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.

 Talys wrote:


Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.

Which, I think we can both agree, AoS is not that game.

It is always possible to tailor rule sets to cater to a particular style of gamer. The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one. The very nature of AoS as an open army creation system means that reining it in is going to be much more difficult than if they had set some limits in the first place. I suspect now that AoS no longer uses universal special rules, setting limits resulting from unintended warscroll interactions / abilities is going to be a god awful mess.

Not for GW, they won't even try!

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Talys wrote:


Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.

Which, I think we can both agree, AoS is not that game.

No, I have never said that it was something that makes everybody happy (certainly, not at this stage). In fact, it makes one group jubilant, and another group outraged -- AoS picks winners and losers. I suppose there are some in between, but I suspect a lot of those are like me and just like the models and maybe the fluff more than the game itself.

However, this doesn't mean that it can't be successful, that it can't be fun, or that it won't make more money than Fantasy Battle (which, by all accounts, isn't a very high bar to cross). It really doesn't mean anything at all other than that I (and I think a lot of other reasonable people) think that it would be better if it would were more inclusive.

What it IS at the moment is something that people like us are talking to death O.o


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 keezus wrote:
It is always possible to tailor rule sets to cater to a particular style of gamer. The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one. The very nature of AoS as an open army creation system means that reining it in is going to be much more difficult than if they had set some limits in the first place. I suspect now that AoS no longer uses universal special rules, setting limits resulting from unintended warscroll interactions / abilities is going to be a god awful mess.

Yes, I too think that it's easier to get people to accept relaxed rules than it is to get people to accept more stringent ones.

On the other hand, I think that GW genuinely wanted AoS to "break the mold" and disrupt the marketplace by looking for "another type of gamer" -- and whether or not it works out, it takes guts to spend a lot of money and energy to give it a go. They didn't dip into the pool with one foot in, then went headfirst from the hundred foot cliff, and I guess if it's gonna work, this is one way to find out.

I suppose we'll find out if Johnson was a genius or a bat**** crazy

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Talys wrote:


Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.

Which, I think we can both agree, AoS is not that game.

No, I have never said that it was something that makes everybody happy (certainly, not at this stage). In fact, it makes one group jubilant, and another group outraged -- AoS picks winners and losers. I suppose there are some in between, but I suspect a lot of those are like me and just like the models and maybe the fluff more than the game itself.

However, this doesn't mean that it can't be successful, that it can't be fun, or that it won't make more money than Fantasy Battle (which, by all accounts, isn't a very high bar to cross). It really doesn't mean anything at all other than that I (and I think a lot of other reasonable people) think that it would be better if it would were more inclusive.

What it IS at the moment is something that people like us are talking to death O.o

You disagree, but you then contradict yourself and say that it isn't what both parties want... Thus agreeing with my statement that AoS isn't the game that pleases both parties.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

Wow, totally not what I was going for.
Deadnight, you've done nothing but misread, and misinform in this entire thread, I give your posts no credence, and hence shouldn't even be responding to you, but nonetheless, here is what I was aiming to say.

Thrn with respect, clarify your points. Your post above came across as 'you're doing it wrong. Don't contaminate wargaming with other things like rpg's.' You effectively told talys to bugger off and completely dismissed his whole attitude and way of playing. I simply disagree. As to misinforming, thrn I'll apologise if I have come across thst way.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

You're entirely welcome to have story-based gameplay, no one is stopping you (points costs aren't stopping you - just ignore them)
But to say that a great majority of people don't enjoy tournament gaming is a farce. A *lot* of people enjoy tournament gaming *and* casual gaming too. And can get both from the old systems, like 40K can WHFB(not AoS)

Indeed. I'm one of them. I enjoy story based gameplay, but my personal preference is for extremrly tightly written, effective rules sets. Tournaments are a joy. For what it's worth, I mainly play warmachine and infinity, and recently jumped back into dropzone commander - forgot how much fun it is.

I actually agree with you, aos only supports one style of play. And it may not be my preference, but I am sympathetic to that type of gaming even if aos is a shoddy game.

I don't agree that tournament players are a majority. And I think a lot of people dislike the idea of tournaments. Whether we, or they are the majority doesn't really matter, at least to me.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

But GW have, in recent years, destroyed 40K to the point where heavy comp rules are needed to maintain balance and keep everything fun for everyone. Why is it so impossible for GW to maintain balance?

