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.

We are comparing historicals to show that very complex systems of games can be balanced, so why not AOS.

It is an assumption of Fantasy games that if Knights, etc are included as well as Nagash and so on, they must be able to fight each other. Otherwise why put them in the game? (To be honest, the reason I gave up WHFB in 2nd edition was because the 'Herohammer' approach meant there wasn't any point having armies since the bulk of troops were pretty much only scenery.)

It would be like making a historical game that pits a submarine against a Mahdist Sudanese army.

Deadnight wrote:
i also believe, as gamers, it is partly our responsibility to be the architects of our own happiness with regard to our hobby.

I 100% agree with you here. Unfortunately, people use that as a reason to wave away the insulting effort GW puts into rules. When I'm architecting my own hobby time, I'm going to chose complete rules over beta (being generous) rules any day.

I agree too. And one way of doing that is to select a game that has a well written set of rules.

The more I think about AOS, the more I think that GW have got a balancing mechanism to help them make good scenarios. They may reveal it as the rumoured tournament advancedf rules later on.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We are comparing historicals to show that very complex systems of games can be balanced, so why not AOS.

It is an assumption of Fantasy games that if Knights, etc are included as well as Nagash and so on, they must be able to fight each other. Otherwise why put them in the game? (To be honest, the reason I gave up WHFB in 2nd edition was because the 'Herohammer' approach meant there wasn't any point having armies since the bulk of troops were pretty much only scenery.)

It would be like making a historical game that pits a submarine against a Mahdist Sudanese army.

Precisely! Honestly, I don't think we are far apart in what we believe.

I believe that philosophically, Games Workshop wants fantasy to be a game that enacts the War of Heavens: Angels versus Demons; Immortals and the High Elves defeating the forces of Chaos and Death; Heroes and their Eternal Allies versus Villains and the Ruinous Powers. "Herohammer": 170 out of 200 models are just there to be stepped on by the divine forces, right?

So Age of Sigmar neatly solves the problem of the 170 models being irrelevant in the heavenly battle, and getting in the way of people starting the game because 200 models is too daunting...

Get rid of the 170 models, and make it a game about the 30 models that matter. It also fits neatly with GW's philosophy of selling fancy models even for their "basic troops", like Liberators, rather than the rank-and-file fantasy models of old.

In the sense that Age of Sigmar is an entertaining way to enact stories of immortal battles in the 9 realms characterizing the struggle between death, destruction, order, and chaos, I think Age of Sigmar succeeds (I know many disagree; I'm totally cool with that).

In the sense that Age of Sigmar is a wargame to enact large battles between humans, elves, dwarves, skaven, lizardmen, chaos, and the undead, I think it fails miserably. I'm not sure there's a lot of argument here, even from people who love AoS. This just isn't the game.

AoS could be used to enact small battles between these races, as long as you restricted your models to fairly mundane models, but what's the point? Small mundane battles are pretty boring, and there's no money in it. And if you want to play big battles between these races, there are WAY better systems than Age of Sigmar.

So it's just what you want -- if you are looking for Herohammer 2.0, you'll be pleasantly entertained; if you are looking for a "real" rank-and-file Fantasy wargame, I think you'll be disappointed. I think the there are people who like the idea of the Game of Heavenly Battles, and liekwise, I think that if you were a rank-and-file Fantasy Battle fan, I totally get why you'd be peeved!

To my previous point -- I don't think it's possible to make a GOOD game that can combine the 170 grunt units and the 30 godly units, not at the disparities that you see in End Times lore, because the 170 grunts are, as you put it, just movable scenery.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree too. And one way of doing that is to select a game that has a well written set of rules.

The more I think about AOS, the more I think that GW have got a balancing mechanism to help them make good scenarios. They may reveal it as the rumoured tournament advancedf rules later on.

Well, we know they have a balancing system of some sort, because they keep saying they have tournament rules coming. Then again Blizzard said Diablo 3 would have PvP for 3 years before finally conceding that serious PvP was impossible in Diablo 3 without ditching... everything... and put in a "brawl" system that anyone looking for PvP would be insulted at.

I don't think balancing is really that hard -- a combination of wounds and keyword restrictions that people have made up seem to be functional.

Of course, some units will be pointless (no pun intended!), because they will be really crappy models that there are better alternatives for. And that just goes back to the whole thing that sure, there are rules (Warscrolls) for your old models, but let's not kid ourselves -- this is a game about a small number of heroic models, a big chunk of which will be new.

Small != mundane.

