘lets sell stuff to other people instead’ rather than address those causes suggests a fundamental disconnect in their understanding of their own product and the people that buy it, or would buy it.

Brands survive because they are refreshed and reinvented, which is all fair enough. The thing is, you need that continuity as well – there are huge risks in simply axing a product, realigning its replacement for an entirely ‘new’ market with something that’s completely different and expect people to just ‘get it’ out of hand (double meaning is deliberate) – new coke for example. Brands maintain something that makes them what they are. New converse for example. AOS is neither something refreshed or reinvented. Its something new, that came at the expense of something else. such a radical departure, coupled to a very unappealing message to the current fans. Recipe for trouble.

 Manchu wrote:

I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

No. Your casual dismissal of those that were invested in WFB, or could be again as not being ‘desirable’ is frankly misplaced and rather snide, and belittles any and all contributions they make, or could make. Dismissing an already existing customer base whilst claiming to be aiming for the ‘broadest demographic likely to purchase’ does not make sense- it is both foolish and shortsighted, especially when you are deliberately not aiming to grab the attention of as many folks as you can – that comment about not being interested in being inclusive is a doozy. Business suicide, especially in a social hobby. Hardcore war gamers can often be toxic, and their own worst enemies, but trying to completely alienate them and ignore them as well is foolish - especially since they're probably likely to get more people into it. You are narrowing your target down for no gain.

And in the case of AOS, they dismissed the idea of trying to appeal to, or recapture the attention of those older fans in favour of a theoretical new demographic. Not only that, but they made that pre-existing playerbase actively hostile to the new game in the process. This is a word of mouth based hobby, and that is a massive knife wound in the gut that is has to deal with from day 1. Had they kept the current playerbase on side to some degree, you wouldn’t be dealing with anything like the level of hostility that’s there now. That current playerbase that isn’t buying for reasons. Maybe addressing those reasons would have worked as well? After all, they have shown a willingness in the past to actually purchase – and a proven record is definitely a positive feature here.

Funnily enough, I think AOS has game. I think it has value. And a niche. As talys puts it - non-traditional war gamers. But did it have to be done at the expense of the current war gamers?

I like games like warmachine and infinity. Massively complex games with immense amounts of moving parts. These same things that appeal to me drive others away. There is a niche out there for people who want to have a basic framework, whether that is just ‘simple’ rules that they can use as a framework to build on themselves, or just use as a simple set of rules. Board games are getting hugely popular, so there is that to tap into as well. If I had kids for example, I would use AOS, not Infinity or WMH. Its not a hardcore wargamers wargame. But it is a hardcore wargamers non-wargaming friends, and family kind of game. Or for folks just wanting to dip their toes into the game. As a lead in for new specialist games, I think it would have been solid. As a replacement for a main line, it has huge shoes to fill, and im not sure that it can.

 RiTides wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it

I would say the licensing ramp up is a form of marketing but licensed Fantasy products without exception seem to be set in the Old World.

Exactly, it's like their left hand doesn't know what their right is doing - you've got a huge video game in Total War coming out in 2016 which would have been the perfect bridge for a younger / video-game focused demographic to make the jump to miniatures, but the setting they would have jumped to has been completely altered from what the video game will represent.

Additionally, as someone (I think judgedoug?) noted earlier in the thread, in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS, so even if one of these potential new recruits did make it into a shop, there's a pretty good chance they could be deterred from purchasing.

It is just interesting to watch, probably too interesting but as someone else mentioned, it's like a slow-motion trainwreck and you can't unglue your eyes...!

The total war game completely baffles me. It looks awesome and as someone who was always interested in fantasy might've been the thing that got me to pick up a box. Might've been a great gateway to the game for all types. Not to say the game could've "saved" fantasy by any means, or that fantasy didn't need a fairly radical shake up but it certainly couldn't have hurt the TT.

As an aside, I think people often underestimate just how many people got into 40k by way of the DoW franchise.

Deadnight wrote:
You’re assuming that reading dakka is the sum total of people’s perception of the hobby

No; rather, my assumption is Dakka posters in general value the kind of pick-up play and points system exemplified by 40k.

Deadnight wrote:
Aka the generic angle here is ignore the input, perceptions and points of view of people here that you’d rather not deal with and would prefer to dismiss out of hands

LOL wat. Not even close. Generic meaning not tied to a specific product.

Deadnight wrote:
In a lot of ways, fantasy was being run down by the company themselves – I would argue deliberately

WTF

Deadnight wrote:
there are huge risks in simply axing a product

Agreed. I think you can use present sales to measure that risk, hence why I theorize that GW taking said risk tells us something about how Eighth was doing for them.

Deadnight wrote:
Or for folks just wanting to dip their toes into the game. As a lead in for new specialist games, I think it would have been solid. As a replacement for a main line, it has huge shoes to fill, and im not sure that it can.

Reframe your perspective. Perhaps AoS is basically a new specialist game, using parts left over from a line that has been abandoned (i.e., AoS is not WHFB Ninth).

 Las wrote:
The total war game completely baffles me.

Same here. The only thing I can think is, the game was made under a license sold long ago when neither party suspected AoS would be a thing.

 Las wrote:
As an aside, I think people often underestimate just how many people got into 40k by way of the DoW franchise.

I don't know if this is widely underestimated but it is hard to overestimate DoW's contribution, at least when it comes to mainstreaming the brand into pop culture parlance.

I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

coldgaming wrote:
I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

Excellent point, I find myself in the same boat.

 Manchu wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

Excellent point, I find myself in the same boat.

Same here. Not only that I managed to drag my young kid into it too.

 RiTides wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

However, even though you apply the terms to yourself, I really think terms like "pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing" is the kind of thing that polarizes the argument so much. You (and I) had already said our goodbyes, and so were fine - but for others who felt gut-punched (and had, say, bought everything in End Times leading up to AoS, and suddenly no longer had a group that wanted to play) of course they had a strong reaction (again, just like how you felt in 2010). So no need to use belittling language like that towards those who had not yet "said goodbye" to fantasy, just because you / I / some others had!

Oh, come on. We're talking about a bunch of toys and games. We're all nerds here. There's definitely nerd tears and teeth gnashing and high pitched wailing, and they applied to me as equally back then as it applies to a bunch of the posters ITT currently. There's tempers a-flarin' because we're a bunch of nerds who are/were invested in a bunch of purely fictional toys. If you're not already belittling yourself when you get upset over something this irrelevant to reality then someone else should.

coldgaming wrote:
I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

You are right in a sense. Many kids find it super fun to dig into a weird and complicated game. What isn't fun however is trying to encourage parents to read a 200 page manual. We have to realize that 4 page manual is not just a thing they slapped together the last moment. (Well they might have, but thats another thing) The new rules are a huge selling point for their target demographic, which is kids and their parents, and you can be 100% sure that it was a very conscious decision.

I think alot of us feel like we are worth more to GW than we actually are because we have spend (at least I have) 20000 dollars on their products in our time. But last years revenue is worth nothing to a corporation like GW. We are not the future revenue - The new generation is, and they too are worth another potential 20000. So how does GW make sure to get those money rather than Fantasy Flight Games or other growing companies. Simple - Rebrand yourself and reach out with a less complicated alternative. Make the stores less nerdy and basementy. Make a product that parents want to buy and kids want to buy more of. WFB is not that product. We honestly all know that as it was barely comprehensible for seasoned players. AoS will take some time to get a foothold, but GW is big enough to think a few years ahead.

Think ahead a few years. This is the company that started rebranding their stores Warhammer, then drop the namesake game they rebranded the stores after, right?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path. But hey...

I think what you either continue to fail to realize, or choose to not understand, is that it is probably because that "customer base" was the smallest it has ever been and was bleeding money for GW, and the decision was made to ax it. The same decision that any company would make in that situation. The same decision that someone with a gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage would make to cut it off, instead of continually applying band-aids and balms to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I'd say kids 10+ all the way up to young adults (until 23 I'd say?)... But then you got the hardcore fans that will loose those wallets up for the Archaon models and etc etc...

But that's just me.

Since we all love anecdotal evidence in this thread, out of my personal core group of friends that come to my house to play games, there are six that like Age of Sigmar, and they (and myself) are all in their thirties. In this group of six, it includes five people who played Warhammer 6 and then dumped 8. It includes no Warhammer 8 players. It includes four Kings of War players. Out of these six, none actively play 40k either. Again, of those six, one purchased occasional GW kits. Two (including myself)'s main GW purchases over the last few years have been LOTR models. Of these six, three have purchased a fairly large amount of Age of Sigmar models (myself included), and an additional one is buying more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

That's a great question - I think it's pretty clearly a younger, as-yet-untapped market. They've always aimed at that demographic, but fantasy in particular attracted an on-average older crowd interested in a more tactical game.

I would argue they consciously abandoned that market roughly 2007/2008 when 4th edition style Herohammer appeared in 7th edition army books and then stripped all remaining tactics out of the system in Warhammer 8 and fully embraced it as the brain-free version of Warhammer 4th edition. Anyone interested in tactics fled then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS

Yes, this is something store staff need to get under wraps. All too often, staff themselves are talking down products. I saw this constantly with D&D 4E.

Yes, we see it with Mikhaila, who owns two game stores, talked down the game and cried that it was going to ruin him, and then still sold all eighty of his copies. Again, contrast with DRNo172000's game store, which has two game demo displays - Age of Sigmar and Gates of Antares. And as he mentioned, Age of Sigmar starter has sold more since release than the last three years sales of Dark Vengeance. But that is a store that actively promotes it, runs games, and has, as he mentioned, a community of gamers more interested in casual/narrative/not-tournament style gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Or for folks just wanting to dip their toes into the game. As a lead in for new specialist games, I think it would have been solid. As a replacement for a main line, it has huge shoes to fill, and im not sure that it can.

Reframe your perspective. Perhaps AoS is basically a new specialist game, using parts left over from a line that has been abandoned (i.e., AoS is not WHFB Ninth).

I think this is 100% the correct perspective.

Warhammer Fantasy Battles is gone - unsupported. Continue playing 8th edition, or 6th edition Goodhammer, or 3rd edition Oldhammer, or Kings of War, or whatever. Warhammer 9 would almost assuredly have been even worse, so just be thankful the last published Warhammer 8 was not as bad as Warhammer 9 would inevitably have been.

Age of Sigmar is just a new game that shares a small portion of the models from Warhammer. Much like Mordheim shared models from Warhammer, but was a completely different game - whose setting was in the past, and was a skirmish game. Age of Sigmar's setting is in the future, and is a skirmish game.

(again, my argument is that GW did more harm than good by having backwards-compatible warscrolls to Warhammer armies, almost certainly amplifying this confusion that somehow Age of Sigmar is a direct sequel or replacement, mechanically, for Warhammer Fantasy)

One thing that's worth noting is, for an independent store, they actually have no reason to push AoS (or any game system). Smart store owners adapt to what their players want and bring in those games. In our store, for instance, Guilldball is white-hot, along with Malifaux and Infinity doing very well (people seem to be on a skirmish-scale-game kick).

The players here (central Maryland) haven't adopted AoS, so they're carrying the KoW rulebook and seeing what might pick up next.

I've seen your local store also has demos (as you mention) for Gates of Antares. That's awesome and I wish more stores did that. However, there's no reason for an independent store to choose GoA over another SciFi skirmish game if that's what they think their playerbase will be most likely to be interested in. Same goes for AoS - maybe a store wants to continue on the skirmish game kick and start demo'ing Frostgrave.

It's a great time to be a gamer with all the choices available, for sure but one store carrying more of a certain line doesn't really make them right or wrong, just smart if they're carrying what their players want / what they think they might be able to get them the most interested in next. Sometimes the players will drive this, other times the store might introduce a new system, but it is very much a fluid thing and shouldn't be the same at any independent store (obviously this is different for official GW stores, of course).

 RiTides wrote:
I've seen your local store also has demos (as you mention) for Gates of Antares.

The headline there is, having someone who is willing to really put in the effort (in this case, Doug) is just critical. The store (and WLG) has supported his efforts over the last year but the key ingredient is Doug's own enthusiasm. It's like someone posted ITT earlier, you need that alpha gamer. The store has really made an effort with AoS, as well, which helps explain why it is doing well for them. But there wouldn't be a BA community at our store without Doug and I reckon the same is true of Antares.

Yep that makes total sense! It's the same here with Infinity, one guy was obsessed with it, making terrain and the like, and then everyone got onboard . I actually think it usually starts with the players, but a smart store takes that ball and runs with it (there are several stores in this area, and a few of them did just that!).

I think the same is needed with AoS, and it is cool to see that you guys have such a strong group playing it there

 judgedoug wrote:
I think what you either continue to fail to realize, or choose to not understand, is that it is probably because that "customer base" was the smallest it has ever been and was bleeding money for GW, and the decision was made to ax it. The same decision that any company would make in that situation. The same decision that someone with a gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage would make to cut it off, instead of continually applying band-aids and balms to it.

Do you know the word "otiose"?

Why was the customer base of WHFB bleeding away?

 RiTides wrote:
Yep that makes total sense! It's the same here with Infinity, one guy was obsessed with it, making terrain and the like, and then everyone got onboard . I actually think it usually starts with the players, but a smart store takes that ball and runs with it (there are several stores in this area, and a few of them did just that!).

I think the same is needed with AoS, and it is cool to see that you guys have such a strong group playing it there

Agreed. It does start with the players. Which is why alienating so many players the way GW did was a big mistake. They rely on word of mouth but seemed to have done everything to ensure those words are bad ones.
The principle behind AOS was sound. A simplier, smaller game aimed at people who dont want a serious game. It's just the way GW went about it that was awful.

Edit. Just this weekend I convinced a 40k player who was looking at AOS to not dive in

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I think what you either continue to fail to realize, or choose to not understand, is that it is probably because that "customer base" was the smallest it has ever been and was bleeding money for GW, and the decision was made to ax it. The same decision that any company would make in that situation. The same decision that someone with a gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage would make to cut it off, instead of continually applying band-aids and balms to it.

Do you know the word "otiose"?

Generally applied to the content of your posts, most certainly

 judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I think what you either continue to fail to realize, or choose to not understand, is that it is probably because that "customer base" was the smallest it has ever been and was bleeding money for GW, and the decision was made to ax it. The same decision that any company would make in that situation. The same decision that someone with a gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage would make to cut it off, instead of continually applying band-aids and balms to it.

Do you know the word "otiose"?

Generally applied to the content of your posts, most certainly

I think he was saying that instead of axing whfb completely, they should have put forth the effort to find out why it was failing and fix it.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
I think what you either continue to fail to realize, or choose to not understand, is that it is probably because that "customer base" was the smallest it has ever been and was bleeding money for GW, and the decision was made to ax it. The same decision that any company would make in that situation. The same decision that someone with a gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage would make to cut it off, instead of continually applying band-aids and balms to it.

Do you know the word "otiose"?

Generally applied to the content of your posts, most certainly

Ah you so funny you... Insulting the content of my posts instead of addressing my question. it's clearly pointless to talk to you if you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I think saying the fantasy customer base was the equivalent of a "gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage" might be going a bit too far, judgedoug . Some of those folks actually adopted AoS, you know!

I do think it's fair to say that it wasn't making GW much money - but if you conclude that, by the exact same metrics, it's also fair to say AoS isn't doing so. You really can't conclude one without the other (although it's fine, for instance, to say AoS doesn't need to be making them much money yet since it's so new... but it's hard to say the old was selling poorly but ignore the same data applied to the new system).

