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.

My personal answer is just a simple, "No", but I happen to like GW and its products (and don't care about their CEO, really any more than any other CEO).

I don't know at what point GW counts Sigmar as a "success", but the independent that I get most of my 40k stuff from already has a growing list of reservations for it -- ever since the picture leaks. I think it'll do "okay" on the merits of the models in the short term. If the rules are good, I think it'll do better than okay, and if the rules are bad, I think it'll fade into obscurity as an unsustainable product.

As for "the final nail", I think don't think Fantasy is doing much for GW at the moment anyways.

Please change the title to HOPING

 Grimtuff wrote:
I'd call them a Mickey Mouse operation, but that would be an insult to cartoon mice everywhere.

I've actually never understood that expression. I mean, Mickey Mouse was pretty successful, right? No doubt the most successful mouse out there. Makes Jerry look like a welfare case, and is a lot more sane than Speedy Gonzales. The 3 blind dudes, well, they're not going anywhere fast, though Ralph has a motorcycle, so he can at least get around. I suppose there's always Chuck E. Cheese... at least he gets pizza!

 JamesY wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:

migooo wrote:
Last time I worked it out they would need to pay between 39- 50 million .

However in order to break Kirby's power over GW they need to have over 6-12 million in shares there by being the senior share holder and effectively being GW's boss.

But Kirby is sneaky and I'd suspect he intends to run it to the ground and would torpedo anybody who tried to "save" GW.

This is why you don't give accountants power within a company.

Well now I know. Now I just need to find an insane billionaire to fund my grand schemes.

Happens in football...

And basketball. LA Clippers sold to Ballmer for $2 billion, I think.

 Korraz wrote:
I think the phenomenon of Groupthink explains most, if not all, of GWs decisions in recent years.

Likewise, for GW's detractors and supporters. The reverberations of the echo chambers are something fierce. It's worse than trying to get something done in the US Congress.

But whatever, they can do what they like; it's their company and they owe me nothing. I just happen to slip into the demographic that they are targeting, and whatever their groupthink has self-affirmed and however polarizing that is, it works for some people, obviously.

It's bizarre to me that people who don't fit into GW's target demo hate it so much they want the company to go under (in this instance I think I can safely use the word "hate" without being hyperbolic as you can't dislike a company much more than wanting it to die, other than firebombing it or doing something horrible and illegal). There are so many companies that make stuff I want and can't afford, or things I don't want, or things I don't want anymore but used to enjoy, and I don't want any of them to go out of business (though I wouldn't care if they did).

For example, I loved David Edding's first 5 fantasy novels. Most of the rest were pretty shoddy, I think, but whatever, I didn't secretly pray that he went bankrupt or that people stopped buying his books. I don't wish ill for Tiffany's, even though I think they are crazy overpriced, and I don't want basketball to die even though I can't fathom how you can get up and cheer every 60 seconds and I can't comprehend how an NBA team is worth $2 billion.

@Korraz - I guess I'm too practical to put myself into those shoes effectively. To me, to do so would feel like a massive waste of my time, a resource I have a finite amount of. I would rather spend my time with something I love than against something I hate -- especially if the only thing I can effectively do is preach to the choir. You don't see anyone who is spending a thousand bucks a month on GW and happy with their product and direction go, "wow, those guys on Dakka are right... I'm gonna spend a thousand bucks a month on other games instead!". Instead, you get, "Amen, I despise them too" and, "I don't want them to go out business but I do want them to change drastically" from people who aren't buying GW product anyhow. There are very few people who can be convinced either way.

The problem with your characterization of GW's management is that you exclude the possibility that they do consider and debate alternatives, and have simply chosen a path contrary to what would be ideal for you. Also, the presumption that 'we' (collectively, forum posters) know better about GW's profit maximization than GW. I think that's just hubris.

I think that many people discount that Kirby was General Manager of games workshop through most of the years they were really fond of (he joined mid 80s as such and then positions of increasing responsibility). The guy who made critical decisions then was competent, and then somehow became incompetent 20 years later? I choose to believe, instead, that he's no less competent and simply leading the company in a direction that is unpopular to some people.

Even of that happened to me... I would move on, not blow my time hoping for something that will take years, if not a decade or more, if ever, to happen.

 Korraz wrote:
The question is, then, why they decided to take actions that have proven time and time again to lead to growth, expansion or, indeed, even keep the current buyerbase stable. The fact remains that GW's buyerbase has shrunk while operating in a market that has seen undeniable growth, that being the traditional gaming hobby market.