I've had some great skirmish games with <5 models a side. It's all down to how the rules work at various levels.


AoS isn't intended to be a small game either. Which is a shame.

Herzlos wrote:
Small != mundane.

I've had some great skirmish games with <5 models a side. It's all down to how the rules work at various levels.

No, I agree. Small != mundane. But, also, heroic != mundane.

To me, mundane means units that mimic real life in functionality, perhaps with magic in the place of technology. Where the upper limit of power is what is achievable using modified rules of physics.

Heroic, or "war of heavens" means units that are designed to be much tougher or more durable (like an infantryman that can take a cannonball in the chest as a glancing blow), with powers that would astound us today (like teleportation, summoning endless hordes, masking units in invisibility, instantly killing enemies, et cetera). The stuff of Marvel comics, where the upper limit of power is the imagination.

Edit: to your added point -- I don't know how AoS would work with 5 models per side, but at first thought, I don't imagine very well. Although I originally thought 5 imperial knights would be stupid too, and it turned out better than I expected. I would suspect it might work if all 5 models were large, superpremium models (like Bloodthirsters); but it would be really dumb with 5 ordinary humans versus 5 ordinary elves. My point about it not being any money is that GW wouldn't bother optimizing a game for 5 rank-and-file models, because their revenue comes from selling models -- preferably a lot of bigger, more expensive ones (therefore, their game must cater to that).

 Talys wrote:
I would suspect it might work if all 5 models were large, superpremium models (like Bloodthirsters); but it would be really dumb with 5 ordinary humans versus 5 ordinary elves.

Which is a shame because I'd buy so much stuff for a game with 5-15 humans Vs 5-15 elves. With the appropriate rules it'd be no different to 5 titans Vs 5 titans, but with a lot less cash and painting involved.

I also don't think you'd get any less game play using mortals instead of gods.

I think you are right about GW's vision for super-hero style battles.

It is a genre that does not interest me. I always felt the most interesting character in 40K was Ollanius Pius, until GW retconned him to a Terminator or something.

 Talys wrote:
I believe that philosophically, Games Workshop wants fantasy to be a game that enacts the War of Heavens: Angels versus Demons; Immortals and the High Elves defeating the forces of Chaos and Death; Heroes and their Eternal Allies versus Villains and the Ruinous Powers. "Herohammer": 170 out of 200 models are just there to be stepped on by the divine forces, right? So Age of Sigmar neatly solves the problem of the 170 models being irrelevant in the heavenly battle, and getting in the way of people starting the game because 200 models is too daunting...

I don't disagree with the intent, but GW could have done this without sending their Fantasy game of Rank, Flank and Maneuver to die in a fire. The old LOTR system did not do a bad job of doing epic fights between rank/file and powerful heroes. It had points values as well, so it really boggles the mind why AoS would dispense of them - other than Occam's Razor stating that having no points values would save a feth-ton of development time and money by not needing to balancing the units.

 heartserenade wrote:
Makes their sigmarine statue look funny

Yes, but the Sigmarine Statue is made from the most advanced statue creation process and ships with many user configurable options. It's level of detail featuring deep undercuts is way higher than the full size Gundam.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.

I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.

Really? This again?

I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.

I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.

I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.

Azrael, I sincerely wonder if you can tell the difference between:

1. I think this game is dumb
2. Everyone other than you (ie the rest of us) think the game is dumb

One is an opinion I can respect if reasons are supplied. The other is an obviously untrue statement, as insulting and untrue as as, "You can be miserable, but the rest of us are having fun".

Stop speaking for nonspecific people, and I won't react that way to you.

By the way, you may think the way I game is dumb. That's just fine with me. Luckily for me, and unluckily for you, GW produces a game and models that are well suited for the way I play. Which obviously, I and at least the people I play with, do not think is dumb.

You know, creating awesome, fantastic battles in a fictional setting, where our top priority is socializing around the context of the cool miniatures that we spend thousands of hours modelling. And food and drink and catching up.

How about ' A lot of people think that this game is dumb'?

Because that comes closest to truth.

Not everyone - but a lot of folks, myself included, think that this is really not a good direction for the game to take.

My suspicion has been, and remains, that Age of Stockholders will do better than Warhammer over a short term, then do worse than Warhammer over the long term.

That AoS is another example of GW going for an easy short term gain over a much more difficult long term gain.

They knew that there were problems with Warhammer - but they either had no real idea of how to repair those problems, or decided that repairing them was too difficult at this stage in Warhammer's life cycle.