I disagree. It's not a 'in recent years' thing at all. Gw have never maintained balance, even back to second ed or rogue trader. Saying otherwise is being dishonest. Rightly or wrongly (IMO the latter), it's not a priority. Why is it impossible? It's not, thry seemingly don't see it as worthwhile.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

They acknowledge that people like playing tournaments, but want no privey to it, and thus begins the exodus... Some of us are just about ready to jump off this sinking ship if it continues to go sink and shows no signs of improvement.

If you like tournaments, you should play more tournament friendly games. For me, warmachine/hordes is top of the pile. I lost interest in gw tournaments at the end of fourth edition. I'd genuinely recommend you to give it a look, or pop down to the sub board here.

Regarding tournaments, gw washed their hands of them a while back - I remember it actually. I think it was due to a combination of reasons - some im sympathetic with, and others, not so much. I think gw probably regarded tournaments as more trouble than they were worth.When gw were trimming the fat, tournament support was one of the things that went. Anything that didn't translate to a direct profit (as opposed to indirect profits) got the axe. This, like games days and so on, was one of those things. Utterly stupid, and a proper fu to the community at large but there you go. The other reason, I think was ideologically, gw understood that loads of people wanted loads of different things in games/tournaments. Pleasing one with an 'official' tournament pack meant hacking off the rest, in their eyes. Far better to let the players control and design their own tournaments. I'm more sympathetic to the intent at least, of the latter.

I think their thought process was therefore a combination of cost cutting and letting gamers make their own games.

Or being cynical about it, 'let them make their own bloody game, it means less work for us and it costs us nothing at the end of the day'. With 'nothing' being defined as hard currency, customer goodwill is some strange malarkey that doesn't count.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

Nothing is stopping you from enjoying scenario based gaming, to play out a scenario you don't exactly *need* points costs, so just ignore them. As I'm sure you've done for years.
No one is saying your fun is wrong or you can't have fun, but why must your fun conquer and eradicate mine?

I've not done it for years though - just fairly recently. And I've quite enjoyed the change of pace. I grew up playing competitive 40k, and levelled up to competitive warmachine. Got burned out by the former and walked away from the game entirely, recognised an incoming burnout from the latter and took some time out before coming back in last year, Guns blazing, but foot not so hard on the accelerator. I get tournaments. I enjoy thrm immensely. I also enjoy other types of gaming, just as something different.

I have no intention of having 'my' fun conquer of eradicate 'yours' - I enjoy the same types of gaming as you do. Thing is, whether you wanted to or not, you implied the very same thing you accused me of to talys. why can't talys have his wargames with rpg elements? You told him to bugger off and play an rpg, as if his whole style of play has no place in 'wargaming'. And to be fair, I don't know the guy, and a lot of his posts make me shake my head, but I'll tell you what - I'd love to get a game in with him - he seems like a fun guy. There are other ways to play games. These are not wrong.

I'll reiterate. I have no interest in conquering or eradicating your fun - if thsts what you think I'm all about then you are completely mistaken.

Like I said, I do just what you suggest with a few of my friends. Friday night gaming. I can't be arsed with heavy rules lawyering after a week at work. I want to ease it back and relax for a few hours. With others, it's warmachine steamroller 2015 packs, and we get together every couple of weeks for all-day gaming. Properly cut throat. Great fun.

Talys - Do you even reading comprehend bro?

keezus wrote:
The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one.

Yes, I too think that it's easier to get people to accept relaxed rules than it is to get people to accept more stringent ones.

I think its fair to say that it benefits everyone when there is a tightly written and rigorous set of rules. Scenario and narrative based play can be enjoyed - where rules can actively be tweaked to achieve a desired effect or flavor. Min max gamers will continue to enjoy their list building and strategy devising. casual gamers can really just have a pick up and play game.

There is no need for two sets of rules for both supposed camps.

Those filthy model collecting hobbyists can go hang though.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
You disagree, but you then contradict yourself and say that it isn't what both parties want... Thus agreeing with my statement that AoS isn't the game that pleases both parties.

