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.

weeble1000 wrote:Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.

Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.

Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.

More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.

I know soccer fans who have no interest in cricket, and rugby fans who despise soccer- give them a football game and it's less than meaningless. Heck I know soccer fans who support different teams who have no interest in any other teams in the same bloody sport - missus deadnight is one of them. Neither the fans nor the games are the same thing. PP. Gw. Cb? All different games, appealing to different peple. This is not a bad thing. I don't want one true game. I want wmh for pugs and tourneys, flames of war or for casual epic battles and infinity for my intense sci fi fix. All different games, doing different things. And others will like some, all, or none of these things along with me.

And all those sports people I know would have issue with what you're saying.

Noir wrote:
You mean the target market and fan base GW created themself. Yes, 100% GWs fault, no way around it. The rest of the quote is pointless to this fact.

Nope. Gamers have always existed. Gw didn't start the craze, they just gave those people a place to hang out. If gw didn't exist, thst same toxic members of our community would still exist and would congregate towards other nerdy hobbies and ruin them instead. Nerds of all calibres can be extremely toxic.

As to target market - garage gamers who drink beer and roll dice around? These aren't generally the ones playtesting. Thryre the ones who cut and paste what they like and what they don't like. And often with custom scenarios and custom armies without points caps. I know because I am one of them (admittedly with games like infinity and flames of war, but the mentality our Friday group plays by is quite laid back and casual and happy to do our own thing). Posters like talys are tge same.

Playtesting for a lot of these casual gamers is a secondary concern - at the end of the day, if something doesn't work, we change it.

For the pug players and competitive crowd? Playtesting is absolutely vital. Absolutely. It's why pp are doing so well - they targeted their product brilliantly for this segment of the community. Gw are not targeting these people. Gw are just happy to chug along with their own target and make pretty models.

GW had designed a "culture" where they created a ecosystem for all elements of it's games.

That has largely evaporated now.
Much of the older fan-base is still clinging to that "clique".

The problem is there is some element of "us and them" to it all. Couple that with people who hang their ego's on winning and it can create that "toxic" environment.

@Deadnight: You said"Nerds of all calibres can be extremely toxic."

Two meaning to nerd:
"a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious."
and
"a single-minded expert in a particular technical field."

That is rather general but typically I find environments more toxic through ignorance (spreading untruths) than by being studious or an expert (take pride in being "correct").

 agnosto wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.

And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...

 agnosto wrote:

I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.

Mark2 play test was brilliant. It set up a great game and helped me fall in love with wargames again

There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.

Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).

Plus, there is the very real possibility that the playtesters were focusing on ugly truths that GW did not want to hear.

It happens.

4th edition Dungeons and Dragons suffered from it - with playtesters telling the game designers that the skill challenges, as written, were unusable - that low level characters could not realistically get the needed results.

And that the game, as written, was overly focused on combat, to the detriment of the rest of the game.

The game hit the market - with the same unusable skill challenges, and too much focus on combat.

The first errata dropped the skill DCs of nearly every challenge by ten or more - on a d20!

Then the game itself dropped from the long held #1 spot to #2.

Because WotC decided that they knew better than the playtesters.

Sometimes there is a reason that people, even playtesters, are complaining.

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Initial reactions to AOS are at least 50/50 pro/anti but I have no feel for whether that is a good result or a bad one.

Been thinking about that. If a significant proportion of the pro crowd are those 40K players who wanted a way to get into Fantasy*, who will devote a portion of their hobby budget to AoS, and cause a significant drop in 40K revenue, will GW declare AoS to be cannibalising 40K sales and throw it off a cliff...?

*Not that they'll be getting into Warhammer Fantasy at all, y'know.

 Vermis wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Initial reactions to AOS are at least 50/50 pro/anti but I have no feel for whether that is a good result or a bad one.

Been thinking about that. If a significant proportion of the pro crowd are those 40K players who wanted a way to get into Fantasy*, who will devote a portion of their hobby budget to AoS, and cause a significant drop in 40K revenue, will GW declare AoS to be cannibalising 40K sales and throw it off a cliff...?

*Not that they'll be getting into Warhammer Fantasy at all, y'know.

I've been wondering that myself. Glad i'm sticking to my hobby of throwing ferraris off cliffs as it would be bloody expensive to throw gw stuff.

I think if your product release is 50/50 at best in terms of your current customer base accepting it, then you've released a terrible product.

Deadnight wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.

Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.

Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.

More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.

I know soccer fans who have no interest in cricket, and rugby fans who despise soccer- give them a football game and it's less than meaningless. Heck I know soccer fans who support different teams who have no interest in any other teams in the same bloody sport - missus deadnight is one of them. Neither the fans nor the games are the same thing. PP. Gw. Cb? All different games, appealing to different peple. This is not a bad thing. I don't want one true game. I want wmh for pugs and tourneys, flames of war or for casual epic battles and infinity for my intense sci fi fix. All different games, doing different things. And others will like some, all, or none of these things along with me.

And all those sports people I know would have issue with what you're saying.

If use the sports car analogy lots of F1 fans are into DTM too, Or those who like Nascar like Indycar too.
Wargaming is a small market and most play 2 or more systems, only the die-hard GW-fans play only GW stuff.
So it is quite possible, that a person that plays GW and PP can in their community be positive about one company and negative about another.

Deadnight wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.

Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.

Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.

More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.

I know soccer fans who have no interest in cricket, and rugby fans who despise soccer- give them a football game and it's less than meaningless. Heck I know soccer fans who support different teams who have no interest in any other teams in the same bloody sport - missus deadnight is one of them. Neither the fans nor the games are the same thing. PP. Gw. Cb? All different games, appealing to different peple. This is not a bad thing. I don't want one true game. I want wmh for pugs and tourneys, flames of war or for casual epic battles and infinity for my intense sci fi fix. All different games, doing different things. And others will like some, all, or none of these things along with me.

And all those sports people I know would have issue with what you're saying.

The difference is that you'll never go to a soccer forum where they scream about how stupid cricket is, and how cricket should die. Sports fans might want every other team other than theirs to get injured (Go food poisoning!!) so that their team wins, but that's a little different

Just me, I'd rather be involved for a sport (Go Habs! Go Seahawks!) or wargame that I like, than to blow my time dumping on something that I don't. I can't stand basketball (mostly because I get sick of cheering every minute there's a basket), and I think golf is pointless to watch, but the last thing in the universe I'd do is talk about how dumb either sport is to spectate Besides, I fully understand how these sports which seem ridiculous to watch for me are totally immersive for others.

 Talys wrote:

Just me, I'd rather be involved for a sport (Go Habs! Go Seahawks!) or wargame that I like, than to blow my time dumping on something that I don't.

So, what about a sport you did like, but now has changed to the point that you don't enjoy it anymore? Perhaps you're especially generous and will simply stop following it without a word (as many are wont to do), but surely you can see why a person might feel upset at something they enjoy "going away" so-to-speak.

Take AoS for example. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the rumors of WHFB being 100% replaced are true. That is, going forward, let's assume there will be no more models in the existing styles and no further rulebook updates for the system. Now, of course the stuff people already have will not simply vanish, and everyone can continue playing 8th as they have been before. Players/3rd party sites may even pick up the reins themselves and build new rules and models. Nevertheless, the "official" product line has ended. From this point forward, the specific aesthetic of the current line is done. Finished. Over. GW, as far as players are concerned, has no plans to do more of "the same", instead opting to make everything "new again". Although this is ultimately inevitable with anything in any industry, I'm sure you will agree that nobody is forcing GW to adopt this stance; after all, they are still a healthy, profitable company. It is their belief that this plan will be sustainable and/or profitable in the future.

So perhaps you can understand why a person might feel the need to speak their mind on a forum such as this, to say "I like this specific thing, and so I do not like that there won't be any more of it, and I do not believe that the situation must be this way." As someone who values having individual shelves for each franchise and product line, if one of those lines was cancelled - so you knew that shelf would never get anything new - would you not be even a little distressed?

Again, while you may be generous enough (and with enough other modeling projects to not be affected much) to not raise a big stink about it, I think it's very disingenuous to hand-wave away other customers' complaints with a back-handed "if you don't like it, go away." Many of them will go away, but I suspect most of those don't actually want to - and so they voice their concerns.

Just because cricket fans don't slag off baseball, doesn't mean WHFB fans should not slag off AOS.

To be realistic, no-one believes cricket would suddenly turn into baseball if enough people said cricket was rubbish and baseball was great. On the other hand, cricket fans might well complain that the five day international test format was too boring, or the 20/20 format was too fast. In fact it turns out the cricket authorities have taken note of such complaints and introduced a variety of formats to suit different tastes.