Also, regarding Kirby, let's not attribute his actions to malice here for a moment: There is such a thing as a growth-manager. Some people are very competent at helping a company grow or go public, but have not a lick of talen when it comes to managing a mature company. He could belong to that sort.

I'm going to try not to be repetitive in my posts, so I'll keep it very brief. Consider a few possibilities:

- 40k might have actually grown in revenue, not shrunk, in the last few years, whilst but Fantasy and LoTR/Hobbit have shrunk (more) in revenue
- A mature company shouldn't be expected to have the same growth expectations as startups and younger companies
- Even if GW did everything right, going from monopoly to non-monopoly will mean a smaller marketshare
- Even if GW did everything right, some people will get bored and play/model other stuff, or other games or models may appeal to them more
- It's possible that the current formula of targeting superfans optimizes GW's profit, relative to GW's alternatives for 40k
- It's possible that some or most of GW's competitors are also making less profit, even if they are popular, even though the market as a whole has grown (as there are more companies than ever, too).

With respect to Kirby not being the best Chairman of GW in it's current size -- you might be right (or not), but it doesn't really matter. He was there nearly from the start and was very instrumental in getting GW to where it is today, and he owns a really big chunk of it. He's been around during less profitable times and more. Founders and early insiders often become CEOs, even if they're not the best person for the job, and they are given a lot of latitude to learn through experimentation.

A lot of small-company founders make non-ideal big-company CEOs once the company gets there, but the point is, they got it where it is, and it's their company to screw up. If you're not into founder CEOs as an investor, that's fine; you should just avoid investing in such companies. However, as I've also mentioned, professional CEOs can also destroy companies. Look at Carly Fiorina or Mark Hurd at Hewlett Packard. Or Some would point at Stephen Elop and say that he destroyed Nokia. Though Elop is clearly debatable, and maybe he just made the best lemonade out of the lemons he had.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Why be so vindictive?

Imagine we've been friends for years, then I sleep with your girlfriend, kick your dog and punch you in the face.

Still want to be friends?

That's essentially the same process of emotion, albeit a little less personal.

I think that's a terrible comparison.

Imagine that you've been married for 20 hears, you have kids, a home, and a dog. You've had some awesome years, and some not so great years, but recently you've grown
to be so different that you're going to part ways.

Do you part as friends or do you hate her and hold a grudge for the rest of your days?

Or you could really use your imagination... picture this.... you play a game for a decade or two, something you like better comes along or whatever you're playing has changed course. Do you play something else, or do you stay angry?

Coz y'know, it's just a game. Little less serious than a marriage, or a friend that sleeps with the missus or kicks your dog!

insaniak wrote:After she dragged all my stuff out into the yard and set fire to it, had the kids' names changed so that she could trademark them, and announced that she's leaving because, while she certainly could put in the effort required to fix our marriage, it's much more fun to just hang around with an ever-changing procession of college students?

Yeah, I might hold something of a grudge.

Wow, GW set fire to all your stuff... those minis and rulebooks musta been like one of those Mission Impossible messages -- self destructing when you've read it

I've actually divorced once. The order of magnitude compared to quitting a game is so colossally different, lol. I kind of wish I hadn't posted the first part, to be honest, because losing a game is not really comparable to any of the things there, from having a pet hurt or a buddy sleeping with your miss, or whatever. I guess as much time as I spend on minis and 40k, in the end, I could live without it (or replace it with something else I really enjoy) a lot easier than I could without a lot of other things.

Oh well, I guess we all deal with such things differently

Jehan-reznor wrote:I am looking forward to people reactions when 40K universe implodes and we get the Age of the Emperor!

Then all the races would be reborn, and the new models would have big shoulder pads, a six-pack, and ginormous weapons! Except Space Marines, who will have EVEN BIGGER pauldrons!

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:


Wow, GW set fire to all your stuff... those minis and rulebooks musta been like one of those Mission Impossible messages -- self destructing when you've read it

You've heard of metaphors, right?

The stuff they set fire to, in this case, is a game setting that people are quite find of. Yes, they still have their existing books... But the setting is now officially dead and buried, and won't be developed any further in any recognisable way.

I was being facetious. I know what you're saying -- but the problem was one of two things -- either the people who were fond of the setting weren't spending enough money, or there weren't enough people who were fond of the setting. It's pretty unreasonable to ask a company to keep producing stuff that isn't doing well.