 RiTides wrote:
I do think it's fair to say that it wasn't making GW much money - but if you conclude that, by the exact same metrics, it's also fair to say AoS isn't doing so.

How so? Remember, the only reliable metric we have to judge that GW was unsatisfied with WHFB is that it discontinued WHFB.

Frankly it is orotund to keep mentioning that things are otiose.

Manchu, I didn't say whether or not GW was satisfied with WHFB sales (GW is unsatisfied with lots of things, and claims lots of things, and not all of these are based in fact - such as their IP claims). People reference many things when they say WHFB was "selling poorly", and did so long before GW came out and admitted it

I see, yes I totally agree with those who pointed out earlier that no one knew just how badly WHFB was really doing for GW until we learned, in retrospect, that GW scrapped the game entirely.

 Manchu wrote:

No; rather, my assumption is Dakka posters in general value the kind of pick-up play and points system exemplified by 40k.

That doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinion.

Basically gw wants their customers of Aos to completely change their gaming culture (because it's how thry play in house, which is often quite different to how everyone else does it), as opposed to catering their game to how the gaming population actually plays. There is great value in pugs. By all accounts it's the main vehicle in the states, and as much as playing against a random stranger has little appeal to me, and as much as I will push the idea of communicate, organise and be proactive about making a community, there is great appeal in pick up play and frankly, just being able to get on with it. Making a game without this in mind has a lot of unnecessary hurdles to deal with.

 Manchu wrote:

LOL wat. Not even close. Generic meaning not tied to a specific product.

It's how it came across. You did try to dismiss a PoV that you had already decided arbitrarily had no merit. Internet and tone though I'm assuming.

 Manchu wrote:

WTF

Yup. Interesting (conspiracy) theory time Sisters of battle. Basically an all metal army. Gw keeps them around, but never actively does anything with them - bar charge a lot of money for the sculpts. I've seen the argument before, and I think thst there is at least some truth to it, thst gw really doesn't intent on doing anything long term with them, that they're basically there until they're not. And gw is simply uninterested in them or in putting any effort into them either. They're priced in a way to gouge as much as they can, but are set at a price point to make them unwelcome to potential new purchasers because that would mean time/money investment in the product line that gw would rather put elsewhere. Basically turning it into a self fulfilling prophecy that makes it easier to divest them of dead weight when their already low popularity sinks further.

Like I said, interesting theory, and I think there is a grain of truth there. And I think there may be something in it for wfb in that I think gw has been uninterested in it for a while. Like I said. Just a theory.

 Manchu wrote:

Agreed. I think you can use present sales to measure that risk, hence why I theorize that GW taking said risk tells us something about how Eighth was doing for

But the question is did they draw the right conclusions. Or merely the ones they wanted to draw? 8th isn't selling. Take in out and shoot it, versus a long hard look at the reasons why it wasn't selling. Sales are important, but they're not the whole story. They're only scratching the surface of what's going on. Symptom, not cause.

 Manchu wrote:

Reframe your perspective. Perhaps AoS is basically a new specialist game, using parts left over from a line that has been abandoned (i.e., AoS is not WHFB Ninth).

Uh huh. The problem for many is when it comes at the cost of what it came before, and the fanbase that was there before.

Deadnight wrote:
That doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinion.

Certainly not! It qualifies them, however.

Deadnight wrote:
You did try to dismiss a PoV that you had already decided arbitrarily had no merit.

Actually, I was reasserting a line of argument my interlocutor was ignoring or did not understand.

 Manchu wrote:
Interesting (conspiracy) theory

Think of how this sounds: you're telling me GW sabotages their own products in order to prove to customers that the products are not worth developing?

 Manchu wrote:
But the question is did they draw the right conclusions.

I agree that is the correct question in this thread. The trouble is we cannot answer it and attempts so far betray more about the poster's opinion of the product's quality than its performance.

 Manchu wrote:
I see, yes I totally agree with those who pointed out earlier that no one knew just how badly WHFB was really doing for GW until we learned, in retrospect, that GW scrapped the game entirely.

You are actually the only person I have seen, anywhere, make that claim. For those who played it or were paying attention to all other sources of data leading up to that event, it was clear for years. There have been several posts from judgedoug in this thread referencing just such external data as to why it was doing so poorly for years!

If you are only willing to consider what GW officially tells you, then of course, you can actually know nothing about any game's performance - in fact, you'll never know how AoS is doing, because they don't itemize their sales numbers anymore. If that is the case, perhaps you'll retire from the thread and let those who actually are willing to consider external data have a discussion

So yes, in your case you actually can't discuss how any non-OOP game of GW's (or any company that doesn't itemize their sales numbers) is doing, because you literally won't know anything until the day GW tells you it sucked and they're scrapping it for something new . First party information in this situation is actually even more suspect, because of course they want you to discard the old system and adopt the new, their bottom line depends on it!

Rumors went around on Dakka Dakka and similar sources that SM alone outsold all of WHFB even before Eighth Edition. It was not, however, apparent that WHFB was a failure from those rumors or the many, many anecdotes in sync with them. This is one reason why the drastic changes in AoS were such a huge surprise, despite rumors about these changes preceding them. It made sense that WHFB sold less than 40k, even far far less, and it even made sense that sales might be declining, although this was purely speculative, but it was shocking that GW decided to go with something so totally different even despite many rumors claiming exactly that. The common view (again speculative) is that this shows just how poorly WHFB was doing. What is weird is, if you assume that then it should be easy to also see that something drastic needed doing and the reaction against it from existing WHFB players/customers is basically irrelevant. What none of this gives us is a way to gauge whether AoS is a failure.

Frankly, I think the largest problem with Age of Sigmar is Games Workshop itself. I don't care what all the white knights say, it's GW's toxic relations with their consumers which is tanking this game. I think the GW of the early 2000's could have pulled it off better.

For years they have cultivated a situation where they seem to portray how we somehow 'owe' them for what they give us, and if it doesn't do well, it's our fault as consumers. AoS had the potential to revitalize a shrinking brand, and a company with 30 years of experience is quite likely making it do worse than the game it was to replace.

OTOH, someone (maybe reds8n?) reported that Nottingham employees were rather puzzled as to the reactions against AoS on message boards because they thought they were providing an exciting product of good quality. And TBH it is an exciting product of good quality. I don't know of any Fantasy plastics out there as nice as the AoS starter figures. The artwork is really cool and the rules are IMO fun if very, very casual even by comparison to 40k. I understand their viewpoint entirely. I also understand how frustrating it feels to be one of their customers, given I am one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why was the customer base of WHFB bleeding away?

Bad balance, ultra high entry point with basic games starting at 2250pts and long time between updates. The killing stroke was when they made demons so OP, that armies went in to three groups. Can't deal with demons, can deal with demons if very lucky and demons.

The principle behind AOS was sound. A simplier, smaller game aimed at people who dont want a serious game.

Have you ever in your life seen any game of any form that doesn't have a scoring system or rules who can take part in it?

I don't know of any Fantasy plastics out there as nice as the AoS starter figures. The artwork is really cool and the rules are IMO fun if very, very casual even by comparison to 40k. I understand their viewpoint entirely

How many people who want to play a game scale looks higher, then actual game play? Who cares how the models looks like or how the art work for it looks, if the game is a pain to play.

 Manchu wrote:
Think of how this sounds: you're telling me GW sabotages their own products in order to prove to customers that the products are not worth developing?

I wouldn't phrase it that way, but when you've got an extremely old line, in a medium you don't support and it isn't a huge seller, and would require a large potential investment to bring it up to date (and said investment would come at the cost of resources in other areas. Meaning less space marines for example) then you do the equivelant of putting it on life support, bare minimum maintenance, and increase prices to gouge what you can from the current consumers (might as well get something out of it, and gw is nothing if not cynical) whilst also acting as a barrier to new consumers (because you'd rather they bought the new overpriced over modelled space marines instead) meaning that there is less resistance when it comes to canning that line, and less resistance from sales to push for a new codex. Meaning you can focus on things you'd rather do instead.

Like axing fantasy instead of asking the questions as to why fantasy was failing and can the ship be turned around.

This is entirely anecdotal, but I can say that Warhammer 8th wasn't doing great in the two areas I play in prior to AoS, and I haven't seen AoS improve the situation. I bought the AoS box and I enjoyed the AoS ruleset (its like Chronopia). But, the snails pace of rules releases coupled with the lack of point values/missions made my playgroup loose interest pretty quick.

While I can say a lot of good things about AoS (stunning minis, easy to play, much easier on the wallet if you're starting out), what turned me off was the lack of points/missions and lack of information about what was coming down the pipe. If I had some idea about GW's game plan for AoS (e.g., is it new edition of Fantasy? Are points/missions coming soon?), our group might have stuck with it. Instead, we moved on to other games and sold our WFB collections.

Another (weird) anecdote, but I had two LGS owners tell their GW sales rep asked them for AoS pre-orders without telling them any other details about AoS (e.g., is it 9th?). Weird corporate within GW.

Manchu, I think you're fundamentally viewing things differently than most people in this thread. The drastic changes in AoS were a surprise because of the in-game nature of them, but almost everyone was expecting the basic changes (lower model count, more of a skirmish game, etc). These expectations are well documented on Dakka, and are precisely because of external data showing that the large model count was hindering new players from starting.

Also, you mention WHFB's declining sales being "purely speculative", but that is also not true - there were ICV2 results, for example, as a rather concrete measure, and other strong indicators such as declining tournament attendance. So, when most people say WHFB was "failing" in this thread, they're referring to that - not the fact that GW scrapped it. In fact, there are many real world examples of companies scrapping profitable products - Ford changed its best-selling Taurus line to the "Five Hundred", and by their own later admission, stranded millions of Taurus owners who might have upgraded (but didn't realize it was the same car) and lost massive sales as a result.

Most of us in this thread discussing WHFB's performance, therefore, are not going off what GW is telling us, but rather what we saw with our own eyes, along with what was widely reported online through sales results, tournament attendance, reports from game store owners and clubs, etc. Similarly, AoS performance, for most people, is not going to be determined by whether GW is "satisfied" with it, but rather adoption rate in stores and clubs, overall sales, etc. We'll know more about these soon when things like the ICV2 report comes out, but in the interim, are going off of the same metrics that were used to determine WHFB's performance long before GW made a change.

The reason I wanted to make a point of this, is let's say the ICV2 numbers come out - that will be a real, hard data point. If you are not willing to consider this data for WHFB past performance (which is the kind of thing most people think of when they talk about it), then obviously you won't do so for AoS, and thus the discussion will be unable to advance with you unless GW were to release their official numbers (which they will not do). So, I just want to ask plainly - will you consider data such as ICV2 when it is released as an indicator of AoS performance, or not? Or to put it another way, is all external data to you insufficient to draw any conclusions about AoS peformance, and if so, why participate in a discussion in a thread where the OP specifically asked that we consider and discuss the available data? Simply saying "the data is not sufficient" is of course a valid view, but if that is your view it would still make sense to allow others who want to draw what they can from the available data to discuss it, just like we did for years with WHFB before its ultimate demise.

My understanding is that IVC2 samples independent retailers. Assuming their methodology is above board, those results would therefore be reflective of how games are doing at independent retailers -- unlike what is possible here, where self-selection creates confirmation bias. But keep in mind, IVC2 only rates the top five games against one another. All we can know from their polling therefore is whether AoS is one of those top five games and how retailers say it sells relative to the others. If it isn't in the top five, that certainly doesn't mean it is a failure. Infinity, for example, has never been one of those top five IIRC. We also have no idea what the margin is between any two ranks on their list or between the fifth game and the sixth or any lower games. Similarly, if AoS shows up on the next IVC2 results, whether at number five or at number 2, I would not be convinced that it is a success (for example, D&D Attack Wing was number 4 for the Fall/Holiday 2014 results). If AoS starts to appear in IVC2's results regularly, then we have a better basis for saying the game is doing well (although even that is questionable; consider if miniatures gaming generally is slowing in growth as seems to be the case according to IVC2). I think pointing this kind of stuff out is pretty valuable way to participate in this thread. Not that I think you have any business trying to get me to defend my participation.

I was more trying to see if there was any possibility for advancement of the discussion as information comes in (not to "bully" you out of the thread, apologies if it came across that way). It seems to me that in order to further the discussion, external sources of information beyond GW would have to be taken into account, so that's why I wanted to ask about that.

Anyway, I think I understand your position and appreciate your explaining it! Cheers for the spirited debate

 judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Replacing a turd with a bigger turd will only attract the applause of Coprophiliacs

Shrug, I thought Age of Sigmar was absolutely utter gak until I saw others playing it, and then played it myself, and realized it's a really goddamn fun little skirmish game. It's the first fun thing GW has made since shedding all of their veteran games designers in the late 2000's.

Not played AOS myself, but amongst my local gaming group the general consensus mirrors yours. I spoke to a few of the local players about it and they al consider AOS to be a breath of fresh air after the bloated mess that WFB had become. These guys are all experienced Warhammer players many of whom have been in the hobby for 20+ years.

I dunno, I think there is plenty of grist for the mill. OP asked for hard data but there is none. Despite this, we do have plenty of anecdotes and some very strong opinions. There is value in critically exploring a point of view. For example, many posting ITT report that they do not see AoS played at their LGS. One explanation is, people aren't playing the game. Another explanation is, people are not playing the game at the LGS. Why might someone come to the former conclusion even if the observation more accurately supports the latter? One possibility is ill will. Another possibility, not mutually exclusive with ill will but IMO more interesting, is that posters are equating play at the LGS with how a game is doing. Why might that be the case? We could do a lot of unpacking right there. For example, I have suggested that it makes sense for people who primarily value pick-up play to make this kind of assumption. Now, all of this is just one example of how we need not dismiss anecdotal evidence and can in fact examine it productively, even if we're not going to be able to answer OP's question. nor is any of this the hard data OP asked for but if that is all that's relevant then the thread was over before it started.

No matter what, I think we can all agree: Northern Virginia is an AoS mecca. You guys should totally try and capitalize on that and start running some larger tournaments. I'd be very curious to see a GT-sized tourney showcasing AoS; see what kind of format would evolve from a system without points. And no, I'm not mocking or being facetious.

We're in central VA. Is AoS doing really well up by DC? But yeah as this discussion progresses, I am thinking -- we should take the results of our private escalation league, all these painted armies and terrain and experience with the ruleset, and bring them to the LGS for an exhibition game. That could really drive interest.

 the_Armyman wrote:
No matter what, I think we can all agree: Central Virginia is an AoS mecca. You guys should totally try and capitalize on that and start running some larger tournaments. I'd be very curious to see a GT-sized tourney showcasing AoS; see what kind of format would evolve from a system without points. And no, I'm not mocking or being facetious.

I laughed at out loud at the first line (just the way you phrased it) but I agree, it is true!

I would love to see pics of something like this:

 Manchu wrote:
I am thinking -- we should take the results of our private escalation league, all these painted armies and terrain and experience with the ruleset, and bring them to the LGS for an exhibition game.

MongooseMatt has been posting his progress, of course, but he's in the UK and so it all seems very far away . It would be neat to see the results of such a league so close to home!

 Manchu wrote:
We're in central VA. Is AoS doing really well up by DC? But yeah as this discussion progresses, I am thinking -- we should take the results of our private escalation league, all these painted armies and terrain and experience with the ruleset, and bring them to the LGS for an exhibition game. That could really drive interest.

