Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wondering people's opinions on GW's next long term move, do they push on with AOS or do they try and go back in time again before the end times etc. Apologies if there is already a thread like this, I had a brief look and couldn't find anything

They're not going back. This was a very deliberate and drastic move to change Fantasy due to flagging sales. Going back to the old rules and setting would just be going back to those flagging sales.

Age of Sigmar needs to sell well, or its very likely GW will either move it to their new Specialist branch or drop it entirely and focus on what sells.

I hope it sells well, and that they have time to expand on it and flesh it out more. It has potential, great potential, especially with the multiple play types they are coming out with and different missions.

I want to see it grow.

There was an announcement of the storyline being planned out for the next 4-5 years. So they're sticking with it for now which I'm happy with.

The specialist branch might dabble in the nostalgia value though. There was talk of Mordheim.

Maybe Warmaster to ride the total war popularity wave?

If Mordheim comes back, I believe it will be updated to AoS since they just discontinued the key plastic kit from the boxed set (the Empire Free Company) when they redid Order.

Warmaster I can easily see keeping the Olde World setting.

They have done way to much to drop it now, and those players they have lost are likely lost for good.

What hurt age of sigmar was poor planing, poor marketing and poor release. The game itself isn't bad if they work on it and use the FAQ to get ideas on how to improve it.
GW has to get out of there old habits if they want it to really succeed, rather than leaving things for months(years) to just sorta sit And fade.
One of the bigist complaints still is nothing to talk about with factions players want to know something about, dragging there feet would be welcome from GW at this point.

Onto mordheim, if they tie it into age of sigmar somehow that's fine, but sigmarines wouldn't fit in the game right. They would need to rewrite it around them to make it really work, or expect to have warbands of two.

The biggest issue with age of sigmar isnt the poorly written rules (they are at least playable, can be entertaining but they are no work of art or brilliance and certainly deserve no praise) is the absolutely garbage attempt at setting. If they could do something with it, work to make it less cookie cutter junk and perhaps make is something you can care about, then it has a chance. I think warhammer quest was a great start, but it needs more. the fluff is too spread out, and doesnt matter anyway. Infinite space makes caring hard and just tossing stuff out is meh. The flesh eater courts would be alot more interesting in a setting with some manner of boundary. as it is, the setting took old concepts and made it something lazy.

It impossible to believe that GW will simply dump AoS and restore 8th edition WHFB.

I find it unlikely that they will bring back Warmaster, as in many ways it is the opposite of the kind of games they clearly want to sell.

I think AoS has had a rocky launch, and GW have been scrambling to put the boat on an even keel. IMO the promise of a points system is a massive bone thrown to the old-style WHFB competition players after GW found that AoS sales were suffering badly from lack of a points system. Clearly an after-thought, or it would have been there much earlier.

IDK how much more stuff like that GW can add to the game rules. If they add something major, like a C3 and morale system, it starts to make it too complicated and moves away from the simple core 4-page concept.

The fluff looks wooly to me. I'm not a fluff fan anyway, but I see complaints from a lot of people about it. Obviously GW can write more fluff, and gradually it might help bring back some of the lost players.

 thekingofkings wrote:
The biggest issue with age of sigmar isnt the poorly written rules (they are at least playable, can be entertaining but they are no work of art or brilliance and certainly deserve no praise) is the absolutely garbage attempt at setting. If they could do something with it, work to make it less cookie cutter junk and perhaps make is something you can care about, then it has a chance. I think warhammer quest was a great start, but it needs more. the fluff is too spread out, and doesnt matter anyway. Infinite space makes caring hard and just tossing stuff out is meh. The flesh eater courts would be alot more interesting in a setting with some manner of boundary. as it is, the setting took old concepts and made it something lazy.

I was certainly in the same boat as you about the fluff, but I have warmed to it massively. One of the problems with the "official storyline" is that although we have infinite realms, it has actually become more limited in scope - just focusing on a handful of key players and armies.

But the little snippets of the wider realms - even just one liners in the Grand Alliance books, have been enough to place my collection in the setting once more. So I am really coming to like this new setting, even if the main storyline isn't my thing.

