Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?

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.

**Tyron**

agnosto wrote:
I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.

Is that Kirby in the meme?

**Talys**

@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.

**Wayniac**

At first I thought AoS looked interesting. But after seeing the rules, yes I hope it's the nail in their coffin. It's beyond ridiculous.

**CrashGordon94**

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.

**agnosto**

Tyron wrote:
agnosto wrote:
I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.

Is that Kirby in the meme?

Yep.

**Talys**

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

**Tyron**

agnosto wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyron wrote:
agnosto wrote:
I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.

Is that Kirby in the meme?

Yep.

I am surprised no one has attempted to talk with him when the community members knows what he looks like.

**jab4962**

Marlov wrote:
I despise Games Workshop. They couldn't go out of business fast enough for me. They suck all the air out of the room: people are talking about this ridiculous game and some will be spending money on this mockery of miniature wargaming, when they could be putting money into REAL wargames.

All this anti-competitive crap makes me hate them so much. I don't want people to "have fun" when I play them. It's a f'in WAR game. WINNING is the ONLY thing that matters. feth casual fun-bunnies. If I want to have fun I will have them over for a BBQ. If I play a wargame I to DESTROY them in the game. I want to shock them with how pathetic and helpless they are on the battlefield. I want them to FEAR me on the tabletop! Extra points if they want them to go home crying to their mamma. People who like Age of Sigmar and "scenario" games, it's just code for "I suck at strategy games so I need a game to babysit me instead of learning to play properly."

I hate Games Workshop because they divide an already very small group of players. We could all be playing a GOOD, COMPETITIVE game, WHERE WINNING COUNTS. Instead of this crap where even if you win, maybe it's because their faction sucks. I don't want an excuse for WHY someone lost, except that they're a worse player than me, or at least that they're unluckier than me. Games Workshop makes it Casual vs Competitive, Scenario vs non-Scenario, Painted vs Unpainted, Rich vs Not Rich. It's insane.

The industry is growing IN SPITE OF Games Workshop. If they would only die, other games would flourish. All they accomplish right now is taking up space on the shelf of local stores and stealing players away from REAL wargames.

The really STUPID thing is that people WILL buy this dumb game that is just a jab in the eye of REAL wargamers. The people who do buy it should just go play Mass Effect or go watch a movie or do something, you know, non-competitive, if competition doesn't matter to them.

You know what also ruins wargaming? When people forget that it's a game. It's a hobby. It's fun. When you act like its not, you ruin it for everyone around you.

But yes, please continue to tell us how to play our wargaming games.

**MWHistorian**

I don't like AOS at all, (in fact, I think its total crap) but I hope it sells enough to help my local store. The more money they get, the better.

It sucks that they killed off Fantasy for this and I would find it impossible to forgive if I had played Fantasy.

Still, lots of fish in the sea. And better fish too!

**Vertrucio**

Jab, you realize that you're also telling him that he shouldn't play his game competitively either, right?

There's a lot of games that can be played competitively, and being able to play something competitively is a very good thing if handled well.

Game and competitiveness are not opposite sides of a spectrum, they're just a part of overall design and rules clarity.

**Deadnight**

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.

I think its less about 'telling crashgordonhow exactly to play' and more 'giving crashgordon the freedom to make the game he wants to play'. at least in their minds. whatever they do, the internets will rip it to shreds. sothey say,'do nothing. let them build the games out of it that they want to play'. GW seem to want to put the game in your hands, and leave the responsibility for what kind of games get played up to the players. this isnt bad. (maybe there is a better mechanism or toolset, but thats another debate).

too many people dont want the responsibility for ensuring their opponent has a good time, and that the game is 'fun'.

you say its half finished? Well, i certainly dont disagree with you. it seems really shallow to me. but maybe that is the intent. there are plenty custom rules/scenarios and mission makers out there.use them, or make up your own. be assertive and take control of your own gaming. at least thats how id push it.

**agnosto**

Tyron wrote:
agnosto wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyron wrote:
agnosto wrote:
I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.

Is that Kirby in the meme?

Yep.

I am surprised no one has attempted to talk with him when the community members knows what he looks like.

He doesn't even talk to media when they request interviews; what makes you think he'll talk to customers? Based upon his public statements in financial releases, I would assume that he'd find communication with customers as needless since the GW hobby is buying GW products according to his hand-picked maangement team. What need have they to actually talk to the people whom they depend upon for their livelihood?

**Tyron**

agnosto wrote:
Tyron wrote:
agnosto wrote:

Spoiler:

Tyron wrote:
agnosto wrote:
I finally got around to making that pithy meme I've been meaning to. I feel that it's appropriate to this thread (among others) and it made me cackle a bit maniacally when I made it....so there's that.