So, GW has could either try to tweak the existing game in a way that would try to attract new customers, or do a reboot; they went for the latter. I'm pretty sure they figured, "Well, what have we got to lose? This stuff isn't moving anyhow."

The third alternative would be to create Sigmar as a forked path, and soldier on with 9e. I'm guessing they figured that wasn't profitable. Although, if Sigmar totally tanks, I suppose they could print 9e rules in a more traditional fantasy fashion, let Sigmar be Sigmar, and just not invest in many new models.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Names are not copyrightable, and Trademarks can legally be used by rival companies if done according to the rules. Thus for example I could market a range of Fantasy Lizardmen as being "Compatible with Warhammer(TM) Age Of Sigmar(TM) Seraphon(TM)."

All GW have achieved is to prevent me making a Lizardman and calling it a Seraphon.

Seraphon is a made up name that has no inherent meaning and doesn't sound like anything Lizardy or Fantasy. TBH it reminds me of Seraphim which is a completely different concept.

First of all, Seraphon is a dumb name for Lizardmen. They should have been something suitably reptilian, like Sthiss or Drakkos. Wait, I know: Slytherin! And they turn into giant snakes.

More generally, I guess I sort of see the desire to separate GW Lizardmen from generic Lizardmen; just like PP has Trollbloods instead of Trolls. On the other hand, I'm not really sure I see the point. Other than tournament settings (which GW gives an ork's fart about) and GW stores, who cares; you can use whatever model you want, including Termagants or Genestealers. Or Eldar. Or a roll of quarters. I mean, since the rules are free, and if you really like models from company X, what does it matter what those models are called?

But other than seeing it as pointless, I don't really care one way or the other what the Lizardmen were called. It's not like I was buying Lizardmen before, and it's pretty unlikely I'll be buying Seraphon in the future, or Lizardmen by any other name I'm just not a very reptile-friendly fella.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
as for the game, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. if GW goes under and someone buys the 40k IP? It's very likely, 40K will as a game will be dead. instead the IP will be used to produce video games or something.

assuming they care about the IP at all and don't just want GW for their production hardware or something.

If GW goes under we can't assume 40k'll even be redeveloped. and if it is, it'd likely end up being a pre-painted collectable mini game or something.

I agree with this 100%.

I think the intellectual property is worth far more than the miniature business, because it has much more potential than the miniature business. In 30 years, Games Workshop has proven that even if you do everything right, even if you took their best year, in the grand scheme of things both the total profit and net profit margin are very low. Companies making acquisitions want the prospect, at least the possibility, of buying something for $50 million that will one day make $500 million.

No matter what you do, the entire miniature market will just not be that profitable. I mean, we can talk about "growth" and all that, but the truth is, most people in the world spend $0 per year on miniatures or miniature wargaming, and don't expect to. I mean, most people don't think about it or consider it, and if they did they would say, "this isn't for me". It isn't something that advertising or awareness or great rules or awesome models or cheap models can fix, because the truth is, the vast majority of folks don't have the patience to deal with minis and wargames. The gratification is most certainly far from instantaneous. Even with prepainted minis, it takes WAY more time to meet up with someone and play a game of X-Wing than it does to turn on the PC or Tablet and play an RTS, and let's be honest -- this is what a lot more people want. I'm not just saying that; compare the video game market to the hobby market. I mean, a great video game -- one title -- is worth a billion dollars, for heavens sakes. And then you get to make 10 sequels and a bazillion DLCs afterwards that people will autobuy.

But make the next Avengers or the next Halo with 40k IP? Now, that's sexy. Just look at the Transformers franchise -- and what a couple of successful movies was worth, compared to everything that preceded it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
An interesting point about AOS is that the new round bases make your new Fantasy models incompatible with all other Ancients/Fantasy mass battle rules.

Well, you can base your AOS models on whatever bases you want, since they're irrelevant to AOS

nkelsch wrote:
Why is my first reaction that this is a clone of Warmahordes from how they seem to be organizing factions and models?

I dunno... seems interesting to me. I totally divested myself of WHF but might give AoS a look.

If they can capture reasonable gameplay with warhammer theme, and lower model count, they might have a winner since 'price per model' means nothing and people have no issue paying for expensive models as long as 'total buy-in' is low, right?