We're saying the same thing :\

I'll try to be succinct: AoS isn't a product that pleases both parties. That doesn't mean it can't be successful, though; it just means that one group will be grumpy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Talys - Do you even reading comprehend bro?

keezus wrote:
The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one.

Yes, I too think that it's easier to get people to accept relaxed rules than it is to get people to accept more stringent ones.

I think its fair to say that it benefits everyone when there is a tightly written and rigorous set of rules. Scenario and narrative based play can be enjoyed - where rules can actively be tweaked to achieve a desired effect or flavor. Min max gamers will continue to enjoy their list building and strategy devising. casual gamers can really just have a pick up and play game.

There is no need for two sets of rules for both supposed camps.

Those filthy model collecting hobbyists can go hang though.

As I see it, the (only?) reasons for NOT having points/a mathematical balancing system are:

1. Realizing Jervis Johnson's (and maybe Rick Priestley's) vision of a point-free system where the game is explicitly NOT meant for competitors. Who knows, maybe this will become a big thing, or maybe it won't be popular at all.

2. Shooing away the competitive types means the people who DO play AoS are probably going to be like-minded narrative-driven casuals (meaning, if you can find people to play with, they're gonna want the same thing as you)

3. By emphasizing a point-free system, people who don't like point-based systems or list building or list building for advantage will take a look at this product. I have no idea what the size of this demographic is

4. This point-free thing has generated more chatter for AoS than the most perfect, awesome rules could ever have done. We're all talking about it, and 4 weeks ago, most of us could not have given a hoot about Fantasy. Granted, a lot of this is negative. But through the GW lens, "ye who thinketh point free is bad... this game was not meant for you!"

The filthy model collecting hobbyists really don't care one way or the other They're gonna buy the models anyways, and the ones that like to read the fluff will buy that too. GW didn't even need to even write a game system to get me to buy a box each of the Sigmarites, and the starter. They could have just released the models and I would have bought them (note: if they had come from PP, I would also have bought them!).

It's most certainly not because "GW was lazy". GW didn't put points on stuff because they REALLY didn't want this game to be another game of competitive list-building for advantage. Though I very much like list building, I DON'T like list building for advantage (ie I rather start a game with a fair fight than an advantageous list, even though I like building lists). I'm not sure how you can reconcile that, though. Probably can't.

There are DEFINITELY some people who don't like building lists, don't like point systems, etc. I've seen them in person, at local stores, and they're here at Dakka (the AoS GD thread has a few of them that fall perfectly in GW's target demo). Intuitively, I think there are actually enough of these people to support AoS as a game. The real question is, whether they'll spend enough to make it a game that GW thinks is worth supporting in the long run.

After all, there were definitely enough people to support a WHFB community; it just wasn't profitable enough (or perhaps not profitable at all) to keep running.

 mechanicalhorizon wrote:
I was looking at the AoS models on GW's site and noticed they changed the names of many races and thought maybe it was due to IP reasons, so they can copyright/trademark more.

Thing is, there are other companies using the name Aelf already, 2 that come to mind are Mierce Miniatures and Red Box Games (although RBG extends it as Aelfar).

I thought they had changed the names for legal reasons?

They may have attempted to, however it would still be idiotic.

Third party bits people can just change their text to read "compatible with GW Aelf kits" and still not be breaching any copyright law, as we saw in the Chapterhouse case. If GW did do these idiotic name changes for IP reasons then it is just further proof, as if we needed it, that they have absolutely no understanding how IP law actually works.

They proved that pretty well during the CHS case, with their IP expert admitting he didn't know what he was doing. In court, to the judge.

 Talys wrote:
On the other hand, I think that GW genuinely wanted AoS to "break the mold" and disrupt the marketplace by looking for "another type of gamer" -- and whether or not it works out, it takes guts to spend a lot of money and energy to give it a go. They didn't dip into the pool with one foot in, then went headfirst from the hundred foot cliff, and I guess if it's gonna work, this is one way to find out.

