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.

TonyL707 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
And lets not forget that even after GHB came out AoS still isn't in the best selling miniature list for north america.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

I mean we've heard how everyone came back to it after the GHB was released but there's no proof backing it up beyond personal testimony.

An AoSified 40k could well do the same level of damage, i dont think GW would really do well with both main products in such a state.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016

Oooh look.

Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.

40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.

hobojebus wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
And lets not forget that even after GHB came out AoS still isn't in the best selling miniature list for north america.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

I mean we've heard how everyone came back to it after the GHB was released but there's no proof backing it up beyond personal testimony.

An AoSified 40k could well do the same level of damage, i dont think GW would really do well with both main products in such a state.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016

Oooh look.

Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.

40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.

Do you have a source for that?

At the end of the day GW cares about bottom line profit and making their customers happy. Happy customers=better profit. They've been pushing their product toward the older customers for years and it has slightly helped their profits.

New management came in and decided that it would be better for profits if they made the rules more easily accessible to newer inexperienced customers. How does one go about simplifying rules so a company that produces miniatures can sell those miniatures across a broader target audience. They adapted fixed values for rolling dice and a four page rule book.

I can now play AoS with my wife and shes ok with playing it for 45-60 minutes. I'm happy I get to play and shes happy shes spending time with me. Win-win. She has also started asking me to buy other models. Someone that has never been involved in any type of fantasy setting(she hadn't watched star wars before we started dating) is now playing a table top game. I hadn't played WHF or 40k since 2012 and then AoS came out and I'm playing at least once a week. Spending at least $200 a month on new models.

To help placate the different tiers of gamers AoS has three different 'modes': open play-new people and people who have that one thing they've always liked to try; narrative-those people who enjoy fluff and also want GW to pick their armies and the scenario; and matched play - tournaments, WAAC players, and people who want to get bragging rights one the size of their nerd w******. These three different tiers are doing a successful job of getting those people to buy their product.

I would say that business model is working.

hobojebus wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
And lets not forget that even after GHB came out AoS still isn't in the best selling miniature list for north america.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

I mean we've heard how everyone came back to it after the GHB was released but there's no proof backing it up beyond personal testimony.

An AoSified 40k could well do the same level of damage, i dont think GW would really do well with both main products in such a state.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016

Oooh look.

Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.

40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.

Dude, what the feth are you even talking about. THIS RANKING YOU SHOWED: http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

Goes BEFORE The one he's given you. http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016


Spring comes BEFORE Fall of the same year.

Lord Kragan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

TonyL707 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
And lets not forget that even after GHB came out AoS still isn't in the best selling miniature list for north america.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

I mean we've heard how everyone came back to it after the GHB was released but there's no proof backing it up beyond personal testimony.

An AoSified 40k could well do the same level of damage, i dont think GW would really do well with both main products in such a state.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016

Oooh look.

Yes thats right after ghb dropped, that small increase didn't stick however if it had maintained momentum it should of been higher in the charts after xmas instead it has slipped off completely just like on release.

40k on the other hand is consistant, which could change if this aos remake goes bad.

Dude, what the feth are you even talking about. THIS RANKING YOU SHOWED: http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

Goes BEFORE The one he's given you. http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016


Spring comes BEFORE Fall of the same year.

ah bugger thats spring 2016 your quite right.

Even GW said that this its a new "Golden Age" for the company. They are increasing profits after years and years of decline.


Who can expect that keep contact with the constumers and give them actual price reductions, variety and actually funny games, and giving them what they want, will help a company to have better sales?

Obviously, Kirby don't.

If they make the rules free I'll be fine with it.

 Galas wrote:
Even GW said that this its a new "Golden Age" for the company. They are increasing profits after years and years of decline.

Who can expect that keep contact with the constumers and give them actual price reductions, variety and actually funny games, and giving them what they want, will help a company to have better sales?

Obviously, Kirby don't.

Kirby was terrible, but honestly it's not like they've deviated so so much from his guidelines since the new CEO was appointed (remember here Kirby was just acting CEO before, and he is still the president so he's hardly "gone" at all). The rules are still a mess and the prices are still insane; some bundles and discounts have been released, yes, but it's mostly plastic stuff from many years ago, most new models are getting more and more expensive with each release, Kharn is 29€ for flint's sake.

Only noticeable things they've done any differently is a much more active engagement of the gaming community and more shiny toys and boxed games. Judging by the community's reaction, an incredible number of people was just desperate to be thrown a bone, hence the "ecstasic" mood of the last months. Deep-lying, worrying issues still remain though, and with no solution in the inmediate horizon.