I never bought into the argument of the "high ppm is cool as long as total buy-in is low", because I enjoy the modelling aspect. But yeah, you certainly can't argue that the total buy-in of Sigmar is high. The game is very cheap. And without knowing if there's some kind of scenario system in the 96 page book, we can at least assume that two players will agree on the approximate size of the battle to be limited to the army size of the player with the smaller collection.

Like, "I have 300 models." "But I only have 30" "Okay, I'll just play these guys, and we'll do a 4x4 then, cool?"

As far as the miniatures go, it's a better price than any other comparable bundle that I can think of.

The real question for gaming, to me is: "Is it fun?"

If it's fun, we'll use it as a filler, just as we sometimes use WMH or XWing or Kill Team, because we have not enough time to play a 40k game. If gameplay is stupid, it will be a hundred-some-odd-dollar box of models with a rulebook that gathers dust.

I'm also totally ok with just playing with the models in Sigmar and nothing else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I shall not be buying any AOS models, as I will play it with models I have from other systems. However a noob, who is buying AOS from the get go, if in a couple of years they decide they want to play something else, they will have a major job of rebasing on their hands.

This is not IMO a cunning plan by GW to put people off from other games. It is just that the circular bases are more artistic for model collectors.

Yes -- it sounds dumb, but one of the reasons I never much painted Fantasy models is because they were on square bases, and I don't like them as much for modelling; at the same time, I didn't want to paint up models that couldn't be used. So in that sense, the round bases appeal to me, though certainly, there are many other reasons I paint more scifi rather than Fantasy models -- mostly, that I like high tech, futuristic guns. I guess that would be a bit hard for GW to fix in a fantasy setting If only Wood Elves had Shuriken Cannons, and Sigmarites had Heavy Flamers!

Ironically, one of the reasons I paint less WMH models than I do is that I don't like lipped bases, LOL. Many times, I've actually prepped a WMH model, looked at the base, and then take it apart and shelve it.

Marlov wrote:
Just go buy bases without lips?

Of course, I can base models on whatever I like. It doesn't really make it a good idea, though, because then I have models on bases not standard for the game. I'm just saying that I like the aspect of AoS which makes bases decorative only. It lets me put something on whatever size and shape of base I think looks best for the model, and (legally) play it. And yes, if this were 40k, someone could make a turret that was 24" long.. but that's ok, I just would not play with such a player anyhow.

 keezus wrote:
Interesting things being posted in the Fantasy forum. The "model to model" measuring is asinine. To patch what was originally a terrible idea:

1. To stop guys with huge overhangs on their models, they've made it so each part of the model can only travel up to the max distance allowed by movement. This also has the side effect of making "long models" like the HE dragon unable to turn around even after using all its movement. Awesome!

2. To fix the issue that models in BTB can't meet the 0.5" melee range, they made it so its possible for enemy models to encroach on the bases of your models. I'm sure all the guys with scenic bases (i.e. standing on a bit of ruined bridge, or awash in foliage) thank you for this. The guy standing on the ruined bridge might never get into melee if the bridge pier is too high.

3. Guys on the 3" flying stands are largely invulnerable to melee due to the 0.5" range, but confer the "can't move" rule on enemy models within 3". Granted, you can still shoot the flying beastie, but I'm not sure that having un-engagable models is the design intent.

This could have all been avoided if they did base to base instead of model to model. Sure its an abstraction, but it wouldn't have needed so much patching.

#1 - I suppose this does disadvantage some models. I guess you could say, it actually makes some sense that large, awkward units are less nimble? I don't think it's game-breaking, anyhow, but it's a valid point.

#2 - I imagine these are the exception, rather than the rule. If you base something for a competition/showcase to be highly scenic, and want to play it, just agree to something before the start of the game. But how often do you actually see that?

#3 - By that logic, there's no inequity, because a flying model couldn't melee the ground model either. In some ways, it makes sense, you can't smack an eagle with a sword, or punch an fighter jet. However, for fantasy gaming purposes you could just say that the stem is part of the model, rather than part of the base. Why? A griffon might swoop down, for instance, coming low enough to melee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
So you have written it off without any knowledge of how the game plays or what will happen to it to expand it?

Nice one.

I'm not running around with my hair on fire, frothing at the mouth and ranting here, I'm just saying that the rules as presented are a steaming pile of dung. If they do something later to make them less dung-like, I'll be happy to play. But I'm not big on scenarios or a game dependent upon scenarios for a sense of balance. I have literally made my own rules for games better than the four pages of AoS crapness and I'm no genius by any stretch.