In our case it is game players who used to like 40K or WHFB, who started to become annoyed by different aspects of the games (price rises, lack of balance, etc) and voiced their complaints that were ignored by GW.

AOS actually is the final admission by GW that these complaints were not the whining of a tiny minority. The only possible reason for AOS and the dumping of WHFB, is that sales had declined to the point where the game was losing money. The reasons why are easy to understand; high barrier to entry because the game was too complicated and expensive, high barrier to continuing play because the game was too expensive, and a significant amount of disatisfaction with the rules.

The game plan for AOS is now becoming clear. An intro set of rules that is free and easy to play at skirmish level, to be followed by extensions adding more complex rules for larger battles and tournaments. This is exactly what a number of highly intelligent people like me have been saying is needed by 40K. GW have done it with WHFB because it is a more strategic target.

Admittedly there are some flies in the ointment. The basic AOS rules have immediately revealed a number of flaws that users will have to house rule about. These will shake out quite quickly, as the rules are so limited in scope there can't be too many of them. The lack of a balancing system is remarkable, however I understand from rumours it will be corrected in time.

Also, GW have taken advantage of the reset to rename all the factions and are going to release new models for them that will be incompatible with the old ones. This also invalidates all rival companies figures, e.g. Mantic.

On one level this is a bit gakky, but being realistic, GW need to make money off the models rather than the books. They hope to attract a lot of new players into their game but they also need to sell to veterans if possible. If you have an existing WHFB army, I should quickly buy whatever classic figures you need to fill out its war scrolls before they are all unavailable. (People are also buying the Land Marines for use in 40K armies.)

On the plus side, GW released free War scroll codexes for all the traditional WHFB armies, so if you have one you will easily be able to use it in AOS. That is a very good move by the company.

Back to the main topic: I am convinced that AOS will be more successful than WHFB had become. Loads of people like the rules and/or the figures and we are seeing reports of noobs even including girls enjoying the simplicity of the game.

It is also notable that it has launched at the mid-point of GW's financial year. If GW can sell 100,000 boxes, which I think they will, it adds a very useful £6 million plus to the bottom line even before new kits start to fly off the shelves.

The key question is whether 40K could go down the same route. 40K presumably accounts fo 80% or more of sales, so changing it dramatically would be a risk. However it is highly likely that 40K sales have been declining for several years, since 6th edition, which arguably introduced the same kind of accessibility problems that affected WHFB.

Presumably GW will study the effect of AOS for a couple of years before committing themselves to a total reworking of 40K. I personally would welcome a n AOS style system, as I have many 40K figures that currently are unused because I gave up the game during 6th/7th owing to the rising cost and complexity of the whole thing.

When will the actual financials be released? It can't be too long now, can it? End of July rings a bell, but I can't remember an exact date :(

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because cricket fans don't slag off baseball, doesn't mean WHFB fans should not slag off AOS.

To be realistic, no-one believes cricket would suddenly turn into baseball if enough people said cricket was rubbish and baseball was great. On the other hand, cricket fans might well complain that the five day international test format was too boring, or the 20/20 format was too fast. In fact it turns out the cricket authorities have taken note of such complaints and introduced a variety of formats to suit different tastes.

In our case it is game players who used to like 40K or WHFB, who started to become annoyed by different aspects of the games (price rises, lack of balance, etc) and voiced their complaints that were ignored by GW.

AOS actually is the final admission by GW that these complaints were not the whining of a tiny minority. The only possible reason for AOS and the dumping of WHFB, is that sales had declined to the point where the game was losing money. The reasons why are easy to understand; high barrier to entry because the game was too complicated and expensive, high barrier to continuing play because the game was too expensive, and a significant amount of disatisfaction with the rules.

The game plan for AOS is now becoming clear. An intro set of rules that is free and easy to play at skirmish level, to be followed by extensions adding more complex rules for larger battles and tournaments. This is exactly what a number of highly intelligent people like me have been saying is needed by 40K. GW have done it with WHFB because it is a more strategic target.

Admittedly there are some flies in the ointment. The basic AOS rules have immediately revealed a number of flaws that users will have to house rule about. These will shake out quite quickly, as the rules are so limited in scope there can't be too many of them. The lack of a balancing system is remarkable, however I understand from rumours it will be corrected in time.

Also, GW have taken advantage of the reset to rename all the factions and are going to release new models for them that will be incompatible with the old ones. This also invalidates all rival companies figures, e.g. Mantic.