My apologies on the northern/central mixup. I'd love to see pics of the escalation armies in progress.

Yeah I need to get some pics of my Blood Warriors posted in the projects thread.

What i noticed at the end of WFB is that they were doing the same as in 40K releasing large centerpiece miniatures that dominated the game, It works in 40K but maybe not in WFB?

Is that maybe the crux of the problem that GW use the same sale strategy towards 40k playes as fantasy players?

Posters ITT say End Times was successful and that was all about centerpiece models.

End Times generated a ton of interest, but I'm not sure how the centerpiece models do for carrying the line, since due to their very nature you're usually going to just want one (whereas in 40K, multiples often make sense). Organic models in general are harder to make attractive duplicates of unless the kit is really clever.

 Manchu wrote:
OTOH, someone (maybe reds8n?) reported that Nottingham employees were rather puzzled as to the reactions against AoS on message boards because they thought they were providing an exciting product of good quality. And TBH it is an exciting product of good quality. I don't know of any Fantasy plastics out there as nice as the AoS starter figures. The artwork is really cool and the rules are IMO fun if very, very casual even by comparison to 40k. I understand their viewpoint entirely. I also understand how frustrating it feels to be one of their customers, given I am one.

Well, the players want 9th edition, not a new game entirely. If I want a steak and you gave me salad, even if it's the best damn salad in the world I would be pissed.

 judgedoug wrote:


Yes, we see it with Mikhaila, who owns two game stores, talked down the game and cried that it was going to ruin him, and then still sold all eighty of his copies. Again, contrast with DRNo172000's game store, which has two game demo displays - Age of Sigmar and Gates of Antares. And as he mentioned, Age of Sigmar starter has sold more since release than the last three years sales of Dark Vengeance. But that is a store that actively promotes it, runs games, and has, as he mentioned, a community of gamers more interested in casual/narrative/not-tournament style gaming.

I remember it differently (I read about him complaining in this thread and thought he was still championing the game until that point). In the original thread about the game and rumours regarding the changes he mentioned how he was making terrain and demo tables (when he got to preorder) and later, when it was sure that there won't be any points and the warscrolls were shown, a simple point system for the old veterans so they can also play AoS. I remember him initially being enthusiastic (because I wasn't and couldn't understand why) about the game and trying to make it work quite a bit more than that "talked down the game and cried" bit you mention.

I don't know what more he could have done to push the game besides giving it away for free (I think he also mentioned selling the starter at a discount to hook people on the game so he wasn't even far off that idea).

It went from negative to positive to back to negative, Mario.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
Organic models in general are harder to make attractive duplicates of unless the kit is really clever.

Very true, plus some of them are characters like Nagash or Celestan Prime as opposed to mass-produced vehicles.

Nah, just one way - mikhaila was extremely enthusiastic for the new edition, did well with his initial sales, but it didn't have legs in his store with the way it is set up (for reference, mikhaila has often run major tournaments at his store and made all sorts of interesting comp for various game systems). I think he was hopeful with some of the Azyr type fixes, but in the end there's no reason to push a game your players don't want when you can just direct them to something else that they're excited for!

Still, I know this is costing a lot of stores because players don't immediately transition, so for stores that were doing a lot of sales in fantasy whose players haven't adopted AoS, there is definitely a pain point until they migrate to another system. But since all "external signs" point to fantasy having struggled at retail, thankfully this doesn't seem to have hurt most stores too badly and they're able to pick up the slack elsewhere (or with AoS, for communities that have adopted it!).

If AOS's massive changes were an attempt to bring in people who don't normally play miniatures games, GW really doesn't understand what the real barrier is. It's not rules complexity, it's modelling. Star Wars Imperial Assault and X-Wing are a lot more complex than AOS and are currently doing really well. Those games even use, gasp, point systems. There's a lot of people who simply don't want to assemble models in order to be able to play.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If AOS's massive changes were an attempt to bring in people who don't normally play miniatures games, GW really doesn't understand what the real barrier is. It's not rules complexity, it's modelling. Star Wars Imperial Assault and X-Wing are a lot more complex than AOS and are currently doing really well. Those games even use, gasp, point systems. There's a lot of people who simply don't want to assemble models in order to be able to play.

I think there's an element of truth there. If someone is willing to put in the massive amount of time to actually assemble and paint an army, I'm guessing a larger than 4 page rulebook isn't going to be a big barrier to entry and for many of those who like the idea of 4 page rules the army building is probably a bigger barrier to entry.

Granted I think WHFB was getting bloated, but I also think GW massively over shot the mark on cutting it down.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If AOS's massive changes were an attempt to bring in people who don't normally play miniatures games, GW really doesn't understand what the real barrier is. It's not rules complexity, it's modelling. Star Wars Imperial Assault and X-Wing are a lot more complex than AOS and are currently doing really well. Those games even use, gasp, point systems. There's a lot of people who simply don't want to assemble models in order to be able to play.

I think even more of an issue with that segment of the population is the cost of the models. I see a lot of people on Dakka having a hard time rationalizing the cost of some of these new AOS kits, and I can't imagine how the layman feels seeing that box of three Chaos knights for a freaking C-note.

"And this is pretty much my whole army right?"

EDIT: mind you, the starter boxset is a fair deal. A lot for a newbie, but a fair deal. Everything else though (especially the new stuff) makes the whole thing look like the old bait-and-switch.

 RiTides wrote:
I think saying the fantasy customer base was the equivalent of a "gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage" might be going a bit too far, judgedoug . Some of those folks actually adopted AoS, you know!

Not the customer base, the game itself. Warhammer 8 was a five plus years gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage that needed to be cut off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 the_Armyman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
We're in central VA. Is AoS doing really well up by DC? But yeah as this discussion progresses, I am thinking -- we should take the results of our private escalation league, all these painted armies and terrain and experience with the ruleset, and bring them to the LGS for an exhibition game. That could really drive interest.

My apologies on the northern/central mixup. I'd love to see pics of the escalation armies in progress.

My AoS Nurgle force is currently grey plastic.. all assembled, at least. but not a bad idea to start a thread somewhere for RVA AOS League.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
Nah, just one way - mikhaila was extremely enthusiastic for the new edition,

uh.. no? He came into the N&R thread and reported back what his rep told him after the reps had their training day - no points, skirmish, blah, blah, how it would ruin his store, and then attempting to sell the game IN THE THREAD at a discount, then started a thread in the Swap Shop to sell the game at a discount, in an effort to dump the eighty copies he ordered.

What amazing confidence.

Anecdotally continuing, this is when I personally was beginning to think AoS was going to the most slowed thing ever - in large part to the freakouts like Mikhaila's, and I even argued with Manchu IRL about how much of a bad idea and terrible product AoS was (though not for replacing Warhammer Fantasy - again, it had been dead to me for years. I just thought AoS was overall a terrible idea, the rules too simplistic, no points! no points! gasp!). Then the FLGS (where AoS has done well) had their release event, opened up a copy for a make-and-take, had a raffle for a free copy, even had a giant cake made with the AoS logo, and it was absurdly popular (iirc they said that in addition to the 20-something that were preordered they sold another 20-something at that midnight release?) I did a make and take model, took it home, still thought it was dumb, saw some games played, played a game, saw everyone having fun, bought a copy. One of the Bolt Action players bought a copy of AoS that night and literally said "this is the best gaming event I have been to since GenCon". So do you guys see the difference between a store owner who bashes a game and tries to dump his stock BEFORE release, versus one who holds a massive midnight release party? The atmosphere is already toxic in the former example, the atmosphere is full of delicious cake and free make-and-take models in the second example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:
EDIT: mind you, the starter boxset is a fair deal. A lot for a newbie, but a fair deal. Everything else though (especially the new stuff) makes the whole thing look like the old bait-and-switch.

This is obviously something we can all agree on. Despite the fact that AoS has made me spend more on GW in the last few months than I have in the previous five plus years, it's still stupidly expensive. I have two core sets and one of each Stormcast release, except Paladins and a Celestant Prime, because when I get close to buying either of those sets I'm reminded I can literally have another 1000 point Bolt Action army for the same cost as those two kits

You never told me there was cake, doug, I totally would have gone in for it with cake (Malifaux actually has a cake contest at AdeptiCon and some other events, it's weird and awesome!).

I think you misunderstood what I meant, mikhaila was extremely enthusiastic until "no points" were revealed, and since he had 80 rather than 20 sets wisely moved the last dozen sets at a discount (note that Reecius and others heavily discounted their AoS later and stopped carrying it, too).

I'm genuinely happy it's doing well for you guys I just don't think you should assume it could/should have done well in other places with different demographics, etc. But maybe the cake would've done it, as that's legitimately freaking awesome

coldgaming wrote:
I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

I've said it before, based on half-assed extrapolations of neuroscience, kids can soak up masses of complex info, but don't have the prefrontal cortex to make overly complex decisions with it. Adults are are in the opposite situation.

The thing about warhammer is that, for the last few editions at least, it was built around the kid-friendly approach. Lots of wargear, magic items and unit-tailoring options, and lots of special rules. But despite it's status as the 'mature' one of GW's core two, it was tactically shallow. Get a flank or rear charge. Block a march. (As long as it's not 8th ed) Divert frenzied units. Most else was automatic IGOUGO stuff, with interminable tallying up for hitting, wounding, saving, combat resolution, rank bonusing, leadershipping, zzzzzz adding to the impression of depth. Just as long as you brought the right individual units with the best power to points ratio to pound the enemy units quick.

I have a theory that the rules churn eventually got to long term players because they grew up, but the game didn't. It just grew bigger, and loaded down with more special rules, and more OTT models. When I hear about Warhammer players calling the game stagnant and AoS a breath of fresh air, after twenty plus years, I'm not bleedin' surprised! If I ate Happy Meals for twenty years I'd consider a Farley's rusk a breath of fresh air.

AoS at least cuts out the clutter from the main rules. Trouble is, it's otherwise the same thing - a shallow ruleset dependent on the models you bring and the special rules they have - but with the few tactical bits cut out too. Still great for kids, no doubt, but will Moms and Pops buying starter sets for birthdays and Christmas, work this time? Despite (or because of) AoS's appeal as a quick, uncomplicated game, I wonder how long the novelty will last for older gamers, too. I wouldn't fancy eating Farley's rusks for the next twenty years.

It's a shame that AoS hasn't done better at mikhaila's store, but whether he promoted it heavily or not, there's no guarantee that it will catch on with any one player base. From what I understand he had quite the vibrant WHFB community, which is certainly not the right environment for AoS to thrive.

You know if we look past how it is doing at FLGSs and simply ask how it is doing in GW stores I am sure the answer won't be very different.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know if we look past how it is doing at FLGSs and simply ask how it is doing in GW stores I am sure the answer won't be very different.

Good luck with that

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If AOS's massive changes were an attempt to bring in people who don't normally play miniatures games, GW really doesn't understand what the real barrier is. It's not rules complexity, it's modelling. Star Wars Imperial Assault and X-Wing are a lot more complex than AOS and are currently doing really well. Those games even use, gasp, point systems. There's a lot of people who simply don't want to assemble models in order to be able to play.

I think there's an element of truth there. If someone is willing to put in the massive amount of time to actually assemble and paint an army, I'm guessing a larger than 4 page rulebook isn't going to be a big barrier to entry and for many of those who like the idea of 4 page rules the army building is probably a bigger barrier to entry.

Granted I think WHFB was getting bloated, but I also think GW massively over shot the mark on cutting it down.

We know that there are lots of players who aren't prepared to put in the effort to paint their army, but they still want to play 40K, and they just don't paint the figures..

Why shouldn't AoS go the same way? The Sigmarines are piss easy to paint, actually. You just spray them gold and do a couple of details.

The thing about warhammer is that, for the last few editions at least, it was built around the kid-friendly approach. Lots of wargear, magic items and unit-tailoring options, and lots of special rules. But despite it's status as the 'mature' one of GW's core two, it was tactically shallow. Get a flank or rear charge. Block a march. (As long as it's not 8th ed) Divert frenzied units. Most else was automatic IGOUGO stuff, with interminable tallying up for hitting, wounding, saving, combat resolution, rank bonusing, leadershipping, zzzzzz adding to the impression of depth. Just as long as you brought the right individual units with the best power to points ratio to pound the enemy units quick.

I don't think I've ever played a mini wargame that is any more tactically deep than that at a low level. At the low level that is pretty much all they can be. Whether games are more involved tends to revolve around having some victory condition that will be 'interesting' to achieve, and the high level decisions that are required to meet them - did I send enough to guard the bridge whilst sending enough to attack the other flank and enough reserve to react to 'stuff'. The game system in those cases tend to be less important.

 Mymearan wrote:
It's a shame that AoS hasn't done better at mikhaila's store, but whether he promoted it heavily or not, there's no guarantee that it will catch on with any one player base. From what I understand he had quite the vibrant WHFB community, which is certainly not the right environment for AoS to thrive.

We gave it our best shot. I really didn't like it at first. Like everyone else I was in mourning for the Old World, and not looking forward to the drama and anger when my WFB players found out GW has killed their game. After the initial shock and disappointment i got to work doing anything i could to sell the game, and promote it. It's not a bad game, i had fun playing it, got in about 20 games and painted up a new skaven army. I offered it to my players at 90.00 the first week, ran a release party, held a tournament, then a league, and ran demos. Probably 10x the work and effort we put into X-wing. The crowd i got into AOS wasn't the old crowd of WFB players. We had loaner armies, and all the warscrolls in binders for players to use. Extra copies of the rules. We ran with it for about 6 weeks, but slowly the players dropped off. Still in the store, but going to magic , warmachine, and xwing. At some point we didn't have anyone showing up to play.

We still have people showing up for games. There's a pattern to these. Two people have decided to play a game, show up together, know what they are going to play with. Have a decent game. But the only reason they are at the store is to use our tables and scenery. They could just as easily played at home. We get 0 people showing up looking for pick up games. If other stores are doing good with it, that's awesome. But it's not working for me, and I'm out of energy to promote it. I don't like having to convince someone that they want to play a game, and then work to get them to buy it. The same way most of you complain about the hard sell you get from some GW stores. I'd rather work with customers buying the games they want to play, and that i know they will find other people wanting to play The same time and energy put into Xwing, 40k, 30k, flames of war, team yankee, and warmachine give much better results.

Puree: Depends what you mean 'at a low level'. Going by your description of high level mechanics, I guess you mean the basic mechanics?

Other block manoeuvre games do go beyond that. Order phases and generated action points, for one thing. Making your lords and heroes something more than CC monsters who occasionally bump up a leadership test. Do you risk rolls or resources to send this or that unit forward, or leave them to rely on standing orders? Do you group a number of units into a 'brigade' to send them forward in one go?

Grouped units - adjacent units - can also support eachother if one is charged. Do you keep them together for defence, in the face of the enemy, or do you need to spread them out for certain goals? Spears (and pikes!) get a solid counter vs. cavalry*, making it more important where you deploy and move them against the opposing army. Basic alternate activation makes you think a bit more about which unit to use next. Hail Caesar lets you form squares, perform traversing shots, and alters fighting effectiveness in sustained close combat. Kings of War's chess clock nudges you into decisiveness, especially about which units should take priority. Mayhem's dice mechanic prompts you to judge risk vs. reward, to perform a dice roll or stick with the safe default value, for most actions. And so on.

And that, IMNSHO, makes guarding the bridge and deploying reserves all the more interesting.