By the way agnosto, it seems that there WILL be scenarios and campaign rules -- or so allegedly stores have been told.

http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2015/07/information-being-given-now-to-stores.html

I know you just mentioned that they aren't for you, so maybe that isn't helpful. In our group, scenario-play is HUGE (like, 75% of our games), so this would make AoS much more attractive for us. If campaign play is some kind of miniature warfare based RPGish thing, we'd probably actually make AoS more of a regular game, and less of a time filler.

From what it looks to be, GW isn't trying at all to make AoS a competitive/tournament friendly format (though no doubt different groups will try to make that a thing).

 Rayvon wrote:
I get people are upset, but lifes not long enough to waste time hating !

I could not possibly agree more. When it comes to entertainment, people should do things that they enjoy, because you have only 25,000 days, give or take, to do so.

Gaming isn't like climate change or government corruption or public safety. The consequences of a bad game is that you go do something else -- that you enjoy more. If you want to take up arms and march on a crusade, do the world a favor and pick a cause that actually matters, like the well-being of our planet. "You should be ashamed of yourself for having such a massive carbon footprint" is something I can get behind. "You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting such a crappy gaming company" sounds just ridiculous

Now back on the topic of Age of Sigmar, WD75 is totally sold out in my town, and stores have huge Sigmar preorder lists -- exceeding Space Marines releases, and even Deathstorm/Stormclaw. So this may be something that gains traction, or it may be something that flames out quickly, but it's probably going to be GW's most successful Fantasy release going back a long while -- if you define success as sales volumes.

 insaniak wrote:

 Talys wrote:
When it comes to entertainment, people should do things that they enjoy, because you have only 25,000 days, give or take, to do so..

Absolutely.

The reason for the complaining is that people want to continue doing that thing that they enjoy, and so they get upset when the ability to do so is inhibited.

No disagreement. At some point, when fighting for change becomes futile, I just think people are better off doing something (else) positive that they enjoy, than something negative that they don't. Unless people enjoy complaining, which I would not understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chute82 wrote:

That's just sales in your little part of Canada.. The U.S. Market is going to make or break this release. There are zero pre orders in the three shops I frequent here. So if I base it on my little corner of the world it's going to be a flop

There are fewer stores in Canada because our population is about 1/10 of the US. However, the buying patterns are pretty similar. It's not all about the USA, by the way. Europe is also a big market. And let's not forget about Australia . Didn't someone say it was 7%+ of FW's revenue? or course, with Australia's super special pricing that's probably just six copies of the game

 insaniak wrote:

 keezus wrote:
Guys like the new bloodthirster need enemy models to traverse damn near half his base to get to melee him.

Which leads to the next problem, which is - What happens when it's the Bloodthirster's turn to move, and he has half the opponent's army sitting on his base?

Makes for a great cinematic scene

Well, I read the White Dwarf and also went through the rules for AoS.

First of all, the dragon with the long neck. I think the rules the way they are make lots of sense. Imagine if a dragon is on a 2" base and has a 3" neck and tail.

If you breathe 12" of fire from the neck, it goes to a certain spot. If you could move the dragon, and turn it, that fire distance would be further than if you ONLY moved it. Therefore, during the movement, no part of the dragon should exceed the total movement range. As Insaniak pointed out, since facing doesn't have a meaning (and you could imagine this as the dragon turning its long neck), you can simply keep your models facing the same direction, if you wish. Again, this causes a problem only on a small number of models.

Had the rules been "measure from the base" there would be a controversy over modelling for advantage: it would matter whether the dragon were on a 2", 3" or 5" base. Basically, the larger the base, the larger a radius you will have for shooting; and for a nonshooting unit, the smaller the radius of the base, the smaller a target you present.

Now, the rules & package in general.

They look pretty simple. It says clearly on the page before the rules, "Perhaps the most exciting thing in the box after the jaw-dropping miniatures, is the 96-page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar."

So that 96 page book probably isn't a zillion battlescrolls; more likely, you can download the full battlescrolls online, and the 96 page book contains a combination of battlescrolls and scenarios (detailing the opening battles of AoS).

So, if Scenarios are not your thing (a) make up your own balancing system or mechanism or (b) play something else.

Regarding the ruleset: Given the constraint of "we want to make this really simple and easy to pick up", I don't know what all the animosity towards them is. Sure it's simple. It's not WHFB, nor 40k. It's not hard to learn. It's a way to take your miniature collection, and within minutes, stick them on the table, move them towards each other, and pew pew.