Considering that GW doesn't advertise beyond it's customer base, I'd say the only thing that GW achieved is disrupt their own market. Their current strategy is entirely dependent on the independents for exposure. While they might truly believe that market research is otiose in a niche, they'll need market research if they venture beyond. This doesn't seem to have happened. They don't have a controlled presence on the internet beyond their own website - the initial reviews aren't particularly favorable. Boardgame Geek which has pretty high readership beyond GW's normal market gives AoS 2.5/5. Not a very auspicious start.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
As I see it, the (only?) reasons for NOT having points/a mathematical balancing system are:

1. Realizing Jervis Johnson's (and maybe Rick Priestley's) vision of a point-free system where the game is explicitly NOT meant for competitors. Who knows, maybe this will become a big thing, or maybe it won't be popular at all.

2. Shooing away the competitive types means the people who DO play AoS are probably going to be like-minded narrative-driven casuals (meaning, if you can find people to play with, they're gonna want the same thing as you)

3. By emphasizing a point-free system, people who don't like point-based systems or list building or list building for advantage will take a look at this product. I have no idea what the size of this demographic is

4. This point-free thing has generated more chatter for AoS than the most perfect, awesome rules could ever have done. We're all talking about it, and 4 weeks ago, most of us could not have given a hoot about Fantasy. Granted, a lot of this is negative. But through the GW lens, "ye who thinketh point free is bad... this game was not meant for you!"

There are DEFINITELY some people who don't like building lists, don't like point systems, etc. I've seen them in person, at local stores, and they're here at Dakka (the AoS GD thread has a few of them that fall perfectly in GW's target demo). Intuitively, I think there are actually enough of these people to support AoS as a game. The real question is, whether they'll spend enough to make it a game that GW thinks is worth supporting in the long run.

The above reasons don't work in the real world for a reason. As everyone in the GW Financials thread is so fond of saying... GW is in the business of making money. Addressing the above points directly:

1. Deliberately making the game "toxic to competitive types" artificially limits the customer base you reach.

2. Using the strategy from point no. 1 will only remove the "fair play competitive types" who wish to play in a rigid framework. The point-free system allows for the most unrestricted degenerate WAAC style armies, so these players are not necessarily pushed away. Ergo, the gaming community will polarize into "filthy degenerates" and "filthy casuals" type crowds. This does not provide a good environment to growing the customer base and is an excellent breeding ground for rage-quitting if you are from one camp and the only groups within your travel radius are of the other.

3. No. 3 assumes that new customers know about Age of Sigmar. Considering that GW doesn't advertise outside its channels, and word of mouth on the interwebs generally boils down to a resounding meh - not sure that this is a realistic expectation.

4. Bad publicity for the Blackberry Z10 certainly did get BB mentioned in the news a lot. This did not translate into sales.

While the current configuration for AoS is fine for a "Warhammer Jr" type game, IMHO, there is zero advantage to going with a free form system as one of your primary tent pole products.

There's also a possibility in regard to point 2 that in order to avoid the WAAC players running riot, GW (assuming it is both aware of the situation and cares to do anything about it) ensures that new units become so vanilla that it will turn off the fluffy players, effectively rendering AoS a game which nobody wants to play.

@Az: This doesn't seem to be GW's modus operandii... I would expect new Warscrolls to be more uber rather than less so, since the casuals will probably buy one and the WAAC will have to buy 10 of them.

TFG: Hey bro... want to play Age of Sigmar? My army is meant to represent a tribe of Bloodthirsters who have fallen under the thrall of Tzeench and so they're living together with a bunch of Fateweavers because that model profile better represents the fluff of my army.

 Talys wrote:

It's most certainly not because "GW was lazy". GW didn't put points on stuff because they REALLY didn't want this game to be another game of competitive list-building for advantage. Though I very much like list building, I DON'T like list building for advantage (ie I rather start a game with a fair fight than an advantageous list, even though I like building lists). I'm not sure how you can reconcile that, though. Probably can't.

One point of contention. "Laziness" might be the case here, if GW has just decided that its easier to release warscrolls and models with big, crazy rules without having to spend time/money paying designers to worry about points costs and balance, to where the only thing that'll determine what GW customers want to buy is the price. So it's not a choice to be points free because it's a inherently better way of presenting a "narrative" or scenario based game, but it's certainly easier to think of rules, names, and keywords, splash that onto a PDF for their warscrolls, and then take a picture of some studio models and slap that on there as well.