* I have to admit, I couldn't remember if spears were a cavalry counter in Warhammer. I had to go google to remind myself that they allowed multiple ranks to fight. But the initial discussions I found about spears in 8th ed brought up some things that didn't surprise me: quite a few people considered them not worth taking unless they used in a big unit of bigger, stronger troops, preferably a horde (i.e. buy more bigger, dearer models) or unless you used - wait for it - special rules or certain spells to boost the spear attacks of weaker troops.

The spear. Not worth taking. Think about it. Forget cavalry, sounds like they weren't much of a counter vs. anything.

Anyway. AoS. Not even a spear in that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mikhaila wrote:
The crowd i got into AOS wasn't the old crowd of WFB players... We ran with it for about 6 weeks, but slowly the players dropped off. Still in the store, but going to magic , warmachine, and xwing. At some point we didn't have anyone showing up to play.

Anecdotal evidence, etc. etc. blah blah blah... but eenteresting.

Very interesting read, thanks for that Mikhaila.

 Vermis wrote:

Anyway. AoS. Not even a spear in that.

Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Lord of the Rings is doing better then AOS here... that tells a LOT.
Most people are still grumpy about the entire thing.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Anyway. AoS. Not even a spear in that.

Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Because of the "measuring from the model" or because they provide an inherent benefit against cavalry?

Herzlos wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Anyway. AoS. Not even a spear in that.

Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Because of the "measuring from the model" or because they provide an inherent benefit against cavalry?

Iirc spears have a 2" attack range while standard weapons (swords, clubs) have 1"

I guess that makes some sense

I didn't use to play WHFB so I was a potential new customer for AoS. At first I was excited and impressed, particularly that GW had done the war scrolls for all legacy WHFB armies, even though I didn't have one.

Unfortunately I quickly realised that while a free set of rules is much cheaper than an £80 set of rules, it isn't much cheaper than a £10 set of rules. I find the AoS rules very limited in terms of content, and clunky at the same time. I would rather grab a copy of something like Songs of Blades and Heroes, Hordes of The Things, or the new Lion Rampant, for doing fantasy games.

Secondly, while the starter box is good value, I don't like Chaos. I also have become not very fond of the Sigmarines. While recognising the technical expertise in them, I find the aesthetic bland, uninspiring and lacking in variety.

Add-on kits turn out to be very expensive, as are the terrain pieces, though there is no denying their technical quality.

Mario wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:


Yes, we see it with Mikhaila, who owns two game stores, talked down the game and cried that it was going to ruin him, and then still sold all eighty of his copies. Again, contrast with DRNo172000's game store, which has two game demo displays - Age of Sigmar and Gates of Antares. And as he mentioned, Age of Sigmar starter has sold more since release than the last three years sales of Dark Vengeance. But that is a store that actively promotes it, runs games, and has, as he mentioned, a community of gamers more interested in casual/narrative/not-tournament style gaming.

I remember it differently (I read about him complaining in this thread and thought he was still championing the game until that point). In the original thread about the game and rumours regarding the changes he mentioned how he was making terrain and demo tables (when he got to preorder) and later, when it was sure that there won't be any points and the warscrolls were shown, a simple point system for the old veterans so they can also play AoS. I remember him initially being enthusiastic (because I wasn't and couldn't understand why) about the game and trying to make it work quite a bit more than that "talked down the game and cried" bit you mention.

I don't know what more he could have done to push the game besides giving it away for free (I think he also mentioned selling the starter at a discount to hook people on the game so he wasn't even far off that idea).

You tend to exaggerate a lot of things Doug, especially about my store which you have never seen. I don't talk down games in my store. And while i got rid of all but two of my copies, most of those were either at 90.00 in my store, discounted on dakka, or on ebay. The later two puts them close to cost, especially ebay. I didn't feel like having a few dozen copies sitting around and poor cashflow because of it.

Argue all you want about the game. But i'd rather both sides of this argument leave me out of it as a good/bad example. For you folk it's just arguing on dakka, but it feels more personal to me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If AOS's massive changes were an attempt to bring in people who don't normally play miniatures games, GW really doesn't understand what the real barrier is. It's not rules complexity, it's modelling. Star Wars Imperial Assault and X-Wing are a lot more complex than AOS and are currently doing really well. Those games even use, gasp, point systems. There's a lot of people who simply don't want to assemble models in order to be able to play.

I think there's an element of truth there. If someone is willing to put in the massive amount of time to actually assemble and paint an army, I'm guessing a larger than 4 page rulebook isn't going to be a big barrier to entry and for many of those who like the idea of 4 page rules the army building is probably a bigger barrier to entry.

Granted I think WHFB was getting bloated, but I also think GW massively over shot the mark on cutting it down.

We know that there are lots of players who aren't prepared to put in the effort to paint their army, but they still want to play 40K, and they just don't paint the figures..

Why shouldn't AoS go the same way? The Sigmarines are piss easy to paint, actually. You just spray them gold and do a couple of details.

It's not just paint, it's assembly. If you look at reviews of games like Sedition Wars, you see a lot of board gamers complaining about having to use glue. There's a lot of gamers who outright dislike the hobby aspects of these games and want either pre-assembled or single-piece figures.

Prepainted preassembled models are things people have been asking for for many many years - and games like xwing have started to deliver.

 TheWaspinator wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If AOS's massive changes were an attempt to bring in people who don't normally play miniatures games, GW really doesn't understand what the real barrier is. It's not rules complexity, it's modelling. Star Wars Imperial Assault and X-Wing are a lot more complex than AOS and are currently doing really well. Those games even use, gasp, point systems. There's a lot of people who simply don't want to assemble models in order to be able to play.

I think there's an element of truth there. If someone is willing to put in the massive amount of time to actually assemble and paint an army, I'm guessing a larger than 4 page rulebook isn't going to be a big barrier to entry and for many of those who like the idea of 4 page rules the army building is probably a bigger barrier to entry.

Granted I think WHFB was getting bloated, but I also think GW massively over shot the mark on cutting it down.

We know that there are lots of players who aren't prepared to put in the effort to paint their army, but they still want to play 40K, and they just don't paint the figures..

Why shouldn't AoS go the same way? The Sigmarines are piss easy to paint, actually. You just spray them gold and do a couple of details.

It's not just paint, it's assembly. If you look at reviews of games like Sedition Wars, you see a lot of board gamers complaining about having to use glue. There's a lot of gamers who outright dislike the hobby aspects of these games and want either pre-assembled or single-piece figures.

That is true, and for people like that there are games like Zombie Something, RuneLords and Twilight Imperium III, which include a lot of ready assembled, colour coded game pieces. Or X-Wing and so on, where the pieces come ready painted.

GW isn't in that market at the moment, though I remember they made a set of colour coded Judge pawns for the original Judge Dredd board game.

Arguably, GW should look into this market again, however ATM apparently they see themselves as a model collector company, rather than a game company.

DakkaDakka has in the past often discussed the pros and cons of pre-painted figures. There are quite a lot of HHHobbyists who hate the idea of models they don't have to do anything to in order to use them. (As if you can't repaint ready painted figures.)

That said, a lot of HHHobbyists hate AoS, and if GW are prepared to dump lots of their old HHHobbyists for the sake of new rules and fluff, maybe they could do it for the sake of new game pieces too.

I am not surprised in a way to hear you contrast AoS unfavorably to Lion Rampant, KK. They are similarly streamlined but LR is completely generic and really relies on the strong existing POV of the player. I think pretty much all of the flavor of LR comes from the spectacle of the miniatures and terrain and the attitude of the players. LR's rules get out of the players' way, assuming the players have these great miniatures and this preexisting wonderful attitude drawn from a certain era or film. But if the players don't already have that spirit, LR seems to fall completely flat for them. It doesn't teach the player anything he doesn't already know or make him feel anything he doesn't already feel. It just stands aside. But AoS beckons you into its world and wants to express to you its mighty, cosmic clashes.

I hate the idea of prepainted miniatures. It doesn't appeal to me at all, especially as I would have to strip the paint off first before painting them myself.

For personal reasons, I'm glad GW refuses to embrace that market.

Space Hulk had coloured plastic and single pose models. That's good enough for a board game in my eyes. Most board games I play just have coloured pieces of plastic.

I was thinking more about the rules, but you are right about the fluff aspect.

If people just want something off the shelf, AoS presents a high fantasy setting that at the moment is a bit skimpy but will be fleshed out over the coming years.

If people don't like it they can dump it and use the actual rules with something else.

I was really pumped about LR (see my overview) but the only person in my group who got similarly excited was the guy who was super into HYW and (thankfully) already had a ton of miniatures and terrain ready to go. And even I, after playing with him, came away pretty let down by the rules in contrast to the fun experience of the spectacle of his miniatures and the feeling for the period he infused into the scenario he wrote and the historical personalities and customs he evoked. AoS is a super strong contrast to this. There is theme oozing out of every rule in AoS.

It depends what you are looking for in a game. I am primarily looking for good rules, and I don't usually care about fluff.

I am looking for theme and I like it when mechanics are thematic. This is why LR left me cold. It's probably also why I like Bolt Action so much. To me, AoS and LR are about equivalent in terms of their mechanical depth but the former exudes theme whereas the latter assumes it.

Let's look at Amazon "Toys and Games" rankings for a few starter sets. Since they're a huge retail presence, they should be a reasonably good gauge of how stuff is selling right now.

Age of Sigmar Starter: #59,362
2014 Dark Vengeance: #52,911
Betrayal at Calth: #26,572
Escape from Goblin Town: #305,015
Warmachine Two Player set: #77,165
Infinity Operation Icestorm: #92,835
Dropzone Commander: #96,819
Forbidden Stars: #24,545
original X-Wing starter: #3,329
Force Awakens X-Wing starter: #2,224
Imperial Assault: #3,171
Star Wars Armada starter: #5,203
Zombicide Season 1: #5,401
Zombicide Season 2: #41,967
Zombicide Season 3: #28,301
Battlelore Second Edition: #45,512

On a side note, poor The Hobbit. Ouch.....

GW is doing pretty well compared to other hobby-focused stuff, but this makes it look like the market has an overwhelming preference for pre-assembled plastic miniatures. If you want to know where the money is, that's where it is.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Let's look at Amazon "Toys and Games" rankings for a few starter sets. Since they're a huge retail presence, they should be a reasonably good gauge of how stuff is selling right now.

Age of Sigmar Starter: #59,362
2014 Dark Vengeance: #52,911
Betrayal at Calth: #26,572
Escape from Goblin Town: #305,015
Warmachine Two Player set: #77,165
Infinity Operation Icestorm: #92,835
Dropzone Commander: #96,819
Forbidden Stars: #24,545
original X-Wing starter: #3,329
Force Awakens X-Wing starter: #2,224
Imperial Assault: #3,171
Star Wars Armada starter: #5,203
Zombicide Season 1: #5,401
Zombicide Season 2: #41,967
Zombicide Season 3: #28,301
Battlelore Second Edition: #45,512

On a side note, poor The Hobbit. Ouch.....

GW is doing pretty well compared to other hobby-focused stuff, but this makes it look like the market has an overwhelming preference for pre-assembled plastic miniatures. If you want to know where the money is, that's where it is.

Is that monthly, weekly or lifetime? Only america?

MongooseMatt wrote:
Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Yeah, not in the 4-page AoS rules though, but hidden behind £30 'battletomes'. They're not a standard weapon, with standard rules.

But you made me think, and I went to look again at the free warscrolls for the old factions. High elves in particular. Three infantry units with spears: spearmen, handmaidens, and sea guard.

All get their 2" range. Fair enough. Handmaidens don't get any extra benefit from their 'guardian spears'. Both spearmen and sea guard have 'silverwood spears'. But only spearmen get a 'spear phalanx' rule. A single spearman gets to use the 'spear phalanx' rule. A re-roll to hit. Sea guard get a re-roll to hit too, but it's a 'soldiery' rule, and requires twenty models, which - despite the fact that I'm sure it looks like a scrum on the tabletop - at least sounds a tiny bit closer to a phalanx. And spearmen have their own twenty-model rule, but it's a whole extra attack! And apparently nothing to do with the 'fact' they're a 'phalanx' with spears that can reach past eachother, or something, but because they're 'militia'.
But arguing about the names of the rules is almost beside the point. The thing is all three are spear-armed troops, but they all have different rules that do different things, both because of, and despite the fact they have spears. Sea guard are basically spearmen with an extra bow, and by implication, arguably better trained than levied militia. Why doesn't their soldiery rule get as much bonus as the phalanx rule? How does being militia give an extra, bigger bonus?

Even this one tiny speck of an example is an indication of the same old special rules runaround all over again. What would it look like if I actually did look in one of those battletomes, for the new factions? I assume, because they're army books under a different name, they don't contain general game rules.

Manchu wrote:I am not surprised in a way to hear you contrast AoS unfavorably to Lion Rampant, KK. They are similarly streamlined but LR is completely generic and really relies on the strong existing POV of the player. I think pretty much all of the flavor of LR comes from the spectacle of the miniatures and terrain and the attitude of the players.

The generic nature can be seen as a strength, for the same reason as I think you're only partly right: the flavour should come from the spectacle of the miniatures, the terrain, and the setting you choose to play in. And yes, rules too, to determine if a model is strong or weak, heavily or lightly armoured, mounted or not mounted, and so on, with bits and pieces of chrome here and there; but there shouldn't be so much of an extreme reliance on unique, special rules to provide flavour. IMO that just gets ingrained GW gamers turned around, equating setting and minis with rules, and putting a fence all around it. This is why we have people up in the 'KoW and WHFB' topic, in Dakka Discussions, recoiling from KoW (the rules) like it was poison, for the single reason that they think they 'have to' use Mantic models and Mantica fluff with it.

People talk about theme and flavour in rules. Those AoS high elf examples I gave are what helped push me away from WFB in the first place. It's not theme or flavour - it's randomness. It's arbitrary. It's game designers using the South Park manatee method of writing. "Remember the time there were... um... high elf spearmen... and they got a... reroll on 1s... to hit... in the... combat phase. We'll say it's because of phalanxes. Yeah."

Lion/Dragon Rampant, like KoW, strips that nonsense away.

LR's rules get out of the players' way

This can be seen as a good thing, compared to falling out of the rules tree and hitting every branch on the way down.

assuming the players have these great miniatures and this preexisting wonderful attitude drawn from a certain era or film.

I've started to buy new miniatures to prepare for Dragon Rampant. Do you know where my preexisting wonderful attitude is drawn from? The Warhammer world. That one that just blew up.

It can feel very liberating when you realise minis and their theme aren't physically tied to a page in an army book. (or a warscroll)

It doesn't teach the player anything he doesn't already know or make him feel anything he doesn't already feel.

I don't even...

But AoS beckons you into its world and wants to express to you its mighty, cosmic clashes.

An appropriate quote from the author:

Dan Mersey wrote:a bit of imagination (remember when we used to have to use that in fantasy games?)

http://merseybooks.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/dragon-rampant-strength-points-explained.html

I have a feeling some AoS players are in the old WFB position of wanting the fine details dictated to them, but being made to use their imagination anyway, without their knowledge. (Or even their consent) AoS is still bare. What was that campaign I commented on, the one set on an icy plane? Just to reiterate, all we were told about the setting and it's people is that it's a constantly snowstorming, snow-covered place, and that the tribes in it fight after it's... covered in snow once every thousand years. Oh, and they're shapeshifters so they can look like anything.
If that's a beckon into a world, then an invitation to a game is a guy throwing a simple white sheet over a table and saying "there y'go buddy, knock yourself out."