It looks like it could be fun. But I'll reserve judgement until I try it out. Either way, this game is not my "thing", because I like big scifi battles with tons of models, infantry, tanks, jets, stompy robots and stuff -- not skirmishy games, and not really fantasy games (I need the futuristic weaponry). So I'll say the same thing about AoS as I do about WMH -- regardless of how awesome the rules are, the game itself won't grab me enough to make it my regular thing.

Still, it may be ok for a time-filler on a spare table, between games, after games, et cetera. The box set looks to be an exceptionally good value.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Then they removed any semblance of a system to allow people to have a fair game, removing, at a stroke, the thing that most people who play get a buzz out of (a closely contested, fair, game.)

I think you're wrong. I think this will be a highly scripted, scenario-based game (it virtually says so in the box contents in WD75, I quoted it above).

If you don't want that, look elsewhere.

 Accolade wrote:
I have a feeling a lot will look elsewhere, Talys. The starter will do well, but I don't see Age of Sigmar being popular short of as conversion bits for 40k. Which will be result in even less sales than before, because at least there was a decent game beforehand (over-bloated with insane magic, but still quite structured. Almost *anything* works better than no points)

I think it will be very hard to tell in the short term, because the models and price per model for pretty cool stuff will make AoS a seller during launch.

In the medium and long term, the question are germane:

1. Do people PLAY AoS?
2. Do people BUY AoS, and potentially, future Fantasy releases?

#1 is important because mindshare is valuable. But even without #1, if #2 comes true, I'm not really sure if GW characterizes it as a success or failure. Is the goal of Sigmar to get people to PLAY Fantasy or to BUY Fantasy?

I mean, if people are buying fantasy because the price of miniatures is good (ie, GW keeps pumping out $125 boxes with 50 minis, perhaps being a mix of new minis and old), they'll keep selling those boxes, and SOME people will play their game. Since GW has a lot of models in the range already, and "nobody" is buying them, why not bundle them up and sell them for "cheap"? Whatever "cheap" is, it's more than nothing, and the production cost is a drop in the bucket, even as compared to the lowered prices. It will also apply downward pressure onto other games manufacturers, I think, which would be wonderful.

As much as people like to whine about GW prices, I would LOVE to get my PP models at $2-3 PPM, especially in a kit that included a few giant models that are currently in the $50+ range by themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CrashGordon94 wrote:
But seriously, nothing wrong with complaining, complaining about complaining, complaining about complaining about complaining or so on. It's really not an issue that people get upset about something, it's about their reasons why and how they conduct themselves and explain it.

I am complaining that my head hurts.

But I agree: free speech and all, complain about what you want. At some point, though, complaining is a waste of time (though it's your time to waste!). Nobody ever said that we were a logical species. After all, a strange mutation causes a subspecies to spend its time on toy soldiers that go dakkadakkadakka instead of more productive ventures.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I think that one question that people should ask themselves, when looking at any game these days is 'If this was on Kickstarter, would I back it, and if so, then how much?'

No, this is a terrible litmus test. There are people like me who will never back ANY Kickstarter by any company. I would rather pay twice as much for a product that's ready for me to evaluate than to buy into something that isn't made yet.

Plus, I don't like startups generally. I wait until the company is a certain amount mature, they've found their footing, and in like there they're going.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The only thing that it is relying on is the GW name... and that just isn't worth much.

The Auld Grump

And a large miniature collection that some people really like. And a game that some people really like, too. And the highest sales revenue miniature war game. And a whole bunch of money in the bank with cash flow. Wait, that's more than a name


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:

Well, on #1, I don't know if I foresee a lot of long-term playing. If the no-points thing comes true, then the actual ability to play a fair game comes at a level less the level of a game of Monopoly. There's no structure, no fairness, no ability to have a competitive experience. And by competitive[/], I mean the experience of playing a game against another person to determine a winner, so a "game" by the literal definition of the word.

That experience seems to be significant below the experience with the current edition. Now, AOS does have some big advantages in that the rules are free and there appears to be better scalability in game size, I just think the lack of any sense of balance will turn away people, especially in the long-term (how often do you need to play the no-balance random experience before you just feel it's no different than rolling a fist full of dice?). I suppose GW could come out with a points system at some point in the future and things might turn around, but all information points to them [i]wanting this. And like so many other occasions, GW will succeed in being their worst enemy.