I would love a giant source book crammed full of example civilisations for each faction, or at least hope some of these things hinted at in the Grand Alliance books get a bit more fleshed out in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the general future of the game. There is so much hype and excitement about AoS at the moment the future looks really positive and I think the game is going to skyrocket. The general's handbook is going to be MASSIVE. The Ironjawz realise was incredible and well received as was Silver Tower. We're getting to the point now that every AoS release is going to something fans are clamouring for (like the upcoming Aelfs).

I can't wait to see what is next!

The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.

Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.

Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.

I'm eager to have a look at it.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.

Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.

I'm eager to have a look at it.

Yeah! It should be great! Can't wait to see all the different modes for campaign play too.

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.

Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.

I'm eager to have a look at it.

Yeah! It should be great! Can't wait to see all the different modes for campaign play too.

A bright future for AoS would be highly welcome. But I doubt that GW can make a balanced game. They never could.

AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.

What I care about from "matched play" is a variety of strong builds across all factions/alliances. That's all that matters really - the more variety of builds the better, and the perfect system would be one where every Warscroll could have its time to shine in a certain build.

I want there to be the ability to crunch and tweak lists, and I would like there to be strategy in the list building for matched play.

Open play is where you can strive for balance, as there are no points or restrictions so players can handicap or add to the armies until they are equal.

I'm not really sure what I dislike about AOS tbh, maybe I just need to play a really game rather than just the starter set. I've always loved developing the background of my units and I guess I feel like AOS has destroyed this. The no points system really annoyed me though so looking forward to that being released.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.

... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.

AoS is doing well and has a bright future

AoS I think is a goner, just from my own experince.

I never bother visiting the website to view what models I may have missed released, except the odd 40k.

I never see anyone but 1 or 2 guys playing it, even then they do not buy new models.

A guy showed up for two weekeneds that I know of with the AoS starter fully painted and asked people to play either army and found no one to play with. i gave him a pitty game but it was like pulling teeth.

If they count on AoS sales my local GW will be closed in a month.

The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.

How is the game unbalanced? It is merely a set of rules for move/attack/magic etc.

Whether an individual game is balanced or not is down to the two players playing not GW. Only you and the person you play with can decide whether your game is balanced.

Do you mean it lacks a way to tell you how to play in a way that will somehow mystically produce a balanced game between two random people?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.

... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.

Really? Executioners are the unit you pick to showcase "extreme units"?
3+/3+ with 2 attacks, 1 damage, and no Rend? Is it because they get to make 2 Mortal Wounds on Hit rolls of 6s?

Because Retributors(Hammer equipped Paladins) get the same ability, but come in units of 3 or more and can add Starsoul Maces for every 1 in 5 models, allowing for D3 Mortal Wounds--and they have 2 damage and -1 Rend for attacks that fail to roll 6s.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.

... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.

Really? Executioners are the unit you pick to showcase "extreme units"?
3+/3+ with 2 attacks, 1 damage, and no Rend? Is it because they get to make 2 Mortal Wounds on Hit rolls of 6s?

Because Retributors(Hammer equipped Paladins) get the same ability, but come in units of 3 or more and can add Starsoul Maces for every 1 in 5 models, allowing for D3 Mortal Wounds--and they have 2 damage and -1 Rend for attacks that fail to roll 6s.

Executions make 2 mortal wounds on a hit roll of 6.
We play KDV atm. They are undercosted.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is reasonably balanced as it stands, if you avoid the extreme units. The lack of points makes it look unbalanced, but points make 40K look balanced while everyone knows it's wildly out of whack.

... if you avoid the extreme units. That's the problem. Have a look, say, at Executioners.

Really? Executioners are the unit you pick to showcase "extreme units"?
3+/3+ with 2 attacks, 1 damage, and no Rend? Is it because they get to make 2 Mortal Wounds on Hit rolls of 6s?

Because Retributors(Hammer equipped Paladins) get the same ability, but come in units of 3 or more and can add Starsoul Maces for every 1 in 5 models, allowing for D3 Mortal Wounds--and they have 2 damage and -1 Rend for attacks that fail to roll 6s.