On one level this is a bit gakky, but being realistic, GW need to make money off the models rather than the books. They hope to attract a lot of new players into their game but they also need to sell to veterans if possible. If you have an existing WHFB army, I should quickly buy whatever classic figures you need to fill out its war scrolls before they are all unavailable. (People are also buying the Land Marines for use in 40K armies.)

On the plus side, GW released free War scroll codexes for all the traditional WHFB armies, so if you have one you will easily be able to use it in AOS. That is a very good move by the company.

Back to the main topic: I am convinced that AOS will be more successful than WHFB had become. Loads of people like the rules and/or the figures and we are seeing reports of noobs even including girls enjoying the simplicity of the game.

It is also notable that it has launched at the mid-point of GW's financial year. If GW can sell 100,000 boxes, which I think they will, it adds a very useful £6 million plus to the bottom line even before new kits start to fly off the shelves.

The key question is whether 40K could go down the same route. 40K presumably accounts fo 80% or more of sales, so changing it dramatically would be a risk. However it is highly likely that 40K sales have been declining for several years, since 6th edition, which arguably introduced the same kind of accessibility problems that affected WHFB.

Presumably GW will study the effect of AOS for a couple of years before committing themselves to a total reworking of 40K. I personally would welcome a n AOS style system, as I have many 40K figures that currently are unused because I gave up the game during 6th/7th owing to the rising cost and complexity of the whole thing.

This would appear to be a good idea with regard to 40k, (and if I'm understanding AOS correctly), but will it bring in the money for GW? GW are used to people needing to spend £150+ to field a 40k army, will they be interested in a system that allows gamers to spend less?

The other day I spent £60 on a Dead Man's Hand set up. That was for 2 x 7 man factions and a rulebook (one of the factions was a birthday present for a mate). I flicked through the rules one lunchbreak and we played our first game that evening at our local indie store. Game took about 2.5hrs and was great fun. I don't see GW wanting to drop to that level.

**********
Rea
Was just sent a FB link, Hitler reacts to Age of Sigmar. Not suitable NSW, but the best I've seen in a long while

I don't think GW will, from the quotes from the rep, it sounds like there will be a lot of very proscribed gaming opportunities, like the Stormclaw box.

If you want a new balanced game, you buy a campain box which contains 2 pre-defined armies and a handful of scenarios they feel are suitably balanced, you paint them, play with them as instructed, and then buy the next campaign box.

That point is the crux of it.

How much sales revenu do GW make from 40K? Is it declining and how fast?
What would be the impact of making the books available free? Will people spend more on kits than the lost revenue of book sales?

AOS is a potential testbed for this. It makes sense for GW at this point because WHFB clearly was no longer profitable, so trashing it doesn't lose them anything significant.

GW will gain sales information from AOS that will guide their decisions regarding the future of 40K.

The GW half-year report comes out towards the end of July.

 Wolfstan wrote:

The other day I spent £60 on a Dead Man's Hand set up. That was for 2 x 7 man factions and a rulebook (one of the factions was a birthday present for a mate). I flicked through the rules one lunchbreak and we played our first game that evening at our local indie store. Game took about 2.5hrs and was great fun. I don't see GW wanting to drop to that level.

**********
Rea
Was just sent a FB link, Hitler reacts to Age of Sigmar. Not suitable NSW, but the best I've seen in a long while

The other day I made a similar purchase (part spurred by my inlaws giving me £20 at Partizan for telephone tech support over the years). I followed it up with a gakload of 4ground buildings, cacti, crates, barrels and paint to do up a 3x3 on the reverse of my x-wing board. Total spend well into 3 figures. I will definitely be buying more, along with the expansion packs.

 Xca|iber wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Just me, I'd rather be involved for a sport (Go Habs! Go Seahawks!) or wargame that I like, than to blow my time dumping on something that I don't.

So, what about a sport you did like, but now has changed to the point that you don't enjoy it anymore? Perhaps you're especially generous and will simply stop following it without a word (as many are wont to do), but surely you can see why a person might feel upset at something they enjoy "going away" so-to-speak.

This actually happened during the NHL strikes. I stopped watching hockey for quite a few years after because it posses me off. Sure, you complain about it and voice your concerns (otherwise you didn't care in the first place). And just like we have mini collections, sports paraphernalia, tickets, and all that aren't cheap, lemme tell ya. But even when I started doing other things with my time, I didn't go onto the NHL's boards and go on and on about how football was superior. If I thought there was a chance that it would make a difference, perhaps, but the NHL listening to me is zero, so why bother? Also, I make the assumption that my knowledge of the facts is incomplete, while theirs is at least marginally better, so I just let them do their thing.