Pertaining to #2, I think people will keep doing as they did before, and purchasing WHFB (with the models being as nice as they are) for personal projects. For a time the sales will be boosted by the new game, but I doubt that will have staying power. I suppose AOS's best chance for survival will come from the Sigmarines, which seems like a sorry future for the game overall.

You could be spot on. I certainly see that as a possibility.

The core question seems to be that GW is making a scenario-based miniature game that can be played as a very casual (but likely poorly balanced) pick-up skirmishes. It is NOT a miniature war game, at least not by any traditional definition -- so... is there a market for this?

Maybe not. Maybe?

Like I said, not really my thing, but I don't know. And yeah, the Sigmarite models will probably do just fine. Will they get formations?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Buy GW, We Are IP Bullies That Write Crappy Rules!
But, Hey! At Least We Are Really Expensive!

It never ceases to amaze me that some people don't understand that there are people exist who don't feel the same way about a hobby as them.

There are those who buy GW products because they genuinely like them, and like playing their games, because they think those games are the most fun of what's out there. I really don't care about what GW, Microsoft, Google, or Coca-Cola do to protect their IP. I so don't care if Coca-Cola goes and sues every soft drink manufacturer on the planet; I'll still buy flats of Coke. As to "Really Expensive?"

Age of Sigmar costs $125 for 47 models, or $2.66 per model, less 25%, will be $2 a shot. I'll spend an average of 10 hours painting it (some much longer, others perhaps a little less), so even without the game, that's $0.20 per hour for entertainment. And I have a model afterwards that I get to keep forever!

In contrast, when I buy a video game, the most I get out of it is about 100 hours for $60, about $0.60 per hour. If I buy a Blu-Ray disc, that's $20 a 120 minute flick, or $10 an hour. Or if I got to a movie, I'll spend $25 between ticket and food for 2 hours, or $12.50 per hour (really, twice that because I have to pay for my wife!). If I go out with my wife or friends, I'll probably spend at least $25 per hour (potentially much, much more).

As far as cost of fun stuff I do in my spare time goes, other than the things that are free or virtually free, like hiking or television, hobby, and wargaming are just about the cheapest thing that I do. Even for models that cost TEN TIMES Sigmar's fantastic deal -- say, $20 a pop -- it's still cheaper than most things I do. So no, it's not "Really Expensive".

@Marlov - you seem to have some anger issues >.<

Not everyone is like you... chill, man!

@Deadnight - I agree, this is a co-op game in the sense of, let's build an interesting setting, and THEN try to beat the snot out of each other.

CrashGordon94 wrote:
With regards to the last page with it being up to the players being relied on to balance it and make it fun for both of them, that's valid point in both directions. That's to say that it is indeed good for that and that could be valid, but at the same time a pretty bad idea to focus on.
That would be a BRILLIANT idea if it was some sort of custom rules/scenario/mission maker like GURPS and marketed as such, but they're marketing them as the rules and that's the issue. You expect to have working rules based on that but they seem more half-finished.
So with that in mind is a failure of framing/marketing really.

It isn't half-finished, though -- it was a conscious decision on their part to appeal to a segment of the community that wants to play or build/play scenarios, rather than army list based competitive games. Of course, that segment may not even exist.

We're scraping together some fantasy models for tomorrow, and we'll give the game a go before 40k. A bunch of people in the N&R forum seem to think it's pretty fun, so who knows. Unfortunately, our Fantasy models are pretty scattered. Maybe I'll use some LoTR elves and such as proxies

 Azreal13 wrote:
He wasn't "pushed aside."

He was Chairman, appointed himself CEO when Mark Wells left, and, whilst not being illegal, the same person holding both Chairman and CEO positions isn't encouraged, so he announced he would be stepping down as CEO around a year later.

Then, after an extensive search, he appointed his mate CEO.

Cough, Bill Gates, Walt Disney, William Redington Hewlett, Steve Jobs. The first 3 for sure; Steve Jobs has served as both, but I'm not sure of he was both at the same time.

 infinite_array wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
i see...
honestly, though that person said it in a weird way, can anyone really argue against miniature wargaming being a collecting hobby first and foremost, and a wargaming hobby second???

Seeing as how the hobby is called miniature wargaming and not miniature collecting, assembling and painting, with a slight dabbling in the playing thereof, I would argue that, yes, miniature wargaming is a wargaming hobby first and foremost. Especially since the GW crowd is usually so eager to get to the gaming bit that they'll happily skip the collecting, assembling and painting parts.

