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.

 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?

I believe this is covered by the rules. He can't move because there's enemies within 3".

Okay, who broke nopoet?

The problem is GW was once the gak.

Now GW is gak.

I can accept a whole hell of a lot of poorly written rules and game imbalance if the price is right.

Kirby likens his products to Ferrari. At Ferrari prices I demand Ferrari performance.

What I am getting is Ferrari prices with Kia perfomance.

It did not used to be this way. They got greedy and lost their way.

 Korinov wrote:
You know what's even more tiresome than the constant whining? The constant whining about the whining

Welcome to the internet, where opinions different to yours may exist, and people may even dare to post them.

And please let's not even get started on the issue of Apple's "true fans", easily the most brainwashed, self-entitled bunch of smugs in human history.

Are you whining about the whining about the whining, again?

Hah, I say, hah! I shall now whine about your whining about the whining about the whining!
*Ahem*
Whiiiinnnge!



Seriously, you are right - but it seemed amusing.

And after the whole child labor thing came out... Apple pretty much lost any and all good-guy cred. (And the whole thing with Gizmodo was just pathetic.)

When a company, any company, does something unethical, callous, or just plain dumb then people are going to let their feelings be known.

GW has managed all three in a single legal case, but, beyond that, has done its best to make sure that everyone that wants to complain has plenty of reason to.

The Auld Grump

the difference between Apple and GW is that Apple puts out good products (usually) and GW put out crappy games.

So, Apple gets some slack.

To be fair the price of the AOS rules is £0 so I don't think we can complain about that.

We could complain that the world's most successful fantasy wargame designer has sunk to such depths.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair the price of the AOS rules is £0 so I don't think we can complain about that.

We could complain that the world's most successful fantasy wargame designer has sunk to such depths.

They probably misunderstood that the free PDF download for other companies is the starter rules, not the full set. Or maybe they didn't and there is a full book later and they is bullshitting the retailers.

That Dakka is the biggest forum of this type by a larger margin should tell viewers that people want open conversation, even the (dare I say it) negative opinions on a particular release. What I find infinitely more tiresome than posters having complaints is the idea of going to a forum where negative opinions get shouted down and the world is all puppy dogs and space marines. I'd much rather people be honest and a true discourse go on than everyone repeatedly saying "boy, this is the best thing GW has ever done!" every second release.

I'm tired of the whining about the whining about the whining!

No matter what criticisms are levelled at GW, even if they address those criticisms, those criticisms won't be addressed in a way that pleases everyone.

I remember criticisms of WHFB requiring too many models, veterans insisting on large games that are inaccessible to newbies, the flaws of the codex/armybook system, the bloat of the rulebook, that rules should be free.

They've addressed all these things, but still there are plenty of criticisms (not that I think GW is beyond criticism).

I wish there were lightside/darkside flags so you could blanket ignore all pro/anti gw posts depending on how the fancy took you that day!

I suppose the closest to this is sticking to hobby/battle report subsections of forums rather than the general sections.

nareik wrote:
I'm tired of the whining about the whining about the whining!

No matter what criticisms are levelled at GW, even if they address those criticisms, those criticisms won't be addressed in a way that pleases everyone.

No, but being seen to try would go a long way with many people.

I remember criticisms of WHFB requiring too many models, veterans insisting on large games that are inaccessible to newbies, the flaws of the codex/armybook system, the bloat of the rulebook, that rules should be free.

They've addressed all these things, but still there are plenty of criticisms (not that I think GW is beyond criticism).

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 wish there were lightside/darkside flags so you could blanket ignore all pro/anti gw posts depending on how the fancy took you that day!

I suppose the closest to this is sticking to hobby/battle report subsections of forums rather than the general sections.

Yeah, cause only listening to people you agree with is a really healthy way to have a discussion and grow as a person.

I don't come here to grow as a person. I come here to share my interests and excitement with like-minded people. I get plenty of personal growth in real life.

Well, if you're looking for a forum where everyone blindly agrees with you, I'd suggest starting your own and maintaining a very strict registration policy.

Otherwise I'm afraid your going to have to deal with the prospect that not everyone thinks the way you do.

Of course not everyone thinks the way I do. Most people think playing with toy soldiers is stupid, for example. You and I agree, I presume, that it is awesome. I like this agreement.