Is that Kirby in the meme?

Yep.

I am surprised no one has attempted to talk with him when the community members knows what he looks like.

He doesn't even talk to media when they request interviews; what makes you think he'll talk to customers? Based upon his public statements in financial releases, I would assume that he'd find communication with customers as needless since the GW hobby is buying GW products according to his hand-picked maangement team. What need have they to actually talk to the people whom they depend upon for their livelihood?

He obviously has his reasons for not wanting to do the above and has motives to his attitude towards the community. However the chances of meeting him and having a conversation can be done, depending on how resourceful and driven you are.

**Vertrucio**

His motives are pretty obviously to drive at least a part of his company into the ground and sell out. Or something similarly.

And I doubt that anyone without a large checkbook could meet with him now, unless you were meeting to talk about the buyout.

So I'm calling BS on that statement in terms of scale. No one posting on these forums are doing to have the resources and drive, and not because they lack, more because it's out of anyone's league.

I understand the want to cast a more positive light on businessmen since you're a businessman, but businessmen are still just men.

**Peregrine**

Deadnight wrote:
at least in their minds. whatever they do, the internets will rip it to shreds.

IOW, GW sucks at writing rules so they'd rather ragequit and publish obvious garbage instead. Why are you defending this behavior?

GW seem to want to put the game in your hands, and leave the responsibility for what kind of games get played up to the players. this isnt bad.

Of course it's bad. GW isn't encouraging customization, they're just publishing a half-finished product and saying "do the rest yourself". A good open-ended game provides a solid foundation of careful balance and well-functioning rules so that you can devote all of your time and effort to building the game experience you want instead of trying to fix basic things like "how many knights equal one dragon" or "WTF do I do if my models are on 1" bases". With AoS GW has abandoned this responsibility entirely. It's garbage for competitive play, it's garbage for pickup gaming, and it's garbage for "casual" scenario gaming.

too many people dont want the responsibility for ensuring their opponent has a good time, and that the game is 'fun'.

Well yes, because it's a pain to deal with. Why should I have to spend a bunch of time carefully analyzing our respective armies just to have a basic pickup game? If I'm going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a game I think I'm justified in expecting it to work "out of the box" without having to be an amateur game designer just to ensure that both players have fun.

but maybe that is the intent.

Of course that's the intent. GW wanted to reboot WHFB, and they wanted to do it in a way that minimized development costs. AoS is pretty obviously a minimal-effort "game" where GW published the first draft without any playtesting or editing. It accomplishes their goal of minimizing costs, but that doesn't mean it's a good game.

there are plenty custom rules/scenarios and mission makers out there.use them, or make up your own. be assertive and take control of your own gaming. at least thats how id push it.

I fail to see how "create your own game that is loosely based on AoS" is a reasonable idea.

**Tyron**

Vertrucio wrote:
His motives are pretty obviously to drive at least a part of his company into the ground and sell out. Or something similarly.

Maybe he is an ex GW gamer who had something happen to him within the hhhobby and ever since sought revenge to bring the demise of GW crashing down. Or maybe he is doing all this with a joint effort of someone he trust will take over GW and run it the way most of the community desires. We will wont know for quite some time.

Vertrucio wrote:
I understand the want to cast a more positive light on businessmen since you're a businessman, but businessmen are still just men.

I understand gamers disdain, sorrow and anguish for what's happening to them and their game at the moment but we don't know if the other two expansions are on the way. As some have suggested AoS is the gateway followed by larger games, and finally advanced skirmish games (or competitive rule set). If this sequence is true then that makes good business sense and a great way to mend the damage done and continue to sell units but I digress.

From an objective stance I don't agree with a lot of what he does so I am not defending him but I am sure he is aware of the community reaction by his own efforts or informed by assistants. He obviously has a reason why they have no PR/community team to fix a lot of issues. I suspect he believes they don't need one yet because the figures reports show it's just a vocal minority is not an impairment to their earnings.

Vertrucio wrote:
And I doubt that anyone without a large checkbook could meet with him now, unless you were meeting to talk about the buyout.

So I'm calling BS on that statement in terms of scale. No one posting on these forums are doing to have the resources and drive, and not because they lack, more because it's out of anyone's league.

You're looking at this the wrong way. You don't need a checkbook or a buyout offer to meet him. Everyone has a life outside of work for example, so there's many ways to meet someone. You just need to be resourceful and have the drive, I guess maybe some luck too depending on the situation but this applies if you want to meet most people.