At the same time, I believe that repairing those problems would have been better for the long term viability of Fantasy and of GW in a more general sense.

Also troubling is renaming every single fantasy critter that they can, in the vain hope that by doing so they can shore up their Moat and Castle IP... with a strategy that just won't work.

Having a structured competition structure would help maintain the game - as Magic the Gathering is, in an example, maintained in part by having a structured competition structure.

It is easy for a store to schedule a Magic tournament - which builds excitement, and helps drive sales.

GW used to experience much the same boost, back when they supported tournaments.

The Auld Grump

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.

I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.

Really? This again?

I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.

I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.

I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.

Azrael, I sincerely wonder if you can tell the difference between:

1. I think this game is dumb
2. Everyone other than you (ie the rest of us) think the game is dumb

One is an opinion I can respect if reasons are supplied. The other is an obviously untrue statement, as insulting and untrue as as, "You can be miserable, but the rest of us are having fun".

Stop speaking for nonspecific people, and I won't react that way to you.

By the way, you may think the way I game is dumb. That's just fine with me. Luckily for me, and unluckily for you, GW produces a game and models that are well suited for the way I play. Which obviously, I and at least the people I play with, do not think is dumb.

You know, creating awesome, fantastic battles in a fictional setting, where our top priority is socializing around the context of the cool miniatures that we spend thousands of hours modelling. And food and drink and catching up.

Wow, missed this til Grump requoted it.

Where, when I repeatedly called your approach to the game dumb, did I say anything other than "I think?"

I don't speak for non-specific people, if I make some sort of general point in terms outside purely what I think, you can bet it's because that's an opinion I've seen repeated by different people in a regular basis. I realise this is the internet, the natural home of pedantry where nothing is true unless it can be cited and quoted in triplicate, but I still believe that sticking a metaphorical finger in the air as to the direction of popular opinion is an assumption that's fairly logical to make - spend enough time on this forum and you get a feel for which way the wind is blowing.

But, having said all that, I'll revise my stance a bit - playing the game the way you want to isn't nearly as dumb as making a game that can only work when played that way.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Wow, missed this til Grump requoted it.

Where, when I repeatedly called your approach to the game dumb, did I say anything other than "I think?"

I don't speak for non-specific people, if I make some sort of general point in terms outside purely what I think, you can bet it's because that's an opinion I've seen repeated by different people in a regular basis. I realise this is the internet, the natural home of pedantry where nothing is true unless it can be cited and quoted in triplicate, but I still believe that sticking a metaphorical finger in the air as to the direction of popular opinion is an assumption that's fairly logical to make - spend enough time on this forum and you get a feel for which way the wind is blowing.

But, having said all that, I'll revise my stance a bit - playing the game the way you want to isn't nearly as dumb as making a game that can only work when played that way.

Yes, you did, Az. I even requoted it so you'd see what I was talking about:

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

You say this kind of thing a lot. The implication is that the rest of the community (other than me) are playing a game of skill rather than embarking on some ludicrous... game for girls? Which is more than a little bit chauvinistic, too; we get girls who game with us periodically, and they're very cool.

And I have no problem at all with your revised stance. I am a big tent guy, and think that a game is best when it makes as many people happy as possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

How about ' A lot of people think that this game is dumb'?

Because that comes closest to truth.

Not everyone - but a lot of folks, myself included, think that this is really not a good direction for the game to take.

I would totally agree with you, man. Around half the people on this forum think it's dumb, if the poll in GD is to be believed, and more than that on Warseer (the sample size may be small). I'd even go so far as to say, half of the wargaming community or more probably find the game silly, dumb, or downright offensive (the latter category being reserved for Fantasy Battle people who had their game kicked out from under their legs).

But that still leaves somewhere between a quarter and a half of the wargaming community, I think (no, I have no statistics; this is just my hypothesis), which actually think that the game is fantastic, decent, or occasionally fun. As long as we're being reasonably polite towards them, and not denigrating to their type of enjoyment, I'm happy.

Personally, I'm in the "occasionally fun" and the "silly" categories of the two sides of the fence. As a game, I don't love Age of Sigmar, even though it's okay to play. If my buddies wanted to try out their newly painted army, I'd be happy to take it for a spin (besides, the games are relatively short); if they wanted to play it every week, I wouldn't. I dislike the lack of listbuilding in this incarnation, I'm not really a low model count guy, and as others have said, the game would be better with some form of easily balancing approximately that could be tweaked manually. None of these are game-breaking to me, but it's just not the game I'm looking for to play in my limited time.