Lazy - why bother attempting to balance things when GW can instead put up crap, with no attempt at balance?

The Auld Grump

 keezus wrote:
@Az: This doesn't seem to be GW's modus operandii... I would expect new Warscrolls to be more uber rather than less so, since the casuals will probably buy one and the WAAC will have to buy 10 of them.

TFG: Hey bro... want to play Age of Sigmar? My army is meant to represent a tribe of Bloodthirsters who have fallen under the thrall of Tzeench and so they're living together with a bunch of Fateweavers because that model profile better represents the fluff of my army.

That's entirely more likely, but I've more or less given up on trying to use GWs past behaviour to predict their future actions, I think they're trying everything they can to try and boost sales, but with the massive handicap of not necessarily knowing why they're not selling.

Well, everything except put effort into making a solid game...

They seemed to have gained some 40k players who may or may not stick around when they get bord of playing the same game twice but have also lost a good load of players who supported the old system.

I don't understand why they couldn't run AoS as the LotR replacement and do a fresh 9th edition set at the end of times and include both square and round bases with the miniatures.

Everyone is then happy.

 keezus wrote:
1. Deliberately making the game "toxic to competitive types" artificially limits the customer base you reach.

2. Using the strategy from point no. 1 will only remove the "fair play competitive types" who wish to play in a rigid framework. The point-free system allows for the most unrestricted degenerate WAAC style armies, so these players are not necessarily pushed away. Ergo, the gaming community will polarize into "filthy degenerates" and "filthy casuals" type crowds. This does not provide a good environment to growing the customer base and is an excellent breeding ground for rage-quitting if you are from one camp and the only groups within your travel radius are of the other.

You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.

As a vegan, I can tell you that I would pay more and give priority to a pure vegetarian restaurant, because I know that it's for me. I'll even make an effort to drag a non-vegan to a vegetarian restaurant to try out something different.

3. No. 3 assumes that new customers know about Age of Sigmar. Considering that GW doesn't advertise outside its channels, and word of mouth on the interwebs generally boils down to a resounding meh - not sure that this is a realistic expectation.

A lot of people are hearing about Age of Sigmar, because people are talking about Age of Sigmar. I found out about it because they launched it on a Magic prerelease launch. It's also prominent at the hobby shop that my friends and I visit.

There are a half dozen of us who play Magic together, in a way that you'd probably all hate, but we collectively bought 4 starter boxes, and we are all going to give Sigmar a try. None of us are "hardcore gamers", and I'm the only one who is a miniature wargamer of any kind, and only because my boyfriend introduced me to Warhammer 40,000. And he mostly paints my models!.

By the way, I haven't seen an ad for any miniature wargame, ever, on tv, on the radio, or in a magazine that's anything other than a wargaming magazine (and what a waste of money that is, because anyone buying the magazine already is going to know about the product).

4. Bad publicity for the Blackberry Z10 certainly did get BB mentioned in the news a lot. This did not translate into sales.

While the current configuration for AoS is fine for a "Warhammer Jr" type game, IMHO, there is zero advantage to going with a free form system as one of your primary tent pole products.

Well, I probably like Age of Sigmar a lot more than you, and I actually bought one. I guarantee you I wouldn't have tried it if it were Warhammer Fantasy Battle 9th edition, and if it wasn't clear that this was a low-model, campaign & story centered game. That's actually exactly what I want.

If there are campaigns that continue to come out that say, "buy these models and play these stories", the friends I play with will probably do exactly that. I think this is much better than Warhammer 40,000 -- as much as I love my Orks, I hate having to plan out armies and then being told this and this and this are the reasons why it's not a good army (which is true: I'm not very good at it, and I don't play very much, and won't read about all the other super armies, so I never will be).

In summary: Age of Sigmar's, "Side A take these models, Side B take these models, use this layout" is perfect for what I'm looking for, and so is the idea that we are actors in a story.

If 9th edition WHFB would have been released people would be bitching about one thing or another. I had little hope that GW would have fixed some of the major problems with 8th edition with out creating a new problem in 9th. Face it, GW is just horrible when it comes to writing rules.

@Vyxen - thanks for making my point for me. Yes, the vegetarian restaurant analogy is just perfect.