Executions make 2 mortal wounds on a hit roll of 6.

I know what they do. I even mentioned it in my post.

We play KDV atm. They are undercosted.

That's your problem, not mine. Don't play comps and come whining about 'extreme units'.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The future looks grim without a balanced rule set.

Lol, with the General's Handbook coming in around a month's time (which details "matched" competitive play as well as structured campaigns "narrative" play), we don't have much longer left to suffer.

I'm eager to have a look at it.

Yeah! It should be great! Can't wait to see all the different modes for campaign play too.

A bright future for AoS would be highly welcome. But I doubt that GW can make a balanced game. They never could.

Lord of the rings was until about 2007.

I think with the recent news about the Generals handbook and it's release this year will bring people in to the game.

Fantasy can always come back.

As was said by Bottle, AoS was poorly executed, poorly marketed etc. Well the Kirby days are gone hopefully. So maybe AoS can become what we thought could happen.

AoS is the "starter" version. You first buy AoS start your forces small, and once they get bigger and you want more complexity you go into Fantasy. Problem is, Fantasy needs to be, HAS to be perfectly balanced, clear and concise so people will want to and look forward to making their armies, bigger.

So depending on how this General Handbook goes, Fantasy can come back, just need to get rid of the Multiple planets, and GW makes them officially "shards" from one world instead of different planets, make it more Fantasy instead of Science Fiction Fantasy, and go back to ONE PLANET (don't know what it was called) and have different shards where we use "portals" to travel through.

Make the game fantasy setting again and I am sure Fantasy Battles can come back better than ever.

The momentum for AoS has clearly been gaining after a rough launch. It's got a lot of people buzzing now, to the point the stalwart hate-it-never-play-it crowd are the awkward minority.

Davor wrote:
...
Fantasy can come back, just need to get rid of the Multiple planets, and GW makes them officially "shards" from one world instead of different planets, make it more Fantasy instead of Science Fiction Fantasy, and go back to ONE PLANET (don't know what it was called) and have different shards where we use "portals" to travel through.

Make the game fantasy setting again and I am sure Fantasy Battles can come back better than ever.

The setting is certainly not science fantasy - I've read almost everything that has been released as fiction for AoS and there is absolutely nothing out there to suggest a more advanced technological level than that of the old world. The most advanced machinery that has been seen is either made by the skaven or is something like the mechanical steed of the Empire engineer - basically stuff that already existed.

It has not been mentioned whether there are planets in the setting although there are plenty of non-traditionally shaped land masses. All in all, fundamentally the setting as is now is not that different from Planescape and MTG's worlds. The difference is that both MTG and Planescape feature technologically advanced planes while AoS (atleast for now) is entirely magical.

The topic has been discussed to death, either way, so I just hopped in for my sporadic sharing of my view on AoS' setting.

wuestenfux wrote:We play KDV atm. They are undercosted.

When you play with an added statistic that is supposed to measure something in relation to something else and that statistic ends up just being evaluated as an inherent part of the function of the model you may end up with such experiences. IMO many of AoS' abilities are impossible to be costed "fairly" in relation to a vanilla "base ability. Each comp will give you a fair bit of additional statistics (points) to help you choose what you play, but to expect a real equality between any given set of units and thus equity for the players is IMO naive - atleast not without outright banning abilities.

With regards on AoS' future - it looks bright in my eyes. There is a surge of new posts on FB's groups, since the points announcement, detailing people's new purchases (and some of them are atrociously big), painting progress and battle reports. While I don't approve of points in AoS, I can't deny the influx of new people the announcement has brought and with that comes stability for the entire line.

An argument could be advanced that "pure AoS" doesn't have points, so that GW releasing a points system changes the game to something different and it is no longer AoS.

While there is some merit in that point of view, practically speaking I think it's more important that GW have recognised they were leaving a lot of players behind by the insistence that AoS was a no points system.

Arranging the game as three complementary approaches seems to satisfy everyone who likes the core rules.