As a modeler and painter, I really like the Sigmarites, and I'll probably buy most of the releases. But that's highly preferential: I really like Wood Elves too, and I bought their stuff even though I had no intent to play fantasy battle.

I don't think the intent of Age of Sigmar is to be ONLY a short term money boost, though I'm happy to concede that may be what it comes down to. It may play out exactly the way you describe; and it may also evolve into something else, in the same way that Rogue Trader evolved into modern 40k.

 Talys wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

You say this kind of thing a lot. The implication is that the rest of the community (other than me) are playing a game of skill rather than embarking on some ludicrous... game for girls? Which is more than a little bit chauvinistic, too; we get girls who game with us periodically, and they're very cool.

And I have no problem at all with your revised stance. I am a big tent guy, and think that a game is best when it makes as many people happy as possible.

A Mary Sue is an idealized super character with no flaws.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

 Crimson Devil wrote:

A Mary Sue is an idealized super character with no flaws.

Well, thank you I was not familiar with the expression!

I will retract my comment about this, then -- though it's worth noting that when I click on your link, it says that the concept has drawn criticism from feminist writers.

I guess, though, since the number of females in GW's range is so tiny, it would be more accurate, then, to call them "Gary Stu".

Learn something every day.

 Talys wrote:

Yes, you did, Az. I even requoted it so you'd see what I was talking about:

Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.

You say this kind of thing a lot. The implication is that the rest of the community (other than me) are playing a game of skill rather than embarking on some ludicrous... game for girls? Which is more than a little bit chauvinistic, too; we get girls who game with us periodically, and they're very cool.

And I have no problem at all with your revised stance. I am a big tent guy, and think that a game is best when it makes as many people happy as possible.
.

So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?

I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.

Herzlos wrote:
Small != mundane.

I've had some great skirmish games with <5 models a side. It's all down to how the rules work at various levels.


AoS isn't intended to be a small game either. Which is a shame.

Oh absolutely, and I think most of us older players have had the same experience! Battletech, Infinity and Confrontation come to mind right off the bat as great small model count games.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?

I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.

I'm actually NOT advocating that for the game, and only minimally for the playstyle (lord, how many times can I say that I don't really like AoS that much as a game?). I'm stating that there is a percentage of people who quite enjoy it -- go look at the poll that was done here and on Warseer. I think it's important to:

1. Be respectful of people who do like it and not denigrate them as players
2. Recognize that there may be new players entering the wargame market who wouldn't play more complex games
3. Understand that there are people who like the models for what they are

I think it's fantastic that there's a game that fills this niche, as people that I would not have thought would be into miniatures are now looking at a miniature game. I am happy for them that there is something fun for these players; the alternative is being angry at Games Workshop for not making another game that would be for me. I have no energy or time to be angry about something that isn't targeted to me, and clearly, AoS is not targeted to steal players who are HAPPY with games with complex rules from those games. Keep in mind, too, that some of these people may then go on to try other games, and might like them -- thus growing the market.

Personally, I like the Sigmarite models more than anything about the game (and I will buy them), the fluff is a little interesting (I'll buy some, but not all of it), and the game is moderately fun, but not my thing to do regularly.

I enjoy games that has both heroic and nonheroic models on the same board and I like high model count games; I think AoS strips out the usefulness of everything nonheroic in an attempt to reduce model count and simplify the game.

Not really no. Competition breeds innovation. I am hoping to see more take up the challenge and provide a better war-game for everyone, and in turn I would hope GW will start producing a better product.

I really don't hate AoS, I don't see myself playing, but I can see what they are trying to do. Meh

IMHO, sandbox play and unbalanced war scrolls aside, I have to question exactly who GW thinks Age of Sigmar is marketed to? (Otiose, I know...)

From a gaming perspective: As previously stated, players looking for a tactical experience are going to be turned off. The players looking for competitive / pick-up play are going to be turned off by the freeform structure of the war scroll system. Since the rules are free, GW isn't going to generate new model sales from (a) players who already have a lot of legacy Fantasy models, (b) players who don't like the new model aesthetic. Anecdotally, based on what I've read on various forums, there appear to be few to no converts from other systems to AoS. It appears at least 30% of the old Fantasy Grognards have retreated back into the last vestiges of the old world, 30% are making a go with the new system and 30% are in the wait-and-see mode. The rest of the chatter seems to be from 40k guys trying AoS. I don't see this as being particularly helpful as all the activity around AoS seems to be from GW's existing customer base, and their existing customer base's fixed hobby budget resulting in cannibalizing sales from 40k to fuel AoS.