It's not really being generous. It's being practical.

Now there are things that I believe are worthy of activist causes. Hydraulic fracking, for example, or whales caught in commercial fishing nets. But... wargaming.. sorry, as much as I enjoy it and as many hours I devote to the hobby, it's not close to makineg the cut to being a cult.

So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

Yes, at least until they've played it.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

Yes, at least until they've played it.

Or until they read the rules, realize that they are gak, and are willing to warn people away from the steaming pile before they step in it.

The rules are gak - don't step in it.

The Auld Grump - believe it or not, a lot of people can recognize bad rules when they read them....

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

Yes, at least until they've played it.

Wow... Okay, I made up a new game. Player 1 hits Player 2 in the head with a toaster. Then Player 2 hits Player 1 in the head with a toaster. Play continues until only one player remains conscious. Wanna play this one?

While an extreme example, what I'm getting at is that someone can look at a set of rules and not like them without actually playing the game. There are many things in AoS that I do not like (the inane special character rules like The Masque's dance for example). Upon reading the rules I have decided, without playing the game, that I do not like it. This is possible.

*Edit*

...This is way off topic, though...

If the rules are out, you can comment on them. Generally, if it's a complex rules interaction that is woven through the whole of the game, it's best to wait to comment.

But what we're talking about here are rules so stupid and broken that it's pretty clear they're not trying at all.

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

Or just move on, and find something better to do with their time and money?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

Yes, at least until they've played it.

Well, I did, today.
It's not fun. In fact, by turn two you are starting to wonder what you are doing here at all, because you start to feel a little silly. And that's before pretending to ride a horse and talking to it. It's not a good game, by any measure and I'd wager I could throw something together of the same quality in a single afternoon.

Deadnight wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

Or just move on, and find something better to do with their time and money?

Or both?

Sitting at work, burning the government's money, I enjoy a good post or two or dozen. I enjoy discussions, I'm sure you do to, and for many people on this board, 40k/Fantasy is a long term relationship that's become increasingly rocky. Its hard to just walk away for many. Lots of money, time, and effort were put into many armies, and many memories made over the years.

Realy I think AoS has some real potential if GW puts some effort into it and can pull in a great year, it could set them up for a real chance at making back what was lost at fantasy.

But they have to have learn from all there mistakes with fantasy, no more leaving factions and players in the dust for years...
If they have learn, And we see a update to the rules and support within the next few months I would think it can be successful.
If this is it, and we don't see any info on any new faction within a few months I think it will start to falter.

People who don't like eternals or KHORNE are effectively sitting around waiting to find out if they should even bother getting excited. And this is where GW fail before, there is only so long players will wait for stuff to get there interest.
GW needs to market there new game better and talk about the future a bit now. Why everyone is watching them. That's something that you can't pay for and GW is throwing it away.

 Blacksails wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
So, everyone should shut up if they dont like it?

Or just move on, and find something better to do with their time and money?

Or both?

Sitting at work, burning the government's money, I enjoy a good post or two or dozen. I enjoy discussions, I'm sure you do to, and for many people on this board, 40k/Fantasy is a long term relationship that's become increasingly rocky. Its hard to just walk away for many. Lots of money, time, and effort were put into many armies, and many memories made over the years.

Honestly - I agree with you. But there is a point where maintaining relationships that are essentially extinct is counter productive and unhealthy.

 Talys wrote:

...Sure, you complain about it and voice your concerns (otherwise you didn't care in the first place). ...If I thought there was a chance that it would make a difference, perhaps, but the NHL listening to me is zero, so why bother? ...so I just let them do their thing.

So, in the same breath you admit to complaining about a similar situation... and then say "why bother complaining?" I can only assume you mean that you verbally voiced your complaints to friends/family, but then drew the line at posting your concerns on the forum, which in my opinion is essentially an arbitrary distinction. You may not feel the need to post your opinion, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss everyone else just because "why bother." As I said before, has it occurred to you that the people posting on here are just doing so to "complain about it and voice [their] concerns" rather than any attempt to make a difference? Of course GW isn't listening, they're not gonna change because of what happens here.