And there are complaints that Lion Rampant forces you to use a bit of imagination!?! Maybe we could imagine the knights are fighting in winter, after it's snowed. That should really get some motors running. (The Lion in Winter, fnar.)

Oh, and mighty cosmic clashes in what's being praised as a quick, small-model-count game, where you don't have to use your imagination... sorry, I'm rapidly losing grip on what the point was.

Although from what I've seen of rules and mini bundles on my rare visit to the GW webshop, it's not meant to stay a small-model-count game for long. Two. Hundred. Models. Over half a grand. For one official warscroll battalion. Someone remind me why this game was supposed to be a breath of fresh air from GW?

Back when I used to have money, I almost started a Tomb Kings army. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how they would function in AoS and reading this thread has turned me off the idea even more.


I've already converted to SAGA, Lion Rampant and a host of other game systems. Frostgrave came through the door recently.

The goal of LR is to simulate the feeling of medieval combat as depicted in classic movies. But it has few mechanics that actually do that. Instead, it leans on the models. The most thematic thing about the ruleset are the pictures. I guess the duel mechanic is a close second. So in the pro column, it's streamlined. But in the con column, it has only a bare whiff of flavor. I brought up LR specifically because AoS is also streamlined, although not to the point of near-featurelessness like LR (I hope Dragon Rampant improves on that score). As I said, AoS oozes flavor. Just for example, Valkia's rule where allied Khornate models within some range may reroll a failed breaktest but if they fail again D3 outright die. Because she slays them for dishonoring the Blood God! To me, that kind of thing is fantastic. But I get that it isn't everyone's cuppa because it gets in the way of the player's control. (Although if you like LR, you can hardly complain about randomness.)

 Vermis wrote:

It doesn't teach the player anything he doesn't already know or make him feel anything he doesn't already feel.

I don't even...

Wait what?

I missed this, I'm seeing it out of context, but is this a thing that some people think a game should do?

Maybe take a look at the comment in-context before criticizing it.

Okay guys, there's been enough back and forth (myself included). This thread has gotten really far off-topic, so please only continue to post if you have something to say regarding "How AoS is doing and why"

Cheers all!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If people just want something off the shelf, AoS presents a high fantasy setting that at the moment is a bit skimpy but will be fleshed out over the coming years.

I do not believe that Age of Sigmar is going to be fleshed out, because I do not believe that GW wants to flesh it out. When given the opportunity they have only used it to further emphasise that this is a world of broad strokes. Three out of three factions so far have been soulless mooks of one variety or another, which makes it seem unlikely that next book they're going to make room for Jakob Jakobsson, loving husband and father of three, who serves in the militia to protect his neighbours and his family.

 AlexHolker wrote:
it seem unlikely that next book they're going to make room for Jakob Jakobsson, loving husband and father of three, who serves in the militia to protect his neighbours and his family

I would hope not. Regardless of what any given customer might make of that, it sounds completely off-brand. AoS has so far emphasized the fantastical over the mundane. It will be pretty interesting to see what GW will do with former Empire models like state troops. The trend toward bigger, more fantastical models isn't new to AoS, of course, and they were already starting to feel out of place in Eighth to me. But in any case, GW don't need Every Man type characters to tell the stories their customers seem to love most as 40k and especially the HH clearly demonstrates: endless columns of super humans engaged in titanic warfare does more than keep the lights on!

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If people just want something off the shelf, AoS presents a high fantasy setting that at the moment is a bit skimpy but will be fleshed out over the coming years.

I do not believe that Age of Sigmar is going to be fleshed out, because I do not believe that GW wants to flesh it out. When given the opportunity they have only used it to further emphasise that this is a world of broad strokes. Three out of three factions so far have been soulless mooks of one variety or another, which makes it seem unlikely that next book they're going to make room for Jakob Jakobsson, loving husband and father of three, who serves in the militia to protect his neighbours and his family.

I think that is probably a good (and on topic) point to look at. If GW wanted to they could easily have filled in more details of a smaller world and then worked outwards as they went forwards. We seem to have had a long time now for them to fill in the blank spots on the map (so to speak) but they don't seem to want to. Is the vast emptiness of AoS not the result of a slow release schedule but rather a feature of the setting?

And if so is that what people want? My instinct here is to say no. Both 40k and Fantasy had enough room in them to create your own colour schemes for your army, to find reasons to battle any opponent, but they were still solidly crafted settings that were full of history, events, places and characters for you to identify with and latch onto which then inspired you to add your own touches. I'm not sure without that a setting will appeal to that many people.

 Manchu wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
it seem unlikely that next book they're going to make room for Jakob Jakobsson, loving husband and father of three, who serves in the militia to protect his neighbours and his family

I would hope not. Regardless of what any given customer might make of that, it sounds completely off-brand. AoS has so far emphasized the fantastical over the mundane. It will be pretty interesting to see what GW will do with former Empire models like state troops. The trend toward bigger, more fantastical models isn't new to AoS, of course, and they were already starting to feel out of place in Eighth to me. But in any case, GW don't need Every Man type characters to tell the stories their customers seem to love most as 40k and especially the HH clearly demonstrates: endless columns of super humans engaged in titanic warfare does more than keep the lights on!

People quickly grow tired of superinvincibilies vs superinvincibilies. As a result the superinvincibilies need to be escalated constantly or people get over it. Eventually the escalation itself will get old too.

We see this with 40k, things getting bigger and sillier, people where excited at first then quickly it became standard, so then things continued to get bigger. AOS itself is an escalation over 40k with it;s setting being even more superinvincibilies vs superinvincibilies and the models match.

However with nothing to fall back to people will get tired of it. Its like that movie where the big robots fight the big sea monsters, people loved it at first, but without the decent story etc people began to wish there was something more to it.

In short, superinvincibilies vs superinvincibilies is a short term way of keeping peoples interests when not done right.

AOS needs to have normal stuff or people have nothing to go back on when they get over the battle of titans.

 Swastakowey wrote:
People quickly grow tired of superinvincibilies vs superinvincibilies.

The HH begs to differ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Is the vast emptiness of AoS not the result of a slow release schedule but rather a feature of the setting?

What you call "vast emptiness" I'd call breathing room. WHFB was "geographical" -- it took place on a map whereof every inch could be accounted for, broadly speaking. This is also how the Iron Kingdoms work for WM/H. This kind of setting emphasizes finitude, not only of space but also time. By contrast, the 40k setting is so big in terms of both space and time that the clock hands would never need to move again and there would still be room for every conceivable gaming scenario. GW took this "learning" from 40k and applied it to Fantasy. They traded in a terrestrial setting for a "planar" or mythological one. Story, including arc, is obviously still possible in a mythological setting but myths are not character-driven in the same sense as a lot of modern media. Even so, the mythic tone certainly has a lot of appeal. I don't think the setting of AoS is in itself a liability. I see it more as an opportunity, similar to how the concept works in 40k. But sure this won't work for everyone. There are always people complaining that "the plot" of 40k never advances.

See I'd say if you stripped out the important worlds in 40k back to just Terra, removed most of the named characters other than say the leader of each available codex, and left people not knowing if any of the other planets were inhabited by humans or if the Imperial Guard exist you'd kill almost all interest in it.

40k has a good balance of room to create your own stuff and established fluff. WHFB might have swung too hard in the direction of established fluff, but AoS is equally too far in the opposite direction with no established points of interest.

GW just pushed reset. So comparing it to a setting that they have developed over decades, whether the Old World or the 40k galaxy, will definitely leave the Mortal Realms feeling ... well, underdeveloped. That's why I think it's better to compare the setting style rather than the specific content at this point. And given each successive AoS campaign book shows us more and more of the Mortal Realms, development is already under way.

But that was the whole point Alex brought up. GW haven't fleshed it out yet and they have had months to do so. What if that emptiness is a feature, not a WIP?

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW haven't fleshed it out yet and they have had months to do so.

Don't you think that is a tad bit entitled? Especially when you compare it to settings developed over 30+ years?

So I guess "emptiness" could mean underdevelopment, which only time will change. But as I mentioned the other sense of "emptiness" (although I think it is is a pejorative term) is having a low canon density, i.e., where the official plot doesn't take up all the space in the setting. I think that is an intended feature of AoS just as it is an intended feature of 40k.

I'm not comparing it to settings developed over 30 years. I can pick up the two kings of war books next to me and read basic intro fluff for every faction, including a couple that don't have models yet. It gives me a footing in the setting to start at. AoS has given us nothing for so many factions, there are two or three we don't even know it they exist anymore.

I'm not saying we need a massive library of BL books and tons of material to sit and devour. What we need is basic information about who and what are in the setting. A lack of that is certainly turning people away.

 Vermis wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:
Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Yeah, not in the 4-page AoS rules though, but hidden behind £30 'battletomes'.

All of the army/model rules are free. The only rules you can't get on the website (and I believe they are available for a few bucks in the app, but I don't really look there) are some of the scenarios and formations.

 Manchu wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW haven't fleshed it out yet and they have had months to do so.

Don't you think that is a tad bit entitled? Especially when you compare it to settings developed over 30+ years?

It does not take months to write a piece of flavour text. GW has had time to write three factions with barely an ounce of personality between them: an army of respawning abhumans with all the character bleached out of them by the resurrection process, and an army of Flanderised berserkers and an army of remembered illusions. You don't think they could have simply cut that back to two such factions to make room for a third with some actual people in it?

So I guess "emptiness" could mean underdevelopment, which only time will change. But as I mentioned the other sense of "emptiness" (although I think it is is a pejorative term) is having a low canon density, i.e., where the official plot doesn't take up all the space in the setting. I think that is an intended feature of AoS just as it is an intended feature of 40k.

But it's not a feature of 40k - or at least, it wasn't in the past. 40k is a setting where a character like Ciaphas Cain exists, an Imperial Guard officer whose personality is not simply "i must win this battle because i must win this battle", but a man who values his own life and those of his companions, who has strong opinions about the nature of good leadership, who acts for his own self-interest and the interests of the Imperium as a whole.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'm not comparing it to settings developed over 30 years.

Yes as a matter of fact you just did so in the post to which I was responding.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I can pick up the two kings of war books next to me and read

And read generic mush. The setting is called Mantica for crying out loud. The very name is a humorous reference to the generic quality of the setting, such as it is. Mantica is an empty vessel cast crudely in the shape of the Old World.

 AlexHolker wrote:
It does not take months to write a piece of flavour text.

This is an absurd line of argument. On the one hand, you are hand waving pages upon pages of flavor text already published. On the other hand, you are comparing army books with a series of novels.

 AlexHolker wrote:
But it's not a feature of 40k - or at least, it wasn't in the past.

Yes it absolutely is and yes it absolutely has been in the past. It was specifically designed by Rick Priestly that way and other developers have explicitly cited this feature.

Are you honestly attacking the naming of 'Mantica' while defending a setting where Sigmar armours his followers in Sigmarite?

Yes. The term "Mantica" is a joke that works by breaking the fourth wall. It's a joke between the company and the customers. You may not like "Sigmarite" or, over in 40k, the endless variations on blood and wolf references but they aren't winks at the audience. The KoW setting is entirely incidental to the game. The rules are not designed to reflect any particular trait of the setting nor is the setting designed to embody any particular traits. The exact opposite is true of AoS.

And you seem to be asserting that as if it is an objectively bad thing.

It certainly isn't objectively bad. It's a damn good business tactic considering Mantic's strategy is and has always been to onboard WHFB defectors.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes. The term "Mantica" is a joke that works by breaking the fourth wall. It's a joke between the company and the customers. You may not like "Sigmarite" or, over in 40k, the endless variations on blood and wolf references but they aren't winks at the audience. The KoW setting is entirely incidental to the game. The rules are not designed to reflect any particular trait of the setting nor is the setting designed to embody any particular traits. The exact opposite is true of AoS.

I would not be so sure about that. GW designers always liked to make private jokes hidden in their fluff/rules, and AoS isn't an exception. Just look at the silly special rules for some "dead characters" in the army lists on the website. Some say it's an insult to gamers, I see the designers having fun like in the old times by writing this.

So, trying to show Mantica isn't serious while saying using Sigmarite to forge the weapons of Sigmar's armies is, that's not being objective on that matter. It just shows you are subjectively in favor of GW.

And honestly, I have no problem with one or the other. They are just both names made by their creators. There is no real gain to judge them one above the other on that matter - could have been another word, after all, like Wartopia or Adamantine.


About the fluff, I also see AoS as a new one, and not just "the continuation of WFB's story". It's true we don't know a lot of details, but I see this as a strength so that you can design your own story in that vast "world". To me, it's quite compatible with GW's motto "Forge the Narrative". What I always liked in the GW games is that you could make your own lord, and not just being forced to use a "named character" with already a story and its own destiny. Sure, there are those like Archaon or the Celestant Prime, but you don't have to play them if you don't want to. I can still find a place for my own Vampire Lord (well, lady actually) to forge her own empire with her own troops in the Realm of Shadows, not caring about what happened to Alarielle in the Realm of Life. There is no problem at all, because the realms are so vast and there are plenty of place to describe your own setting.

At least, that's how I see things. There's still plenty of time to develop in the months/years to come, after all.

Right. So tell me then, why on earth is it somehow OK for AoS to leave Empire, Brett and Dark Elf players not knowing if their factions are even still around?

Why is it worse to have some 'generic' background out for each race than it is to have NO background for most of your races?

Regardless of the quality (which I won't go into here), KoW has enough fluff that a new person can pick up a book, flip to the pages for the faction that interests them, and get an idea of who the faction are and where they fit into the setting. Previous editions of WHFB and 40k had this too. It is a great way to get into the game, by offering some knowledge about the different races one might be interested in alongside the rules.

Why does AoS not have this and do you honestly think it isn't a barrier of entry?

I think most people would agree that leaving players of old factions in the dark as to the fate of their faction is a pretty bad idea. I'm sure to GW, it's no different than what they always do; keep new releases secret until they happen. But in this case, they could lose both customers and sales because people don't know if there's any point in buying X model or keep X army instead of selling it.

And for the record: The name "Mantica" is a large part of why I can't take KoW fluff seriously. I mean, they obviously can't, so why should I? It has nothing to do with my opinion of the name itself and everything to do with what it implies.

 Sarouan wrote:
Just look at the silly special rules for some "dead characters" in the army lists on the website. Some say it's an insult to gamers, I see the designers having fun like in the old times by writing this.

Of course it's an insult to gamers. Do you know how I can tell? Because it flat out tells you it's an insult to gamers:

Issue your opponent with a challenge of your own – you can be as mocking, rude or insulting as you dare;

@Sarouan

It has been noted by critics of AoS that battletome rules are not afflicted by the humor of the PDF lists. And in any case, it is one thing to stick in a joke here or there and quite another to label the setting at large with a joke.

I also like the idea that 40k and now AoS are "big enough" to include concepts dreamed up by the players. If anything, I wish some of the units were a bit more customizable along these lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
why on earth is it somehow OK for AoS to leave Empire, Brett and Dark Elf players not knowing if their factions are even still around?

Once again, I can do no better than to quote my learned friend:

 Mymearan wrote:
I'm sure to GW, it's no different than what they always do; keep new releases secret until they happen.

And I sympathize. (My favorite 40k army was my first, Sister of Battle.) As I posted earlier:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't want to get into defending GW's news blackout policy because frankly I don't understand it and it frustrates me.