@Chute82 - GW has always been the company that's made fun rules that weren't perfect, and for as long as I can remember, people have been complaining about GW's rules, so it's not like this is anything different.

If anything, in my opinion, AoS represents the style of game GW always wanted to write, but never had the guts to, because they didn't want to lose out on sales. They finally went ahead and did it because FB couldn't get any worse

Vyxen wrote:

You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.

As a vegan, I can tell you that I would pay more and give priority to a pure vegetarian restaurant, because I know that it's for me. I'll even make an effort to drag a non-vegan to a vegetarian restaurant to try out something different.

Because if a vegan/vegetarian restaraunt serves meat it stops becoming a vegan restaraunt?

In order for it to then sell to it's core customers (vegans) it'd need to have a seperate meat kitchen, and potentially a separate vegetarian kitchen, then there would probably be complaints from customers about meat being served next to them.


A better analogy would be designer bags - they don't cost $5000 because they cost $5000 to sell, they cost that because they become a status symbol, you buy it to show off.

The only reason you exclude customers is to make your product more desirable to your target audience. There's no reason someone selling a game should be trying to exclude the "competitive" gamers to draw in the "fluff" gamers. Especially since everything that a competitive gamer wants also results in a better experience to the fluff player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
@Chute82 - GW has always been the company that's made fun rules that weren't perfect, and for as long as I can remember, people have been complaining about GW's rules, so it's not like this is anything different.

The rules have always been pretty hit and miss, but you can at least play them as is, and it's fairly obvious what the authors meant. There are a few exceptions that need to be made for balance but on the whole it's usable if not great. AoS doesn't have that. It's more akin to having a car with horrible fuel economy at freeway speeds, so they solved the problem by removing the speedo.

@Herzlos -- sweet, finally, I can tell the po-leece "Ocifer, I wuz not going too fass!"

I think it's more like, people weren't happy with the station wagon because customers were buying minivans and sports cars. So instead of making a minivan or sports car, so Games Workshop decided to get into the bicycle market, because they realized, nobody was making bicycles. The only thing is, they might be making bikes in a city that rains 300 days out of the year.

Or some other terrible analogy

But you're right -- the reason create an exclusionary product is to make it more desirable to your target audience. A lot of "more casual" gamers (whatever you want to call them, people who aren't competitive at all, and like Vyxen don't like figuring out what to put in an army, but enjoy storytelling, etc.) are attracted to an environment where there just aren't any of those competitive types... I guess... which was my original hypothesis of why one might make a game this way.

I'm not saying this is so, I'm just making a guess. I could be totally wrong

Is that true though, are casuals really after a game which has no competive players so badly that they'll go for rules that don't even pretend to have balance?

I mean, that sounds like who GW is targetting, but beyond the forums I've no experience of people who fall into the "clear rules are the devil" camp. It might be I've just never met them though, or until now they've been able to make do with playing clear rules in a casual way.

I have to say though, there's been almost no chatter about AoS on my games clubs facebook, and there were no games of it this week. There was a fantasy game though.


Edit: Make it a pedal car and your analogy is complete.

AOS is a game for people who want to play at playing a wargame, and move pretty models around and throw a lot of dice. The rules are simple. The models are pretty. Each unit has a fun special rule. Lots of dice are thrown. There are people who like that.

Vyxen wrote:
You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.

I respectfully disagree. Targeting the vegetarian demographic for a restaurant is fine because that is your primary business plan and there is sufficient customers within that demographic to support the business plan.

The reason this doesn't work as well with Games Workshop is that their primary business plan is to sell miniature games, which is a niche subset of the larger gaming market. With AoS, they are targeting a niche market, within a niche market, within a niche market: i.e. AoS is a subset of Fantasy Games, which is a subset of Miniature Games. Games Workshop is like a restaurant that serves Italian food (i.e. serves the Fantasy miniature game market) deciding that they can't make enough money under the current regime, so they restructure and make the store only sell Vegan Italian Food. All the old options are there, just vegan versions. While vegan customers are overjoyed (and might bring in some new customers), and old customers might be persuaded to return if the vegan food is good, this plan removes all those not looking for vegan food from the target demographic. This only works if the new customers outnumber the old customers. Keep in mind, because they are an Italian restaurant, they by definition exclude all people NOT looking for Italian food: i.e. people looking for Tacos, Sushi, Chow Mein and Burgers etc. On top of this, GW is the kind of company that won't canvass it's customers on what they want, nor will they give warning that this change is coming. It will just happen.