Yeah, one can't look again with the same eyes the prices of fantasy miniatures after looking at those boxes of 28 mm plastic historicals that ofer you 48 models for 20€

I'm optimistic in the future of GW. Not I'm a fanboy or just want to defend them, they don't pay me for that, and actually I play more Kings of War and Infinity that actual GW games.

My philosophy its to buy miniatures that I like at the prices I find reasonable. As you say, Kharn for 29€ to me its insane. The Orruk Megabos for 30€ its the same. 20 Kairic Acolytes for 28€ in WaylandGames its a price I'm willing to pay, as I'm willing to pay 18€ for 20 mantic zombies but not 31€ for 10 of the GW crappy ones.

As I said early, I think that 40k can learn things from AoS, and obviusly AoS its not the best game out there (Its still a GW game afterall). GW can learn from other and better systems, thats obvius, but thats just being unrealistic.

Fun enough to my narrative games its all what I ask to GW. If the 8th edition of 40k isn't fun to me, I'll just stop playing.

Maybe in 3 years AoS its in a worse state, as you have noted. But 3 years its not the present, so I'll just enjoy it for the moment.

People are getting as upset about these 'new' rules being put into 40k as they were removed in 3rd ed.

Trust me though, armour save mods, the 'M' stat and cover mods will all make the game play more like a wargame and less like an arms race. Space-Marines will learn not to stand in the open opposite squads armed with autocannon, and they can write the 'fleet of foot' rule out of the rulebook if they so wish.

I don't know they might have started bringing back boxed games, start collecting sets with actual savings, and went to the lore with deathwatch, genestealer, cults, and horus heresy? I mean I kinda agree that they haven't done much if that means they've completely turned around from the pit that was games workshop four years ago- which was when they started really jacking the prices up on everything.

If you hate GW so much why are on you a page talking about it?

I don't talk about the garbage miniatures that come from PP. Or the fact that they lack any type of customization in the form of different weapons or upgrades. Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?

Hold on they took our dang square bases!! I can't move my little miniatures in a straight line and put them base to base with my opponents miniatures because they're circles and ovals and not squares and rectangles!! Ah they're all going to be in battle in the middle of the board! Which isn't what my square blocks of Soldiers used to do every single battle, or wait was it?

Jjohnso11 wrote:
Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?

Sure. And many people (quite probably some of the same people) make the exact same complaints about Mantic's rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snebze wrote:
Space-Marines will learn not to stand in the open opposite squads armed with autocannon, ...

I can't remember if it was pointed out in this thread or the one in News and Rumours, but the whole point of the AP system was that Space Marines didn't need to make use of cover against anything except the heavier, nastier weapons. Space Marines are supposed to be advancing implacably up the table, not lurking in the shrubbery.



Of course, it turned out that the game didn't actually play out that way - the ready availability of heavy weapons to most armies meant that smart Space Marine players just kept right on hugging the cover... or tried standing around in the middle of the board and complained when their army kept getting wiped out by turn 2.

The problem with Space Marines its the fact that they are so OP in the fluff that its imposible (Well, its posible, but GW don't want space marines armys of 2k points that consist of 10 marines and 1 tank) to represent then correctly in the game.

Perhaps the answer is to give them lots of wounds, which works well in the AoS system. Especially if weapons are going to be causing multiple wounds too.

Jjohnso11 wrote:

I don't talk about the garbage miniatures that come from PP. Or the fact that they lack any type of customization in the form of different weapons or upgrades. Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?

Hold on they took our dang square bases!! I can't move my little miniatures in a straight line and put them base to base with my opponents miniatures because they're circles and ovals and not squares and rectangles!! Ah they're all going to be in battle in the middle of the board! Which isn't what my square blocks of Soldiers used to do every single battle, or wait was it?

Why so offensive to gamers of other games? You're happy to admit that since 2012 you didn't play any 40k or whfb, but nice short AoS games give you and your wife a nice easy game to play.
Other gamers were in a similar position to you but instead of giving up for 3 or so years, went and found games they could have the same enjoyment you and your wife do with AoS.
Instead of defending AoS, you're just sounding like another white knight sticking with GW for the sake of it.

I still buy GW figures, I still have thousands of GW models, I still hope for a good future for 40K. But I found other games to play as well. I expect a lot of the "AoS haters" are that way because they spent decades of time collecting, building and painting models for an aesthetic that no longer exists in GW's games. Not because they're crying about blocks of square soldiers. Many of us now have nice short simple games of KoW with our wives - like you do AoS with yours - for the exact same reasons as you.