I don't agree. The hobby is whatever people make of it, and I would argue that principally, one hobby is modelling, and the other wargaming. Miniature wargaming just happens to combine two different hobbies.

There are lots of people who model stuff and never game with it (GW or otherwise). Some people build dioramas, too.

In the olden days, with lead minis, we didn't even paint them when we played wargames -- Chainmail, for example. But now, I can work 3 years on an army before I ever field a single model in the collection.

While collecting miniatures is definitely a hobby (like collecting stamps), I'm not sure collecting *unpainted* or unassembled miniatures is a hobby. Like, collecting boxes of Revell or Tamiya scale models is not really a hobby, at least not for most people.

@infinite_array - I don't want to get into an argument of semantics with you, so I'll just ask -- what do you call a hobbyist interested in 40k for modelling, not gaming purposes?

To your other, valid point, I think there are indeed people who model collections first, and game as a secondary hobby, and these people are no less or more hobbyists than the reverse. I guess you could say collecting the miniatures and imagining them painted and battle ready is also a hobby, as is lining up shrinkwrapped boxes on the shelf, so I retract what I said about accumulating boxes of stuff as not being a hobby.

I don't think it's healthy for GW to ONLY have these customers, or even mostly derive its revenue from these customers. Among other things that's a way to lose mindshare and, eventually, relevance.

 infinite_array wrote:

To your other, valid point, I think there are indeed people who model collections first, and game as a secondary hobby, and these people are no less or more hobbyists than the reverse. I guess you could say collecting the miniatures and imagining them painted and battle ready is also a hobby, as is lining up shrinkwrapped boxes on the shelf, so I retract what I said about accumulating boxes of stuff as not being a hobby.

I'm confused as to where you've pulled this from, and I'm not sure what is has to do with this discussion. It sounds more like someone collecting actions figures than miniature wargaming.

At one point there was some back and forth as to whether miniature wargaming was more about the collecting/modelling miniatures or wargaming. But anyways, it's not important. I do think that the primary collector-hobbyist, primary-modelling hobbyist, and primary gaming-hobbyist are equally important. I don't know how the groups, taken as a whole, rank in profitability. For example, the guy who spends $30,000 a year by snagging everything GW and its subsidiaries produce in multiples is no doubt highly profitable, but there are very few like him. But there might be a lot of guys who spend $10,000 a year (and shelving a lot of it). As a whole they could be very significant revenue. Or not.

Deadnight wrote:
Why base it around a pick up game? That's not the type of game gw want to push. We play historicals et. at at mates house - and we discuss what kind of game/scenario we'd like ahead of time. We all get input and we all get our chance to run a game. Do we just slap down armies? No, we put down what makes sense and what's appropriate given the context of the scenario- again, discussed pre game. It's our responsibilit to ensure both sides get to act as participants and that no one side has an overwhelming advantage. It's the same here, I think. You are both responsible for both armies, not just the part you slap down in your deployment zone. Like I said, it puts the responsibilities with the players, not with the game mechanics.

This is how we play about 3/4 of our 40k games, actually. We find that 40k is much more enjoyable when it's relatively planned. We don't agree on every unit that's going to be fielded, but often, we'll design the scenario in advance, and sketch out our own guidelines for lists and deployment, and the battle forces are quite often asymmetric (points-wise) because one side or the other has positional or entrenchment advantages, or because one side is going to feature a disproportionate number of suboptimal units (eg we just want to field dreadnoughts), or a suboptimal faction/build vs very strong faction (eg first company terminators assault necron tombworld and must kill overlord), or a survive-the-swarm (essentially unlimited orks vs space marines at center of table; don't get tabled in 6 turns, T7 reinforcements arrive and Orks auto-lose).

It's a lot more varied than "You bring Ultramarines, I bring CWE, we set up terrain, roll on table and kill!". Sometimes the points can be as disproportionate as 3:1, and the side with more points may still lose. Also, sometimes, we'll trade scenarios -- a pair of us will design something for another pair of friends, and we'll swap, so that we don't know what the scenario is ahead of time.

I understand the whole planned game philosophy really well. It works if you're willing to put the effort into it. However, unless every unit in an army is of relatively equivalent value, some kind of indication of their relative strengths is extremely helpful (especially if we've not played the unit before), and also gives us the ability to list-build, which is fun all by itself.