I remember when wmh mk2 hit, we had the collated faction books (forces of war:[faction]) for every faction in just over a year. Cygnar, khador, retribution, protectorate, cryx, Mercenaries, trollbloods, circle, legion, skorne and minions. 11 factions (not including sub factions). Fluff, background. Logistics, organisation etc. Mammoth undertaking for the company to be fair. Especially considering their size It really brought it all to life. I wonder if a company with so many more resources to hand could have walked the same walk...

Has gw done something like this for all their factions in Aos? Genuine question.

Further point. Privateer press's line of rpg products. They have been slower to come out (core, five fingers, urban, unleashed, Kings nations and gods) and whether you are interested in RPGs or not, the lore is amazing and had done a stellar job of bringing it to life. But this is two to five years after the release of mk2.

Has gw done something like this (or could they) for their realms in Aos. Genuine question.

Vermis wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:
Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Yeah, not in the 4-page AoS rules though, but hidden behind ￡30 'battletomes'. They're not a standard weapon, with standard rules.

Good ol' Vermis. Moaning about something he knows nothing about lol.

No. The battletomes do not contain extra rules for spears. Nor do the sourcebooks. All weapon rules are on the free warscrolls - which apparently you can't read very well either.

The handmaiden is a hero, not a unit of troops. So, no bonus for a phalanx going on there obviously.

The 'Spear Phalanx' rule isn't for a single spearman. It's for any rolls of a 1, IF the unit doesn't move in the proceeding movement phase.

The Sea Guard Soldiery rule gives the reroll for a unit over 20, regardless of if they move or not - representing that discipline you mentioned as they can fight as a phalanx both offensively and defensively.

The militia rule is akin to old 'horde' rule and you will see a similar rule for most core units to encourage them to be taken in large sizes.

Aside from these unique special rules, spears are important simply by virtue of having that 2" range as it allows you to get 3 rows into combat... which is what they did in 8th.

jonolikespie wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

It doesn't teach the player anything he doesn't already know or make him feel anything he doesn't already feel.

I don't even...

Wait what?

I missed this, I'm seeing it out of context, but is this a thing that some people think a game should do?

Maybe it's you who should have the sheep avatar Jono. In my opinion you actually agree with Manchu's point when you state:

...they were still solidly crafted settings that were full of history, events, places and characters for you to identify with and latch onto which then inspired you to add your own touches. I'm not sure without that a setting will appeal to that many people.

Yep, inspiration is one of the most powerful things a good game will make you feel. And in this regard I 100% agree with you. AoS needs this to hold the interest of its players long term, and to do so the setting needs more depth and detail.

Manchu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
People quickly grow tired of superinvincibilies vs superinvincibilies.

The HH begs to differ..

I'm not sure the Horus Heresy is a good counter point. I haven't read the BL books, so point out if I am mistaken, (but having grown up with 40k I am familiar with the crux of the event), isn't the appeal of HH the drama and action between the primarch's and other lead characters, who despite having super human strength are very much human in their emotions and interactions with one another. Even Space Marine Primarchs seem to have that human latch we can fall back onto - they need to question the morality of their actions, fight the lure of corruption, deal with the betrayal of their brothers. These are all very human experiences. They are also all mortal.

At the moment AoS doesn't seem to have these human emotions present - it's just 'Super brave guys' vs 'badass dudes' and when they die they just go back to their respawn points.

For me, this is going to be the lynchpin on my enjoyment of AoS as it moves forward. If the setting continues to lack mortals, consequence and detail, I'm not sure how long my enjoyment will continue.

The fact that this may be a deliberate design choice has me worried. I think we'll have a better idea after the Slayers in January as this is the first strictly mortal faction to be introduced.

@Deadnight

I guess I don't understand your first question. AoS has only been out since July but you are asking about a project that by your own count took at least 13 months. Additionally, the background of the factions of the WM/H factions did not change, although there was some plot progression (quite a limited amount of each army book). I love the new IK books because of how much fluff they contain (I don't like the game itself very much) and have every book in the series plus the GM screen. GW does not make a similar product line.

An AoS RPG book through FFG would be exactly the kind of thing I'd want to see to actually detail the damn setting sufficiently.

As for the 'Forces of' equivalents, my understanding is we have one for the Sigmarines, on for the lizardmen, one for the specifically Khorne WoC, one for a fortress for some reason, and the next one is one for Archaon and his followers.. but still not a regular old WoC book.

@Bottle

The Primarchs are not people and they don't behave as if they have normal human emotions, although they certainly have motive among which are their emotional outlooks (for example Konrad's melancholy). They have a very close parallel in Greek gods. Each one has a one- or two-note personality. They are each the embodiment of a certain trait or insight. That is not to say that they lack any complexity. I would say that characters like Athena and Poseidon have some complexity and so too do characters like Leman Russ and Magnus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
An AoS RPG book through FFG would be exactly the kind of thing I'd want to see to actually detail the damn setting sufficiently.

Again, GW's licensing has not caught up with its in-house development. FFG has wrapped up both WFRP 3E and the WHFB-inspired LCG, Conquest. I would say that might mean AoS stuff was on the way but FFG just released Warhammer Quest (announced at GenCon) so who can tell?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
one for a fortress for some reason

The reason is that (a) battletomes are not actually army books in the established sense and (b) terrain is active in AoS and can be taken as part of your army (another idea cribbed from prior developments in 40k).

Saying the HH is the same as AoS is a vast miss. There are 19 pseudo- invincible guys (well, there's really just - one - but... let me stretch that just for argument's sake) in the setting, and when it's all said and done, the ones that didn't turn into demons will be fething dead or gone feth knows where (and presumed dead) within a thousand years of the HH (iirc, ofc).

Contrast with ALL of the Stormcast being pretty much immortal unless they are really (really really reaallyyyy) unlucky, ALL of the Seraphon being MEMORIES (how do you kill a memory and keep it dead? With the magically forged Alzheimer blades?) etc etc...

 Manchu wrote:
@Bottle

The Primarchs are not people and they don't behave as if they have normal human emotions, although they certainly have motive among which are their emotional outlooks (for example Konrad's melancholy). They have a very close parallel in Greek gods. Each one has a one- or two-note personality. They are each the embodiment of a certain trait or insight. That is not to say that they lack any complexity. I would say that characters like Athena and Poseidon have some complexity and so too do characters like Leman Russ and Magnus.

See I'd say the best HH books are the ones like Prospero Burs, A Thousand Sonds, The First Heretic. Ones that show the more human elements of the marines and the primarchs. Then the more recent crap is just the usual old armies marching at each other that you find in any 40k book.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Bottle

The Primarchs are not people and they don't behave as if they have normal human emotions, although they certainly have motive among which are their emotional outlooks (for example Konrad's melancholy). They have a very close parallel in Greek gods. Each one has a one- or two-note personality. They are each the embodiment of a certain trait or insight. That is not to say that they lack any complexity. I would say that characters like Athena and Poseidon have some complexity and so too do characters like Leman Russ and Magnus.

See I'd say the best HH books are the ones like Prospero Burs, A Thousand Sonds, The First Heretic. Ones that show the more human elements of the marines and the primarchs. Then the more recent crap is just the usual old armies marching at each other that you find in any 40k book.

AoS is 40k's "eternal war" shtick turned up to eleven, and losing all pretenses of any seriousness, something that we are seeing coming back to 40/30k too. The latest HH are just that.

One nameless SM dies and is replaced by another. One nameless stormcast falls in battle and Sigmar remanufactures him. To me, the difference is entirely academic.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Saying the HH is the same as AoS is a vast miss. There are 19 pseudo- invincible guys (well, there's really just - one - but... let me stretch that just for argument's sake) in the setting, and when it's all said and done, the ones that didn't turn into demons will be fething dead or gone feth knows where (and presumed dead) within a thousand years of the HH (iirc, ofc).

Contrast with ALL of the Stormcast being pretty much immortal unless they are really (really really reaallyyyy) unlucky, ALL of the Seraphon being MEMORIES (how do you kill a memory and keep it dead? With the magically forged Alzheimer blades?) etc etc...

19 pseudo-invincible guys backed up by almost numberless superhuman warriors who are technically mortal but unless they sustain fatal trauma can be brought back, albeit likely 'lesser' than what they were? Who are easily a match for 10 times their number of 'normal' humans? Who exist purely to live or die at their leader's command? Yup, *totally* different to the Stormcast if you swap tech for magic.
The finite element of the Seraphon are the Slann, in the same way that necromancers are the finite element for undead. How do you kill something that's already dead and keep it dead? With death pun blades?

I get you don't care for the setting, but you could at least do it the courtesy of being a little more objective in your assessment of it, or at least less wilfully ignorant.

 Manchu wrote:
One nameless SM dies and is replaced by another. One nameless stormcast falls in battle and Sigmar remanufactures him. To me, the difference is entirely academic.

And the nameless Saurus memories? And the nameless Khornates? And the nameless Sylvaneth spirits? If you wanna generalise then we're all nameless so all games are the same gak, regardless of the company that makes them, the setting, etc, but... that's your escape route, isn't it?

However, it shouldn't be hard to take the hint for the new trend from the fact that the faction that was created on purpose to serve as poster child for AoS doesn't have - one - named character that you can play with. One. Yeah, you get the Prime but I personally see him as pretty much just the same as the rest of them but a tad bigger and with a fancy hammer - but YMMV. It's more of a title than anything else. So far all the Stormcasts are is an army of immortal anons, but with some ranked anons in between to give some kind of military hierarchy.

Also, out of curiosity, is there any new named character for the Khorne dudes?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Saying the HH is the same as AoS is a vast miss. There are 19 pseudo- invincible guys (well, there's really just - one - but... let me stretch that just for argument's sake) in the setting, and when it's all said and done, the ones that didn't turn into demons will be fething dead or gone feth knows where (and presumed dead) within a thousand years of the HH (iirc, ofc).

Contrast with ALL of the Stormcast being pretty much immortal unless they are really (really really reaallyyyy) unlucky, ALL of the Seraphon being MEMORIES (how do you kill a memory and keep it dead? With the magically forged Alzheimer blades?) etc etc...

19 pseudo-invincible guys backed up by almost numberless superhuman warriors who are technically mortal but unless they sustain fatal trauma can be brought back, albeit likely 'lesser' than what they were? Who are easily a match for 10 times their number of 'normal' humans? Who exist purely to live or die at their leader's command? Yup, *totally* different to the Stormcast if you swap tech for magic.
The finite element of the Seraphon are the Slann, in the same way that necromancers are the finite element for undead. How do you kill something that's already dead and keep it dead? With death pun blades?

I get you don't care for the setting, but you could at least do it the courtesy of being a little more objective in your assessment of it, or at least less wilfully ignorant.

30k Space Marines can and WILL die - how many died in the FIRST book alone? How many Eternals have you seen die so far?

I can grab Horus Rising and find more permanently dead Astartes in its first chapter than Eternals in the entire AoS fluff so far. Shall I bring out the dead primarch list for us to compare?

I get you really wanna whiteknight for GW and AoS, but you can:

a) know wtf you're talking about when answering to people who disagree with you;
b) not insult others.

kk?

When you're writing my lines, could you at least make them comprehensible? I think I prefer my own arguments to the words you put in my mouth, to be honest.

And somehow you have overlooked that there several named Stormcast: Vandus Hammerhand, Orius Adamantine, Ionus Cryptborn, Anactos Skyhelm, Thostos Bladestorm, etc, etc. Yet again, a criticism with no basis other than ignorance and spite.

And then the gall to lecture someone else thus:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
know wtf you're talking about when answering to people who disagree with you

And this right after calling him a whiteknight:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
not insult others

 Manchu wrote:
When you're writing my lines, could you at least make them comprehensible? I think I prefer my own arguments to the words you put in my mouth, to be honest.

And somehow you have overlooked that there several named Stormcast: Vandus Hammerhand, Orius Adamantine, Ionus Cryptborn, Anactos Skyhelm, Thostos Bladestorm, etc, etc. Yet again, a criticism with no basis other than ignorance and spite.

Funny - I quoted you word for word - you must be having trouble following your own BS.

Also, shall I bring out the dozens of named space marines that aren't in the army lists? But please ignore the fact that I was pointing to the lack of named characters as usable in a game - I mean, it's not that hard to understand, unless you're choosing to ignore it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
When you're writing my lines, could you at least make them comprehensible? I think I prefer my own arguments to the words you put in my mouth, to be honest.

And somehow you have overlooked that there several named Stormcast: Vandus Hammerhand, Orius Adamantine, Ionus Cryptborn, Anactos Skyhelm, Thostos Bladestorm, etc, etc. Yet again, a criticism with no basis other than ignorance and spite.

And then the gall to lecture someone else thus:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
know wtf you're talking about when answering to people who disagree with you

And this right after calling him a whiteknight:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
not insult others

And you're claiming pseudo-moral high ground too!

I think the argument about the fluff is unproductive. It's pretty obvious that some people are going to like the fluff and others are going to dislike it. This is true for any fiction game or historical period.

As for whether AoS has special appeal in its fluff, the WHFB fluff sustained the game and RPG and boardgame spin-offs for 30 years, so it can't have been all bad. It just goes to prove my point.

The real question is whether the AoS fluff will be successful in attracting a new audience to replace the lost WHFB audience. But in fact I don't think people play games just because of fluff anyway. You have to look at all three main elements which are fluff, rules and models.

Well, truth is, AoS is a new game. A lot of people thought it would be WFB 9th edition. It wasn't, and veteran gamers were thus confused then angry. Because they wanted WFB 9th edition, let's face it.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to know what happened after the destruction of the Old World. It's just that, in AoS fluff, this is akind to the Age of Myths; it's all lost to legends in a long past time. You're not even sure the characters are actually the same, past the fact they bear the same name.

And I think it's intentional.

So better to take the "new fluff" for what it is rather than what it should "have been". Otherwise, you can't help but being disappointed in the end.


About Mantica...if you really don't take its fluff seriously just because of that, I don't see why you should for Sigmarite. You have to call it anyway, so that word is as good as another. It's like Doomshadow or Disneyland.

History is also full of names that look or sound stupid, but have a reason behind - sometimes very simple, pragmatic or even an actual joke made serious.

 Manchu wrote:
One nameless SM dies and is replaced by another. One nameless stormcast falls in battle and Sigmar remanufactures him. To me, the difference is entirely academic.

Oh, to me it's not. The nameless SM did die, he will not come back again. Another will replace him, but he is another SM. Here, for Stormcast, it's not the same. He may lose "something", yeah, sure, but you can't really feel for him for "dieing". Because it's not the end for him, just an episode.

That's the big difference; empathy. It's not the same for a Stormcast or for a Space Marine. Because death has not the same meaning for both.

In a way, Space Marines are more humans than Stormcast Eternals. Because they can die. For a Stormcast, something similar may happen...but it's more an exception than the norm. Most of them will just go back to Sigmar to be reforged. Sure, they "lose something" in that, but is it really that big a deal for someone who is already a war machine and doesn't seem to do anything else than getting ready for battle?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
please ignore the fact that I was pointing to the lack of named characters as usable in a game

How is that even relevant? The argument you joined is about AoS having no characters. Yet it does. Contrary to your vitriolic assertions, the Stormcast are no more faceless automatons than Space Marines. It doesn't matter at all to the narrative quality of the setting that Vandus is not a unique entry in the list but rather the name of a particular soldier of a rank that is available on the army list.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the argument about the fluff is unproductive.