I'm glad that your play group likes Age of Sigmar. I hope that GW continues to improve it. I've got no dog in this fight, but I find some of their decisions a bit head-scratching. Happy gaming!

Herzlos wrote:
Is that true though, are casuals really after a game which has no competive players so badly that they'll go for rules that don't even pretend to have balance?

I mean, that sounds like who GW is targetting, but beyond the forums I've no experience of people who fall into the "clear rules are the devil" camp. It might be I've just never met them though, or until now they've been able to make do with playing clear rules in a casual way.

I have to say though, there's been almost no chatter about AoS on my games clubs facebook, and there were no games of it this week. There was a fantasy game though.


Edit: Make it a pedal car and your analogy is complete.

Flinstones FTW.

I don't think AoS has unclear rules though. There's a difference between saying, "use this campaign or write your own scenario with equivalent armies" and, "these rules are ambiguous or unclear".

And yeah, I've said time and again, I'm not sure how big this demo is. Obviously, it's greater than zero, but enough to be interesting to GW, which is a company that likes big, big profits? Who knows. Frankly, I think there are a lot of miniature/wargaming companies that would think they died and went to heaven to have the volume of models & sales that WHFB probably generated in 2014. Also, the chatter on traditional groups won't be a great metric, because (I think) the game is going after players who are nontraditional wargamers (or perhaps, disaffected wargamers who like minis) -- and these won't be on the same groups.

@Talys: That's why I think the Boardgame Geek aggregated rating of 5.2/10 is interesting. That site serves a wider demographic and has pretty heavy traffic from a more traditional game perspective. The breakdown graph is of particular interest, as the votes are clustered heavily in the ">=7/10 like" (23/52), "don't like <=3/10" (21/52) with less than 20% in the "meh" (8/52) categories.

Thank you, Keezus!

I don't know if we'll stick with it, but we'll give it a shot. Just to be clear, it's not like we're offended by people who are competitive wargaming types, or don't want to share a game with them! It's more like, our group would have never even looked at Age of Sigmar if it was another game like Warmachines, or "Warhammer Fantasy Lite". It's main "selling feature" to us was that we didn't have to worry as much about figuring out what army to take.

If they added a points system next month, as long as they didn't take anything away from the campaign stuff, it wouldn't bother me at all. And I think they will add some way to make more people interested in the game as time goes on.

@keezus - huh. That IS pretty interesting... Thanks for sharing. It kind of confirms my suspicions: Some people love it, and a lot of people hate it.

All that really remains is whether or not the niche of the niche of the niche is big enough.

Interestingly, this is a little bit like politics (incidentally, I'm a huge politico); you can achieve great success with your base by being very extreme in your position. In a parliamentary system, it might assure you a smaller voice; in a winner-takes-all system it usually means you'll ultimately lose. What zealous, exclusionary extremism wins you is loyalty from people on your side of the fence, even if they are not as zealous or extreme.

The split that you gave is probably good news for AoS. I would have thought the number of people hating it would be quite a bit higher than the number of people loving it.

The sample size is still very small at 52 votes, so it is possible that we are looking at a skewed result based on initial gut-reactions. 40k has over a 1000 votes. Interestingly, 40k only rates a 7.8 (updated for 7th Ed)/10 on Board Game Geek, but if you look at the distribution, you'll see that its clustered around the 5-8 range, meaning that the rating is a more general community consensus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Uh oh. Just checked Fantasy Battle 8th ed's rating... it's 7.1... even higher than 40k. It is still a small sample size at 111 votes, but this does not bode well for AoS if the Fantasy gamers seem to vastly prefer 8th.

-edit- For completeness:

SW: X-Wing has a rating of 7.9 (11k votes)
SW: Armada has a rating of 8.3 (684 votes)
Warmachine mk2/Hordes ml2 has a rating of 8.2/8.3 (670 votes/206 votes respectively)
Malifaux 2E has a rating of 8.3 (110 votes)
Infinity has a rating of 8 (360 votes)