No, I acknowledge it's stupid, I'm just old enough and ugly enough not to care.

Either way, what "other" people think isn't relevant, people who share the same interests as you aren't necessarily always going to agree either.

We don't need to always agree with each other.

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.

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)

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Are you whining about the whining about the whining, again?

Hah, I say, hah! I shall now whine about your whining about the whining about the whining!
*Ahem*
Whiiiinnnge!

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.

 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.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Are you whining about the whining about the whining, again?

Hah, I say, hah! I shall now whine about your whining about the whining about the whining!
*Ahem*
Whiiiinnnge!

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.

Dang, I was trying for this one:

(Just in case anybody was wondering, I am joking. Both times.)

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?'

There are games on Kickstarter where I look at what is in the box, and even if the rules suck then I would be getting my moneys worth.

There are games on Kickstarter where the rules look awesome, and the miniatures look... adequate.

There are games on Kickstarter where the rules and the minis are separate entities, and you can choose between them.

If Age of Sigmarines was on Kickstarter... I might pledge a few dollars for the angels - to use with Kings of War, and a few bucks for the dude wid da dog - he would show up in an RPG.

I would not pledge $120 for the full box. Hell, I wouldn't pledge $50 - there is just not enough in the box that interests me.

The terrain... now that interests me, and I would likely get it as an addon if it were on Kickstarter.

Rules are free, so unless there were a super deluxe version... nah, even then I wouldn't bother. The rules look about as good as Dreadfleet, maybe a bit worse.

On Kickstarter, from an unknown company, knowing what was in the box... I do not think that it would hit a high funding goal.

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

The Auld Grump

 Talys wrote:

 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.

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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, cause only listening to people you agree with is a really healthy way to have a discussion and grow as a person.

I totally agree. Sorry to slow (y)our growth .

The AOS figures would work very well with the free rules War In Hell by Jim Wallman.

http://www.jimwallman.org.uk/wargame/war%20in%20hell.pdf

War In Hell is more complex, having nine pages but it doesn't use scrolls so overall it is going to be shorter and simpler than AOS.

 keezus wrote:

 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?

I believe this is covered by the rules. He can't move because there's enemies within 3".

They can still move, just only to retreat.

 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?

 Talys wrote:

 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

A Cash Flow that is shrinking, year after year.

And the collections aren't tied to AoS - they are tied to Warhammer - a game that GW just crapped on - adding to the huge pile of crap that many people associate with the name GW.

A name that got a ton of negative publicity with the Spots the Space Marine debacle.

So, no - the name really isn't worth that much.

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

Nope, doesn't really have a good ring to it.

The Auld Grump

GW are dumping their name from their shops in favour of Warhammer, and they are dumping the name Warhammer from Fantasy in favour of the hugely recognisable and evocative Age Of Sigmar.

Actually, 'Age of Sigmar' sounds like some new age hippy stuff.

Warhammer branding.
Age of Sigmar advertising in the windows.

They just need some batique dyed t shirts and some resin red buddhas for sale and they are all set.

Warhammer - New Age head shop
'Buy your finecrystals inside.'

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Actually, 'Age of Sigmar' sounds like some new age hippy stuff.

Warhammer branding.
Age of Sigmar advertising in the windows.

They just need some batique dyed t shirts and some resin red buddhas for sale and they are all set.

Warhammer - New Age head shop
'Buy your finecrystals inside.'

GW will soon claim they invented the water bong

 Talys wrote:
ng.

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?

Asmodee/Fantasy Flight Games make multiple games that fall somewhere between tabletop war-games and boardgames so the market is there and overall their revenue is higher than GW's (but spread over many games). Something similar could work for GW (with multiple scenario boxes each year to build your armies instead of boxes of regiments) but their rules quality tends be lacking and having simple but useable rules is kinda the minimum people expect when they buy a boardgame-ish game and GW doesn't deliver that with this new ruleset. I wouldn't call these rules simple but simplistic, they kinda try to emulate some sort of simplicity and clarity without knowing how to go about it (from what we have seen of them).

And who know how balanced the scenarios will be? Just because there are no points doesn't mean the scenarios will work out to be fun for both sides. Removing the points because balancing is work doesn't mean that the game is suddenly balanced. It just means they chose to not include this type of balancing factor.

 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".