It must of needs be when posters argue out of both sides of their mouths about it. But it has never been a matter of whether a given poster likes the setting; the point is, GW applied a good idea from 40k in AoS. This is true for many aspects of AoS, from the setting to particular mechanics.

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
please ignore the fact that I was pointing to the lack of named characters as usable in a game

How is that even relevant? The argument you joined is about AoS having no characters. Yet it does. Contrary to your vitriolic assertions, the Stormcast are no more faceless automatons than Space Marines. It doesn't matter at all to the narrative quality of the setting that Vandus is not a unique entry in the list but rather the name of a particular soldier of a rank that is available on the army list.

It is relevant because it's setting a trend within the game, but regardless, I can pick up on what you're saying and still say that SC Eternals are pretty much just automatons, regardless of them having specific platform denominations. And, it's not vitriol at all, even though I am sure your tinted shades are colouring it as such just because I am one of the voices against AoS.
Are you going to colour it as vitriol when even AoS-likers agree to this view? Are THEY also making "vitriolic assertions"? (Did I quote that well enough? )

Also, please read Sarouan's comment on how a Space Marine's death is far, far more relevant than a Stormcast's.

But KK is right. This is pointless.

"Fifteen space marines died taking that fortress."

"Fifteen stormcast fell taking that fortress."

As a matter of storytelling, these are equivalent statements. The fifteen in question in either case only exist to make a point about how difficult it was to take the fortress.

"I would give my life for the Emperor."

Fine. You're very loyal, I get it.

"I will serve Sigmar faithfully for all eternity."

Yep, also loyal. In the equivalent degree.

To me, it is superfluous for GW to make a fantasy setting that uses core concepts from 40K.

We've already got 40K, a science fantasy mass skirmish game with immortal armoured super warriors of the God-Emporer,encrusted with arcane symbols, banners and melee weapons, fighting to restore the galaxy after it was torn apart by the forces of Chaos. Etc.

Wouldn't it be better for GW to do something new?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for GW to do something new?

Or keep doing something old? Only time will tell. I would bet you a dollar that more people will play Warhammer Total War than AoS in 2016.

 Manchu wrote:

Yep, also loyal. In the equivalent degree.

Totally.

It's just that death is not the same.

For the Space Marine, it means his end. He will not be able to serve the Emperor after that.

For the Stormcast? Well, he will just go back after his reforging.

So the sacrifice for the Space Marine and for the Stormcast are not the same. One will not be able to do more, the other will. Thus, when a Space Marine launch a suicidal attack to protect its nobles, it has a lot more impact than the Stormcast doing the same. Because the Stormcast will come back, anyway.


You sacrifice 15 SM for that Fortress? That's 15 SM who will forever be lost. You did the same with 15 Stormcast? Meh, it will only cost Sigmar time and Sigmarite, no big deal. They can even go back into the same battle if he's in a hurry (yeah, that happens in the fluff).

I am not saying SM don't die. I'm saying that it is pretty meaningless most of the time from the perspective of a storyteller. As a rule, storytellers have exactly as many Space Marines as are required to tell the story. SM being mortal is certainly meaningless when we're talking about playing with the models.

 Manchu wrote:
"Fifteen space marines died taking that fortress."

"Fifteen stormcast fell taking that fortress."

As a matter of storytelling, these are equivalent statements. The fifteen in question in either case only exist to make a point about how difficult it was to take the fortress.

"I would give my life for the Emperor."

Fine. You're very loyal, I get it.

"I will serve Sigmar faithfully for all eternity."

Yep, also loyal. In the equivalent degree.

The Space Marines all seemed to have names and back stories and human-esque interactions, and when they die they are sorely missed. Sure, some can be re-created from gene-seed if recovered but the Space Marine numbers are dwindling so each loss is felt. They also serve partially because they want to (partly because it's what they were created to do). Losing 15 Space Marines will lose 15 personalities and sets of experience, though it might result in say, 10 new Space Marines being trained up.

Stormcast have none of that; they are personalityless golems that can be recreated in exactly the form they were before. Nothing is lost.

 Manchu wrote:
GW just pushed reset. So comparing it to a setting that they have developed over decades, whether the Old World or the 40k galaxy, will definitely leave the Mortal Realms feeling ... well, underdeveloped. That's why I think it's better to compare the setting style rather than the specific content at this point. And given each successive AoS campaign book shows us more and more of the Mortal Realms, development is already under way.

GW is the biggest company in the market, and has it's own writing staff. Do you really believe that the current fluff is all they had time to do?

There are companies less than 1% of GW's size that have managed to produce more fluff about their game world in the first edition. What I've seen of the fluff so far just smacks of complete apathy; I just can't see it getting any better over time because they just don't seem to care about it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for GW to do something new?

Or keep doing something old? Only time will tell. I would bet you a dollar that more people will play Warhammer Total War than AoS in 2016.

If the reports about Specialist Games coming back are true, they are going to return to doing something old.

However I hope they will produce some new titles as well.

 Manchu wrote:
I am not saying SM don't die. I'm saying that it is pretty meaningless most of the time from the perspective of a storyteller. As a rule, storytellers have exactly as many Space Marines as are required to tell the story. SM being mortal is certainly meaningless when we're talking about playing with the models.

So wait... you're actually saying that the death of a character like Tarik Torgaddon (keeping to the HH thingie) has the same storytelling impact as the "death" of a named SCE, when you know he'll be right back in a few moments, if necessary.

Herzlos wrote:
GW is the biggest company in the market

And it's still very small. I could not tell you whether GW has capacity to publish 10 army/campaign books a month. Before 2012-2013, I would have had trouble believing they could do one a month or every other month which is pretty much what they do these days. But I will say, I could imagine some reasons not to publish 10 army/campaign books per month, or similar.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
So wait... you're actually saying that the death of a character like Tarik Torgaddon (keeping to the HH thingie) has the same storytelling impact as the "death" of a named SCE, when you know he'll be right back in a few moments, if necessary.

Didn't I just tell you to knock it off with the straman fallacy?

Tarik died for one reason only: a writer wanted to tell a story about it and the line editor did not object. If the same were true of Vandus, he could die.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However I hope they will produce some new titles as well.

It's so much riskier .. for example Dreadfleet or Execution Force. And both of those were based on existing IPs. I very much doubt we will see GW introduce a whole cloth IP.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better for GW to do something new?

Or keep doing something old? Only time will tell. I would bet you a dollar that more people will play Warhammer Total War than AoS in 2016.

If the reports about Specialist Games coming back are true, they are going to return to doing something old.

However I hope they will produce some new titles as well.

I wonder what will the excuse be if old games like Bloodbowl, Necromunda, Mordheim, etc, get a better reception and sell better than AoS.

It's not difficult to publish 10 books in a month, but there's no point in GW doing so because they have a limited range of things to talk about, and a restricted market to sell into.

 Manchu wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
GW is the biggest company in the market

And it's still very small. I could not tell you whether GW has capacity to publish 10 army books a month. Before 2012-2013, I would have had trouble believing they could do one a month or every other month which is pretty much what they do these days. But I will say, I could imagine some reasons not to do publish 10 army books per month, or similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
So wait... you're actually saying that the death of a character like Tarik Torgaddon (keeping to the HH thingie) has the same storytelling impact as the "death" of a named SCE, when you know he'll be right back in a few moments, if necessary.

Didn't I just tell you to knock it off with the straman fallacy?

Hm... what?

 Manchu wrote:
I am not saying SM don't die. I'm saying that it is pretty meaningless most of the time from the perspective of a storyteller.

So, can you answer my question, or are you going to keep evading it? Is the death of a character like Torgaddon of the same impact as the pseudo-death of a SCE? Because, you know... that's what you're saying when you say a SM's death is "pretty meaningless most of the time from the perspective of a storyteller."

Wait, wait, I know! I am SURE we'll be seeing Torgaddon back later - because a SM death has the same meaningless impact as that of a SCE. I mean, SM are immortal, right? Gosh I wish I knew that already!

I already answered you by the way. To extrapolate, Tarik was a main character. Most dead SM are statistics. That is what I meant when I typed "most of the time" in the post you quoted without reading.

 Manchu wrote:
I am not saying SM don't die. I'm saying that it is pretty meaningless most of the time from the perspective of a storyteller. As a rule, storytellers have exactly as many Space Marines as are required to tell the story. SM being mortal is certainly meaningless when we're talking about playing with the models.

From the perspective of a storyteller, it's not meaningless. How do you manage to make your readers feel empathy for your characters if death isn't such a big deal for them? Where is the sacrifice in battle when you just get reforged to get into it as soon as possible (and kill your previous "murderer")? It's like raising skeletons with necromancy and throw them at the spears of your enemies. If they get crushed, well you just raise them another time. That's why people usually don't get attached too much to skeletons.

From the perspective of a gamer, yeah, it doesn't look that important. Especially if you don't give names and stories to your miniatures.

Until now, out of the three books we have for AoS armies, only Chaos has mortality. Stormcast get reforged, Lizardmen are "dreams". And it's a bit hard to feel something for a Khorne butcher, yet he still has his life to lose in the end.

Hmm. Unless he becomes a demon or has a mutation that makes him immortal in a way or another. Or if Khorne decides to resurrect him (also happens in the fluff) because reasons.

Yeah, for now, it's hard to feel something for AoS "heroes".

 Manchu wrote:
I already answered you by the way. To extrapolate, Tarik was a main character. Most dead SM are statistics. That is what I meant when I typed "most of the time" in the post you quoted without reading.

Yes yes, insinuating I don't read comments, bla bla bla.

The thing is, even the precious main character SCE's will come back too, making even those main characters "deaths" meaningless - unless they're really unlucky, as stated above. Get what we're getting at yet?

But talking about nameless marines - is the death of the Whatever marines' 5thcompany while defending world Blaargh from Waagh Smellyfeetz same as the "death" of a hundred SCE defending the equivalent from an Orc attack?
Are we going to see those marines again? Because I guarantee you we'll be seeint those SCE again, but maybe a tad blander.

You are utterly disregarding the fact that a SCE's life (or ability to function in the longterm for the more automaton-y of them) is never really in any danger even if they get a sword through their gut or an axe to the face, while a SM's life will. be. forfeit. Forever. Period. Comparing one to the other is... well, I don't even know how to qualify it.

 Sarouan wrote:
How do you manage to make your readers feel empathy for your characters if death isn't such a big deal for them?

Why is death required for empathy? There are tons of stories where no one dies and yet the audience still sympathizes with the protagonists. In the case of the Stormcast, there is an interesting angle precisely in the fact that they do not die. Thay have already died, which is interesting in itself, and now they are "doomed" to fight forever for Sigmar, knowing that with each fresh "death" on the battlefield a little more of who they were in life will slip away.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
insinuating I don't read comments

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The other option is you don't understand them.

 Manchu wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
GW is the biggest company in the market

And it's still very small. I could not tell you whether GW has capacity to publish 10 army/campaign books a month. Before 2012-2013, I would have had trouble believing they could do one a month or every other month which is pretty much what they do these days. But I will say, I could imagine some reasons not to publish 10 army/campaign books per month, or similar.

They have their own publishing division and a small army of freelancers. If they wanted to, they could fire out 10 books a month (with a suitable latency). How quickly are Black Library putting out full length novels? At least 1 full paperback a month?

Like I said, much smaller companies can produce much more (take the Warhammer RPGs for example), so it's not a case of scale, it's a case of effort. They haven't provided comprehensive (or even decent) fluff yet simply because they don't want to.

Why would anyone want to put out 10 books a month for any one setting? Talk about oversaturation... they are doing around one a month with quick reads in between, which seems like a sensible pace.

Stormcast don't return instantaneously. Reforging takes anything from days to centuries. The example in the fluff is a specific action by a relictor to resurrect the Stormcast exactly as he was by using the wind of death to prevent his actual death. Not the same thing, and effectively a fantastical reworking of apothecary measures in 40k.

It's also referred to in the Quest for Ghal Maraz that the SCE that get reforged are aware they aren't the same as they were before, and aren't exactly happy about it, but they accept that duty has to come first.

You're persistently arguing from a basis of incorrect information.

Oh, and Khorgos Khul is a named Khornate character in the starter set.
Pretty glaring miss.

Having an opinion is fine, but it helps if you have your facts straight to begin with.

I think they should have had more books available at the beginning, but after that one per month sounds a reasonable rate without saturating the market.

It's not difficult to pay to write and print novels, but getting them into distribution and then sold is another thing.

 Mymearan wrote:
Why would anyone want to put out 10 books a month for any one setting? Talk about oversaturation... they are doing around one a month with quick reads in between, which seems like a sensible pace.

The point is not that they should do 10 books a month, it's that they *could*. In direct response the argument that the reason there is no real depth to AoS after only 3 months (plus however long it was in planning). There's literally nothing stopping GW having released AoS with at least as much depth as WHFB did when it went away. Or at least had some information on each of the factions. I still don't know what's happened to my 300 dwarfs.

 Manchu wrote:

Why is death required for empathy? There are tons of stories where no one dies and yet the audience still sympathizes with the protagonists. In the case of the Stormcast, there is an interesting angle precisely in the fact that they do not die. Thay have already died, which is interesting in itself, and now they are "doomed" to fight forever for Sigmar, knowing that with each fresh "death" on the battlefield a little more of who they were in life will slip away.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
insinuating I don't read comments

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The other option is you don't understand them.

Because you don't make a hero out of a zombie or a skeleton.

Like you said, Stormcast don't exist anymore for their previous families/relatives. They are like "dead" and only fight for the glory of Sigmar. It's very similar to Space Marines, but it adds the "immortality" to their character.

And that small change change in fact everything. Space Marines, no matter how superhuman they may look, are still human in their mortality. They may fail and die. They may die in action, sacrificing their life for the good of their mission.

Here for Stormcast? Nothing of that. If they "die", they just come back, sometimes fast enough so that they can go back in the battle where they were "killed". There is no consequence to their "failure", it's just a matter of time. It's like swarming your opponents with endless skeletons/zombies raised from the dead. How can you make something heroic from a war machine that just can attack "en masse" in waves until the enemy runs out of troops and get overwhelmed? It just doesn't feel that way - wel, IMHO, of course.

I'm not against the fluff and I'm saying Stormcast are actually different from Space Marines, it's just that...well, they don't seem to lose that much when they "die". Sure, some books may imply it actually is, but well...they are already dead for eveyrone they cared about and are just a tool to Sigmar's ambitions in the end.

It's funny that sometimes, Chaos actually looks like the "heroic" side when fluff describes how overwhelmed they are under the tides of Stormcast keeping coming at them again and again. Because their grunts will not be reforged or summoned again (unless if they're demons, of course).

It's starting to sound like you've never actually read a novel about SM. They don't really do much other than fight for the glory of the Emperor. I mean, calling Stormcast a bunch of Sigmarines is really not much of an exaggeration. Also you didn't explain why the only way to empathize with characters is that they be killed or at least threatened with death. The ability to die does not really make a character more human. Mold dies. Bacteria die.

 Manchu wrote:

.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
insinuating I don't read comments

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The other option is you don't understand them.

Yes, I clearly didn't understand it... Just like you clearly aren't wriggling your way from the points brought up and aren't moving goalposts...

RoperPG wrote:
Oh, and Khorgos Khul is a named Khornate character in the starter set.
Pretty glaring miss.