Rick Priestley addresses the issue of unit stats rather well in his book on Wargame design. He holds to it that the modern trend for shorter statlines isn't neccessarily a good thing -that it's more intuitive to gameplay to have many stats, than fewer stats and a large number of special rules.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Rick Priestley addresses the issue of unit stats rather well in his book on Wargame design. He holds to it that the modern trend for shorter statlines isn't neccessarily a good thing -that it's more intuitive to gameplay to have many stats, than fewer stats and a large number of special rules.

Well I can think of one stat 40k could really use...a size stat. It would effect transport capacity, grav weaponary, the ablity to claim cover, ramming...lots of rules all wrapped up into a single stat.

I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't. So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy. I didn't enjoy the games when they became 3-4 hours of searching through four or five different books to find a rule.

Jjohnso11 wrote:
I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't. So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy. I didn't enjoy the games when they became 3-4 hours of searching through four or five different books to find a rule.

You have a good point Jjohnso, but this its actually the 40k Forum, so it don't apply here.

Today, the people that dislike AoS don't go to AoS only threads to troll them like in the past.

Jjohnso11 wrote:
I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't.

If you did, it wouldn't be 'trolling' unless you were doing it specifically to get a rise out of people. Discussion forums are for discussing things. An opinion doesn't have to be a positive one for it to be a valid point of discussion.

So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy.

For what purpose?

Remember the old saying about honey and flies? Act 'like a prick' in response to opinions that differ from your own, and all you do is spark resentment and hostility. If you're passionate enough about a game to react that strongly to people dissing it, then share that rather than getting cranky because somebody on the internet doesn't like what you like.

Just tossing in my 2 cents on the matter.

I think Crownaxe mentioned a fair number of pages back that 40k has gotten to the point that it's so massive that we basically need a hard reboot on everything to have anything resembling balance again.

And I whole hearty agree with that statement. Even just ignoring codexes coming out with imbalanced power, there's numerous dataslates, supplements, expansions, and unique rules that there's no way they can fix this piecemeal. There's just too many special snowflake rules running about (especially since a lot of them do the same things, just slightly different enough that it didn't warrent a rulebook keyword). Formations basically tossed any semblance of balance out the window and even just returning to the old CAD FoC won't help, since a lot of units got shuffled around in the meantime (or got buffs. Try explaining to the Tactical Squads why Scouts are now the preferred Troop Choice, when flat out bikes aren't an option, over them without breaking some hearts).

It's gonna be a hard pill to swallow, but it's gotta come one way or another. Otherwise prepare for another 2 editions of Paris-grade cheese and rustled jimmies. The only real issue I see is that a lot of people are afraid they might screw it up like AoS's initial launch did. That is a valid complain, but is a risk we'll have to take. And to be very honest, there's no way to predict whether or not they will, since GW under Rountree have done some stuff that is praise worthy, but also stuff that has been on par (if not worse) than what Kirby did.

As for conning people out of money for new codexes that might be invalidated in the next few months, just remember that this forum was just as vicious when nothing came out. For the time being, we should cut them some slack. Once 8th drops, then we can burn them at the stake of they screw it up.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

As for conning people out of money for new codexes that might be invalidated in the next few months, just remember that this forum was just as vicious when nothing came out.

'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.

 insaniak wrote:

'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.

I didn't mean that they were the only two options, I mean that anything GW does or don't do generally will draw negative reactions one way or another. And it's not even like it's a neglect able amount either. Plus in the context of a complete rule overhaul, there's very little other choice beyond "invalidating what we just released before" and "release nothing". I suppose they could release "bridged" codexes and then release a free update for them down the line (like they did with 3rd-5th edition) but that would not only hamstring their ability to do a rules overhaul, but is also much more labor intensive (as much as GW are cash grabbers, they are still people with bills to pay).

Personally I think they should have done nothing for a good four months and then did a huge release. At least then whoever bought their new codexes could at least have a decent "run" at it, even if the rest of the fanbase is upset at being "ignored" again.

Jjohnso11 wrote:
I was making the point that I don't go to KoW or Warmachine forums and talk about how terrible those games play. I could troll KoW and Warmachine forums and talk about game mechanics, lack of support for their game, and all kinds of things I personally don't like about them, but I don't. So I become kind of a prick to people when they get on here and bash 40k or AoS for stuff they don't like that I personally enjoy. I didn't enjoy the games when they became 3-4 hours of searching through four or five different books to find a rule.