From a modelling perspective: The models require glue, and are quite a bit more complex than previous starter fare, making it appear aimed above the first time hobbyist. For the modelling only crowd: While the AoS box set provides excellent value in terms of price / model - on the whole, without a game to back it up, the stand alone models (outside the starter box) are competing directly against companies that directly serve the boutique modelling market. For example, the new Sigmarine Celestant on foot... he's the same price as Zhufor of the World Eaters and significantly more expensive than boutique models from guys like Kingdom Death or Knight Models. Certainly, GW's product fills a certain aesthetic niche, but their current pricing appears targeted at the mythical "price inelastic" fan as opposed to trying to grab wider appeal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I will retract my comment about this, then -- though it's worth noting that when I click on your link, it says that the concept has drawn criticism from feminist writers.

Yes, but that's more of an issue with male writers forcing idealized tropes onto their female characters. e.g. manic pixie dream girl.

@keezus - keep in mind there are disenfranchised players of WM/H and other skirmishers too; they're just not as vocal as the disenfranchised 40k crowd (dare I say, less angry at the company?). For some of these people, AoS may be a good fit. As I've mentioned (and have seen firsthand) there are people totally new to miniature wargaming that seem interested in AoS. I think that's a great thing, and some of these folks might later play a game that I really like.

It grows the pie, and really we need more of that, than another game that steals players from other gaming systems, whether GW's or someone else's. Like, someone choosing between WMH and AoS is not a win for miniature gaming community as a whole; but someone who was plays Magic the Gathering who decides to pick up an AoS starter and goof around is -- just as a person who quit WMH because it wasn't for them, doesn't like Malifaux models, and so decides to go play video games might figure that Sigmar is a good fit.

I would disagree that AoS is tactically shallow. It doesn't have to be, but I think a lot of people who play it casually will play it as a tactically shallow game. But whatever -- they probably weren't going to be hypercompetitive WMH players anyhow, you know what I mean?

I totally agree that the people looking for competitive play or competitive pick-up play won't like the current structure, though that can be remedied by a comp system. However, I've actually seen a lot more pickup AoS games in a week than I've seen WHFB games of any kind in a year (I'm not actually sure I've seen more than one so the bar is not high...), so the pickup games do exist; they're just of people who are a lot more relaxed in their selecting their armies.

I think of the people who loved Fantasy Battle, only a small percentage will love Age of Sigmar, because they're wildly different (and in many ways antithetical) games.

From a gamepiece perspective, AoS is no more expensive than PP, whether you want to compare starter box (and maybe future campaign boxes?) with PP war boxes, or the price of loose models. I think it's close enough that it won't be the determining factor on the equivalent of a 35 or 50 point WMH army.

From modelling perspective, I think GW will do fine. Again, they're no more expensive than buying similar models from PP just to model. I don't think $10 ppm is extraordinary, but that's just me, and I get that's a stupid high price for some people; the character models are a bad judge of modelling success, because a lot of people just won't buy very many of them -- no different than people painting for fun who buy occasional PP models won't buy $30+ characters.

Regarding the whole Mary Sue thing, I openly admit to being totally clueless about what it meant at all

 Talys wrote:
@keezus - keep in mind there are disenfranchised players of WM/H and other skirmishers too; they're just not as vocal as the disenfranchised 40k crowd

In my experience the disenfranchised MH/H players started out as disenfranchised GW gamers.

@keezus: the price inelastic fan is not so mythical...
i am one of them...
price of a model has no bearing on my purchases, only aesthetic appeal, quality of the sculpting, and quality of the material and casting...

when i order a resin mini, it is a roll of the dice as to what kind of casting quality i am going to end up with on the first try...
when i order a plastic mini, i know exactly what i will get...

i don't think that the $8 difference between a KD mini and a GW mini is significantly more expensive...
given a choice of Kingdom Death, or a GW mini, GW gets my money every time, as KD doesn't appeal as much to me...
the few KD minis that do appeal sell out so quickly, that there is no guarantee that i can give Poots my money even if i want to...
looking at the hard plastic Pinups of Death set, there are only two models i want in that set, so it ends up being $50 for each mini i want, with 6 pieces that are unwanted, but i am still happy to buy the whole set to get the two hard plastic minis i want...

a similarly sized Studio McVey mini will cost me the same as a GW mini...
i know i will get a great resin cast from them, so at the end of the day, i will buy both the GW mini and the SM mini...
from experience, i know i will paint the GW mini, while the SM will gather dust, but look sexy in its little baggie...