Having an opinion is fine, but it helps if you have your facts straight to begin with.

Hm...

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Also, out of curiosity, is there any new named character for the Khorne dudes?

How is asking for clarification regarding something now considered trying to validate something entirely different? That's a big assumption...

Still thank you for the clarification on that


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
They don't really do much other than fight for the glory of the Emperor. I mean, calling Stormcast a bunch of Sigmarines is really not much of an exaggeration.

This is correct. Regarding your other point.

 Manchu wrote:
Also you didn't explain why the only way to empathize with characters is that they be killed or at least threatened with death. The ability to die does not really make a character more human. Mold dies. Bacteria die.

Indeed it does not, but making a character immortal makes it the most inhuman it can be, since in a way we are defined by our sense of mortality - YMMV, ofc. The more inhuman a character is, the more detached, the hard it'll be for a player to empathize with.

But, and again out of curiosity, do SCE fear things at all? I know that tey are feeling apprehensive regarding their slow loss of personality and memories, but can we relate to them as truly humane individuals, or do they too go into SM mindset the moment they are forged the first time?

 Manchu wrote:
It's starting to sound like you've never actually read a novel about SM. They don't really do much other than fight for the glory of the Emperor. I mean, calling Stormcast a bunch of Sigmarines is really not much of an exaggeration. Also you didn't explain why the only way to empathize with characters is that they be killed or at least threatened with death. The ability to die does not really make a character more human. Mold dies. Bacteria die.

I haven't read any of the fluff on Sigmarines, but I've read a few of the Space Marines books (and listened to a few audio books) and they come across as human. They have interactions with normal people, they have & make friends, feel sympathy, mourn fallen comrades. They have human qualities. They also have risk and generate emotional investment.

I get the impression none of that happens in AoS: everything is either essentially immortal or innumerable and there's nothing but war.

It's not the fact that things can die that causes the reader to get involved; it's the emotional attachment and risk. Once you start feeling for a character you don't want them to end up dead and gone, or suffer terrible things. Sigmarines fail on both counts there - there's nothing to get attached to in the first place and there's essentially no consequence to them dying. Especially, if as said, they can be resurrected so quickly they can return to the battlefield and kill the foe that killed them the first time.

It's like going to a casino knowing that you can never make money or lose money, you can go through the motions but there's no investment or sense of risk or excitement.

 Manchu wrote:
It's starting to sound like you've never actually read a novel about SM. They don't really do much other than fight for the glory of the Emperor. I mean, calling Stormcast a bunch of Sigmarines is really not much of an exaggeration. Also you didn't explain why the only way to empathize with characters is that they be killed or at least threatened with death. The ability to die does not really make a character more human. Mold dies. Bacteria die.

Yeah, that's because GW novels only focus on that kind of thing. That's why I don't like their novels about Space Marines, because they can't describe them in another way. So it's obviously difficult to feel for them - be it grunts or even heroes.

On the other hand, the "normal life" of a Space Marine is incredibly boring.

But it's still nothing in comparison with Stormcast Eternals. Unless playing on their feelings and the disturbance in front of a reforged friend "not looking the same anymore", there isn't much place left for empathy.

 Manchu wrote:
It's starting to sound like you've never actually read a novel about SM. They don't really do much other than fight for the glory of the Emperor.

It sounds like you've never actually read a good novel about SM.

Prospero Burns, my personal favourite, introduced a very deep, rich culture to space wolves beyond the whole 'wolf mcwolferson riding his wolf into battle with his wolf claws'.

We saw how they lived as humans before they became marines. We saw how storytelling was a very important part of their culture. We saw their battle tactics and how got a deep appreciation for their roles as the Emperors executioners. We saw their funeral rites. Their ship architecture. We saw Russ as a man with a sense of humor who really didn't want to have to kill his brother but was bound by duty and loyalty to his father.

Name me 1 piece of Sigmarine culture and I'll drop the issue.



Also, while we're on the topic of nameless, faceless, immortal armies in AoS, anyone wanna put money on the new fire-slayers bursting into flames when they die to be reborn like phoenixes, or being born of volcanoes and thus theoretically infinite numbers of them?

 jonolikespie wrote:

Also, while we're on the topic of nameless, faceless, immortal armies in AoS, anyone wanna put money on the new fire-slayers bursting into flames when they die to be reborn like phoenixes, or being born of volcanoes and thus theoretically infinite numbers of them?

No, they need Ur-Gold. If there are too many of them, that means less Ur-Gold for each. So it's better to keep low numbers.

But seriously, I wonder what they will write for them. It's obvious there will be a focus on the battles (hey, it's a wargame, after all!), but they could make something interesting with fire dwarves. Remember the Azer from D&D?

One of the interesting things about 40K is the large amount of fanfic including a strong strand of humour. There are various reasons for this; the fluff has been around a long time and has a lot of fans, but also I am sure because there has been a British type of dark humour, self-parody and irony in the fluff the early days.

I get the feeling that AoS does not have any comparable humourous element in its make-up.

What chance is there in 10 years time of there being AoS equivalents of the Angry Marines, Reasonable Marines, Chaos-chan, and so on?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Also, while we're on the topic of nameless, faceless, immortal armies in AoS, anyone wanna put money on the new fire-slayers bursting into flames when they die to be reborn like phoenixes, or being born of volcanoes and thus theoretically infinite numbers of them?

That thought has actually crossed my mind before.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

What chance is there in 10 years time of there being AoS equivalents of the Angry Marines, Reasonable Marines, Chaos-chan, and so on?

To be honest, we already have the Sigmarines.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Also, while we're on the topic of nameless, faceless, immortal armies in AoS, anyone wanna put money on the new fire-slayers bursting into flames when they die to be reborn like phoenixes, or being born of volcanoes and thus theoretically infinite numbers of them?

I reckon they'll be more like the Seraphim; Fire slayers are elementals created when a shamed dwarf dies, and can be summoned by some of the elders in an attempt to atone for their previous sins. When vanquished, their spirits return to purgatory in the mountain until they are called on again.

We know that Fyre Slayers will fight for whoever has the most Ur-gold.

What I am hoping that means, is they need Ur-gold to buy food and other necessities from nearby towns of other mortals as they have no economic infrastructure themselves.

If they just like collecting hordes of coins because "ooh shiny!" And are spawned out of Lava and live forever... It's going to be very hard for me to stomach.

But where do they spend Ur-gold? And is it the normal currency, or is it something special?

Also taking bets on if either of those questions get answered with the (presumably coming) fyre slayer battle tome!

 Bottle wrote:
We know that Fyre Slayers will fight for whoever has the most Ur-gold.

What I am hoping that means, is they need Ur-gold to buy food and other necessities from nearby towns of other mortals as they have no economic infrastructure themselves.

If they just like collecting hordes of coins because "ooh shiny!" And are spawned out of Lava and live forever... It's going to be very hard for me to stomach.

It may be that "ur-gold" has special qualities that they need for religious/whatever purposes (it may even be the source of a possible immortality...).

In that line they could have a contract with some greedy god that can withdraw something he/she/it desires from ur-gold and demands offerings from them in order to keep them immortal.

Do note, however, that this would only work if there was "regular" gold and ur-gold was somewhat special.

The economy is based on Ur-gold because during development, the design team were asked what was the currency of the Mortal Realms and they hadn't thought about that yet and they replied, "Err... gold."

Back on topic, the reason for Fyre Slayer Dwarves to fight for whoever pays the most is so they can appear in Chaos and Undead armies as well as Order.

This lets anyone buy a set of the models because they are cool. (That's the wrong adjective for Fire Dwarves but you get my point.)

coldgaming wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:
Umm, spears quite important in AoS.

Yeah, not in the 4-page AoS rules though, but hidden behind £30 'battletomes'.

All of the army/model rules are free. The only rules you can't get on the website (and I believe they are available for a few bucks in the app, but I don't really look there) are some of the scenarios and formations.

LOL not in the 4-page rules, and not even hidden in 'battletomes'. Written on the warscrolls. 2". I guess FREE is still not good enough for some people


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
"Fifteen space marines died taking that fortress."

"Fifteen stormcast fell taking that fortress."

You don't understand, Manchu. Every space marine's life is precious. GW has a list of all thousand chapters and every space marine named, and when some die in a novel, they mark them off the list. THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT jeez

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's starting to sound like you've never actually read a novel about SM. They don't really do much other than fight for the glory of the Emperor.

It sounds like you've never actually read a good novel about SM.

Prospero Burns, my personal favourite, introduced a very deep, rich culture to space wolves beyond the whole 'wolf mcwolferson riding his wolf into battle with his wolf claws'.

The problem with this was that they came off as insanely hypocritical jerkwads, trying entirely too hard to be mutually exclusive things ("the crazy berzerker act is just a clever ruse...but wait actually we still are crazy berzerkers"), and displayed a tremendous level of mysticism entirely incompatible with their role in spreading the otherwise secular Imperial ideals, and largely just made the SW's appear even more inconsistent as a general faction, particularly when then compared to their 40k counterparts



I think in general GW's fluff and background writing in general have decline markedly over the last decade or so in most areas unforutnately, AoS is just probably the most stellar example, but it's hit everything.

I haven't read any of the fluff on Sigmarines, but I've read a few of the Space Marines books (and listened to a few audio books) and they come across as human. They have interactions with normal people, they have & make friends, feel sympathy, mourn fallen comrades. They have human qualities. They also have risk and generate emotional investment.

I get the impression none of that happens in AoS: everything is either essentially immortal or innumerable and there's nothing but war.

I normally don't bother with GW novels, but all the debate about the AOS fluff made me go out and read the first novel (or I think the first) war storm. Hardly going to win a literary prize, but reading it I found the following:

They come across as human.
They have interactions with others (I'm not sure what you meant by 'normal people' in a fantasy type setting).
They have/make friends.
feel sympathy.
mourn fallen comrades.
Have human qualities.
Have risk and generate emotional attachment.

They are not immortal. They can be 'killed' permanently. Even without permanent death they suffer what for many would be a fate worse than death. As characters they are absolutely not immortal, they lose part of themselves each time they are re-forged (which means they are not really the same character).

Clearly we all have different things which give us attachment to characters, we all have different ideas of what is tragic or risk etc. But the arguments being made above do not appear to me as a matter of fact but simply personal opinion on how one perceives 'character', 'mortality' or 'human'. The models and little snippets I have picked up prior to that might have left me with the sort of impressions as you are saying, but they come across quite different in the novel.

[edit]
I'd add that having never read any 40k novels the space marines appeared not much different for a long time to me - hyper indoctrinated killing machines with no character made for war. They die but there are always more. I always thought of the film Soldier with Kirt Russell when I thought space marine, 99% of them will never say anything beyond 'yes sir'. Over time you pick up on extra stuff beyond that, but that was my impression for quite a while.

Well said puree. I brought up one of your points before but it has been totally ignored:

 Manchu wrote:
In the case of the Stormcast, there is an interesting angle precisely in the fact that they do not die. They have already died, which is interesting in itself, and now they are "doomed" to fight forever for Sigmar, knowing that with each fresh "death" on the battlefield a little more of who they were in life will slip away.

Besides the absolutely bizarre insistence that SM are totally relatable as human beings -- a point many HH novels explicitly reject -- there is also the equally bizarre insistence that the issue of relatability as human comes down to the question of death. Assuming it isn't a bad faith argument, this reflects a narrow, idiosyncratic taste. People don't read about SM because the depth of their humanity. They read about SM because they are genetically and surgically modified post-humans. People don't read about SM because they can die. They read about SM because they are incredibly resilient superwarriors.

It can't be helped if someone in particular does or doesn't like AoS fluff. But given the thread topic, the claim has to be a bit broader: the fluff is bad/good enough to be a factor in AoS failing/succeeding. AoS has adopted some apparently successful conventions from 40k. GW is not unaware that SM sell really, really well. It's funny to watch people call Stormcast Sigmarines and then bend over backwards trying to say Stormcast are not like SM in the important, successful ways. I can understand the argument that Sigmarines are boring but the argument that Sigmarines are boring but SM are exciting makes no sense. The best argument along that line of thought is, it is boring that GW's answer to revamping Fantasy was "add Space Marines." But, again, given how incredibly popular SM are, it's a savvy move.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What chance is there in 10 years time of there being AoS equivalents of the Angry Marines, Reasonable Marines, Chaos-chan, and so on?

These memes are largely a result of Dawn of War. So I'd say the probability of internet memes being developed for AoS is a matter of whether GW licenses AoS to a video game developer who turns out a beloved game.

 Manchu wrote:
But, again, given how incredibly popular SM are, it's a savvy move.

Unless of course they are 2 different games with different appeals to different groups and GW just ends up putting out an army with next to no post starter set sales while losing money by not releasing SM models that would have sold like hot cakes.

Well we have been through that but to summarize the argument: in the experience of GW, the group that SM appeal to is larger than the the group that a fantasy version of the Thirty Years War appeals to, for better or for worse.

puree wrote:
I normally don't bother with GW novels, but all the debate about the AOS fluff made me go out and read the first novel (or I think the first) war storm. Hardly going to win a literary prize, but reading it I found the following:

And with that, puree has outed every single person in this thread who speaks authoritatively on AoS but whose knowledge extends only to the box cover of the game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The economy is based on Ur-gold because during development, the design team were asked what was the currency of the Mortal Realms and they hadn't thought about that yet and they replied, "Err... gold."

Back on topic, the reason for Fyre Slayer Dwarves to fight for whoever pays the most is so they can appear in Chaos and Undead armies as well as Order.

This lets anyone buy a set of the models because they are cool. (That's the wrong adjective for Fire Dwarves but you get my point.)

I think for the Fyre Slayers all gold is "Ur-gold". Until they take it from you, and then it becomes "Ma-Gold".

 Manchu wrote:
Besides the absolutely bizarre insistence that SM are totally relatable as human beings -- a point many HH novels explicitly reject -- there is also the equally bizarre insistence that the issue of relatability as human comes down to the question of death. Assuming it isn't a bad faith argument, this reflects a narrow, idiosyncratic taste. People don't read about SM because the depth of their humanity. They read about SM because they are genetically and surgically modified post-humans. People don't read about SM because they can die. They read about SM because they are incredibly resilient superwarriors.

That's not really true.

The most beloved of the HH books is precisely the ones who focus on trying to make the marines relatable, with human qualities and flaws. 'Betrayer' and 'The first Heretic' is often mentioned as peoples favourites, precisely because they give some depth and personality to previous very onedimensional groups. There are a fair bit of HH books who reads like you describe; Flanderized superwarriors killing stuff; AKA pure bolterporn*. These books are routinely slammed and lothed by readers of the HH series. (Battle for the abyss is often seen as one of the very worst in the series due to these complaints).


*I'd say that every HH book has it's share of bolterporn to show off the marines coolnes and super-skills. The well recieved ones have lots of more human elements in between those scenes however.

 Bottle wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The economy is based on Ur-gold because during development, the design team were asked what was the currency of the Mortal Realms and they hadn't thought about that yet and they replied, "Err... gold."

Back on topic, the reason for Fyre Slayer Dwarves to fight for whoever pays the most is so they can appear in Chaos and Undead armies as well as Order.

This lets anyone buy a set of the models because they are cool. (That's the wrong adjective for Fire Dwarves but you get my point.)

I think for the Fyre Slayers all gold is "Ur-gold". Until they take it from you, and then it becomes "Ma-Gold".

Being from the south, I laughed WAY to hard at this.