However, other people are listening. When posts here highlight issues with rules, pricing, models, business practices, and everything else, others who listen might change their attitudes; they might say "Huh, I never thought of it that way" or "Nah, that's not an issue for me." And then we have a discourse about it - that's the point of having a forum. Some people may just want to hear about others' experiences, good or bad, or have had a problem and want to hear what others have done (such as all the people who are now migrating to KoW after coming here and other forums and hearing about it).

Dismissing all of this just because you don't like to read "negative things" on the internet isn't conducive to a debate or conversation - it's basically covering your ears and saying "Shut up and go away!"

Besides that, I'm not even going to get started with your silly "It's not as bad as fracking or bad whaling practices so don't talk about it" strawman... I mean, come on; really?

 Xca|iber wrote:

 Talys wrote:

...Sure, you complain about it and voice your concerns (otherwise you didn't care in the first place). ...If I thought there was a chance that it would make a difference, perhaps, but the NHL listening to me is zero, so why bother? ...so I just let them do their thing.

So, in the same breath you admit to complaining about a similar situation... and then say "why bother complaining?" I can only assume you mean that you verbally voiced your complaints to friends/family, but then drew the line at posting your concerns on the forum, which in my opinion is essentially an arbitrary distinction. You may not feel the need to post your opinion, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss everyone else just because "why bother." As I said before, has it occurred to you that the people posting on here are just doing so to "complain about it and voice [their] concerns" rather than any attempt to make a difference? Of course GW isn't listening, they're not gonna change because of what happens here.

However, other people are listening. When posts here highlight issues with rules, pricing, models, business practices, and everything else, others who listen might change their attitudes; they might say "Huh, I never thought of it that way" or "Nah, that's not an issue for me." And then we have a discourse about it - that's the point of having a forum. Some people may just want to hear about others' experiences, good or bad, or have had a problem and want to hear what others have done (such as all the people who are now migrating to KoW after coming here and other forums and hearing about it).

Dismissing all of this just because you don't like to read "negative things" on the internet isn't conducive to a debate or conversation - it's basically covering your ears and saying "Shut up and go away!"

Besides that, I'm not even going to get started with your silly "It's not as bad as fracking or bad whaling practices so don't talk about it" strawman... I mean, come on; really?

Exalted for truth. Of course GW isn't listening. Of course they won't change their products based on what we write here. That's not the point. We all post here to talk about wargames, just like we do with our friends in real life. Some companies/creators do post here and use this site to communicate with their fans, and that's a fantastic bonus, but's just a bonus. Chatting with other people in the same hobby is the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
Realy I think AoS has some real potential if GW puts some effort into it and can pull in a great year, it could set them up for a real chance at making back what was lost at fantasy.

But they have to have learn from all there mistakes with fantasy, no more leaving factions and players in the dust for years...
If they have learn, And we see a update to the rules and support within the next few months I would think it can be successful.
If this is it, and we don't see any info on any new faction within a few months I think it will start to falter.

People who don't like eternals or KHORNE are effectively sitting around waiting to find out if they should even bother getting excited. And this is where GW fail before, there is only so long players will wait for stuff to get there interest.
GW needs to market there new game better and talk about the future a bit now. Why everyone is watching them. That's something that you can't pay for and GW is throwing it away.

See, the assumption that you're making is that GW have built a solid base for this game which they can build on. Many of us, myself included, don't share that assumption. GW has done little over the past decade or more to encourage us to trust in their ability to handle such a major relaunch. For crissake, the Dark Angels codex has formations in it that are impossible to use, RAW. Why should we trust them to handle building a whole game from scratch?

Also, when the first step to success for your game is "fix the non-functioning rules," you're already in trouble.

Deadnight wrote:

Honestly - I agree with you. But there is a point where maintaining relationships that are essentially extinct is counter productive and unhealthy.

True, and that point is often hard to recognize for many, and varies from person to person. Funny enough for me, I'm still sticking around 40k because of a 3rd party company that I absolutely love.

Still, I often feel its better for all involved to either have a sensible discussion with someone you may not agree with, or ignore them entirely.

I feel Azrael's sig quote sums up my feelings on these matters. I'm both equally fascinated and not a little shocked at how many people are enjoying AoS, but I don't think I'd ever ask them to stop posting about it, nor would I expect them to ask the same of me.

GW topics are a bit like political/religious discussions sometimes, eh? Funny how that is.

The one about growing amongst people who disagree with you, or the one about every idiot being entitled to an opinion?