Here's the difference: are you going to those other forums because you have a massive amount of time, money, and modelling/painting effort into a game that is getting ready to change in a way that may jeopardize that work and are airing your grievances and concerns with other gamers/hobbyists, or are you simply showing up to say "KOW suxxxx!!!1!1!!!! lolXD"? Because one makes you a passionate gamer, and the other makes you a petulant child.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

'Release books and then invalidate them months later' and 'Release nothing' are not the only two options GW have available to them.

Personally I think they should have done nothing for a good four months and then did a huge release. At least then whoever bought their new codexes could at least have a decent "run" at it, even if the rest of the fanbase is upset at being "ignored" again.

A rule book/supplement is only invalidated if you don't use it. Just because 8th comes out doesn't mean you have to play it immediately. I will, because I'll be glad to see 7th in my rear view mirror. It's really up to the fans how quickly they adopt or don't a new rule set. If someone happen to be one of those people that has to be up to date all the time, then I would recommend not buying anything after the third year of a 40k edition.

How does not keeping up to date help someone who needs to keep up to date?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Jjohnso11 wrote:

I don't talk about the garbage miniatures that come from PP. Or the fact that they lack any type of customization in the form of different weapons or upgrades. Mantic is alright, but also has a very simple straightforward game play. Wait isn't that what everyone is complaining about with AoS?

Hold on they took our dang square bases!! I can't move my little miniatures in a straight line and put them base to base with my opponents miniatures because they're circles and ovals and not squares and rectangles!! Ah they're all going to be in battle in the middle of the board! Which isn't what my square blocks of Soldiers used to do every single battle, or wait was it?

Why so offensive to gamers of other games? You're happy to admit that since 2012 you didn't play any 40k or whfb, but nice short AoS games give you and your wife a nice easy game to play.

Because gamers of other games are offensive to us 40K gamers all the frigging time.

You're always saying GW is expensive when you either buy crappy/historic at lower prices or flat out worse at the same price (PP) miniatures.

Well we like the GW universe and their miniature range, and we're happy to buy those even if we'd like them to be cheaper.

I think that overall, we'd like it if you kept your negativity to yourself when it's about a game you don't even play.

Snebze wrote:
People are getting as upset about these 'new' rules being put into 40k as they were removed in 3rd ed.

Trust me though, armour save mods, the 'M' stat and cover mods will all make the game play more like a wargame and less like an arms race. Space-Marines will learn not to stand in the open opposite squads armed with autocannon, and they can write the 'fleet of foot' rule out of the rulebook if they so wish.

People are more worried about the AoS rules being introduced than 2nd edition 40k rules coming back in (except some people worried that modifiers are going to make armour useless, but I don't think that represents the prevailing sentiment).

 insaniak wrote:
How does not keeping up to date help someone who needs to keep up to date?

I guess it's the zen art of letting go.

Galas wrote:The problem with Space Marines its the fact that they are so OP in the fluff that its imposible (Well, its posible, but GW don't want space marines armys of 2k points that consist of 10 marines and 1 tank) to represent then correctly in the game.

thegreatchimp wrote:Rick Priestley addresses the issue of unit stats rather well in his book on Wargame design. He holds to it that the modern trend for shorter statlines isn't neccessarily a good thing -that it's more intuitive to gameplay to have many stats, than fewer stats and a large number of special rules.

I'm quoting these two together as my response involves both.

First, Priestly is spot on. 40k is actually a nice example of said trend. It used to be a pretty complex game regarding its core mechanics (RT/2nd) then said core rules were simplified in 3rd. Since then, in order to represent a lot of things that can't be properly covered by the simplified core mechanics, tons of special rules have been added and piled up one over another.

Second, Priestly himself said in an interview that during the 90s the GW writers pretty much became huge Space Marine fanboys, and the joke was totally lost on them. It's like what Verhoeven did when adapting Starship Troopers, but in reverse. I believe the 40k fluff simply cannot be taken seriously outside of a few specific pieces here and there, and in regards to the setting's suspension of disbelief, it's easier for me to dismiss most of it as clunky imperial propaganda.

This is why I've always been so skeptical of "truesize" projects. They're nice and cool and all that, but in the end you're converting your models towards representing a fluff that has never been represented in the game. And your superheroes will still have one wound and die easily to lasgun shots, which looks kind of ridiculous.

morgoth wrote:You're always saying GW is expensive when you either buy crappy/historic at lower prices or flat out worse at the same price (PP) miniatures.

Well we like the GW universe and their miniature range, and we're happy to buy those even if we'd like them to be cheaper.

I think that overall, we'd like it if you kept your negativity to yourself when it's about a game you don't even play.

GW cultists always so worried about others' negativity...

(note how all the competition is dismissed as "crappy")