On a personal note I believe those able to develop/fix the rules to use this community affliction and focus it into perfecting said rules. There's very few opportunities with this much community movement and it would be a big mistake to not use it.

**Peregrine**

Sorry, are we really seriously considering the idea that GW management is deliberately destroying the company to save it? That's just insane.

**Tyron**

It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.

**Peregrine**

Tyron wrote:
It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.

And it could be a possibility that he's being mind controlled by aliens working for the black helicopters. Could we please limit the discussion here to theories that are plausible, not merely possible?

**Azreal13**

Tyron wrote:
It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.

Yes, but we can at least try to speculate stuff that isn't mindnumbingly stupidly implausible and stick to ideas supported by facts and reason.

**Tyron**

Peregrine wrote:
Tyron wrote:
It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.

And it could be a possibility that he's being mind controlled by aliens working for the black helicopters. Could we please limit the discussion here to theories that are plausible, not merely possible?

If you could cite a confirmation of what his end goal is then all you have is speculation like the rest of us.

Azreal13 wrote:
Tyron wrote:
It could be a possibility that 's his motive. Unless someone in the know comes out and informs us his goals and action plan all we can do is speculate from the events and eventual outcome.

Yes, but we can at least try to speculate stuff that isn't mindnumbingly stupidly implausible and stick to ideas supported by facts and reason.

Please cite a quote by him revealing his stratagem.

**Peregrine**

Tyron wrote:
If you could cite a confirmation of what his end goal is then all you have is speculation like the rest of us.

Do you understand the difference between speculating based on known information and doing your best to come up with a plausible explanation, and posting ridiculous tinfoil hat theories that no sane person would ever believe?

**Azreal13**

This ^^

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're making the assertions, so I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone would want to harm a company in an attempt at long term growth, and why someone who is the Chairman, on again off again CEO and largest private equity holder would do it.

**Tyron**

Peregrine wrote:
Tyron wrote:
If you could cite a confirmation of what his end goal is then all you have is speculation like the rest of us.

Do you understand the difference between speculating based on known information and doing your best to come up with a plausible explanation, and posting ridiculous tinfoil hat theories that no sane person would ever believe?

I understand you're using strawman arguments and not bringing anything objectively to the table.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azreal13 wrote:
This ^^

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're making the assertions, so I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why anyone would want to harm a company in an attempt at long term growth, and why someone who is the Chairman, on again off again CEO and largest private equity holder would do it.

We're all making assertions, using the same information. That's all we have, assertions, nothing more.

**Azreal13**

No, some of us are making plausible ones backed up by facts, reason and logic.

Only one person is trying to argue that Kirby is somehow trying to feth GW over for the greater good, and if you're going to make an argument that far out from logical, you'd better have some grade A reasoning and evidence to back it up.

You don't.

**Tyron**

Azreal13 wrote:
No, some of us are making plausible ones backed up by facts, reason and logic.

Only one person is trying to argue that Kirby is somehow trying to feth GW over for the greater good, and if you're going to make an argument that far out from logical, you'd better have some grade A reasoning and evidence to back it up.

You don't.

I wasn't arguing in his favor of weakening GW for the greater good. I was postulating it. He obviously knows his decisions are bringing the demise of GW, but why would he do this? What does he have to gain from it? That's the question, he wouldn't do it without a gain.

As mentioned before I don't agree with what's happening. We all have access to the same information and no one here can provide any facts to why he does what he does. So all we have are assertions until we get 100% of all the information which will be unlikely.

**Azreal13**

Yes, and your postulation was dismissed as ridiculous.

In order for your idea to hold any water, you need to

A) suggest a plausible reason why any company would deliberately and knowingly act in a way contrary to the way it thinks would gain it the most money

And

B) suggest a plausible reason why a man whose entire financial well being is currently very closely tied to that of GW would do it

If you can do that, then perhaps there will be a discussion to e had. As it stands, it is just a silly idea which isn't supported by any facts at all that I can see which aren't better interpreted as something entirely more straightforward.

**Tyron**

Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?

**agnosto**

Tyron wrote:
Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?

Because he's a failed public sector beancounter and has no real business expertise other than a laudable ability to locate financial efficiencies. Compound this with an apparent overly large ego and image of self-worth and you have what you currently see at GW.

**Azreal13**

Tyron wrote:
Can you provide a logical reason why he is doing all this?

Doing what?

If you mean engineering the company to fail, no, there is no logical reason, AFAICS, which is is why I'm calling bull on your whole idea.

If you mean why GW is wobbling, well, never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to incompetence.