given a choice between a Lord Celestant and Lord Zhufor, i would choose Zhufor because 40K appeals more...
given a choice between Zhufor and the $40 Lord Castellant, i would buy both, because the Castellant and Gryph Hound are amazing sculpts...

so, basically, price is the last thing i consider when buying a mini i want, and even then it is only a question of if i have enough money in my pocket to buy the mini or not...
if i don't want the mini to begin with, it doesn't matter how low the price is, because i'm not going to buy something i don't want...

cheers
jah

 Talys wrote:
@keezus - keep in mind there are disenfranchised players of WM/H and other skirmishers too

I went to Infinity.

 Talys wrote:
I've mentioned (and have seen firsthand) there are people totally new to miniature wargaming that seem interested in AoS. I think that's a great thing, and some of these folks might later play a game that I really like. It grows the pie, and really we need more of that, than another game that steals players from other gaming systems, whether GW's or someone else's. Like, someone choosing between WMH and AoS is not a win for miniature gaming community as a whole; but someone who was plays Magic the Gathering who decides to pick up an AoS starter and goof around is -- just as a person who quit WMH because it wasn't for them, doesn't like Malifaux models, and so decides to go play video games might figure that Sigmar is a good fit.

Does "seem interested in" translate to hard sales? IMHO, I think that the free-form aspect of AoS is itself a barrier to entry from players coming from highly regimented environments such as Warmachine/Hordes or Magic the Gathering. Due to the structure of these games, the fact that the warscroll system doesn't set any limits around expected game size or composition - this is going to turn them off greatly - players from these systems aren't generally interested in forging the narrative, but rather prefer to match wits with their opponents. Limits need to be set before you see any crossover, because none of these guys are going to willingly walk into a gunfight when they only own a knife.

 Talys wrote:
I would disagree that AoS is tactically shallow. It doesn't have to be, but I think a lot of people who play it casually will play it as a tactically shallow game. But whatever -- they probably weren't going to be hypercompetitive WMH players anyhow, you know what I mean?

No. I don't understand what you mean. Even if the players are not competitive, the number of options available to the units is very limited. The random charge distances , random turn sequence also interferes with any sort of long term planning. There's no benefit to positioning, elevation, flanking or special objectives (without Sudden Death). Shooting is always possible and everything has 360 degree LOS area of engagement. You'll have to explain to me how the game is tactically deep in its current incarnation and is only played shallowly by casuals. I don't want to get into AoS "competitive" play, considering that the free-form warscroll system and the "measure from model" rules combines the worst of pay-to-win and model-for-advantage.

 Talys wrote:
From a gamepiece perspective, AoS is no more expensive than PP, whether you want to compare starter box (and maybe future campaign boxes?) with PP war boxes, or the price of loose models. I think it's close enough that it won't be the determining factor on the equivalent of a 35 or 50 point WMH army.

That's neither here nor there, as you've already assumed that "they" are going to buy it and have gone onto justification of GW's MSRP by price equivalency. My question is more-so who is intended to buy this product???

 Talys wrote:
From modelling perspective, I think GW will do fine. Again, they're no more expensive than buying similar models from PP just to model. I don't think $10 ppm is extraordinary, but that's just me, and I get that's a stupid high price for some people; the character models are a bad judge of modelling success, because a lot of people just won't buy very many of them -- no different than people painting for fun who buy occasional PP models won't buy $30+ characters.

Again, you conveniently ignore that there are cheaper options out there for pure modellers as long as they are not hung up on the GW/PP aesthetic. I find it less likely that a modeller is going to buy a unit box and build/paint the whole thing just as a display piece. They have no investment into the lore, and character models make better centerpieces. Spending $60 to build a single sigmarine doesn't make much sense. I suspect this is why the White Dwarf sold so well... mostly on the strength of hobbyists wanting to get their hands on a single sigmarrine to mess with. Things might be different in your experience but to me this is just common sense.

You are a collector.

A lot of people are gamers who actually buy the models to play the game. They are not 100% convinced by the aesthetic, and at some price level will buy a cheaper alternative if the official supplier puts their price up too high.

This also applies to the rulebooks and codexes, which form an ecosystem with the models. If the price goes too high, people suddenly stop buying anything. There is no point having the new models if you don't have the new codex. There is no point having the latest codex if you don't have the new rules. Etc.

@Jah: Thanks for that post. I agree with your point that GW's prices are perfectly fine for the premeditated buyers (both hobby and gamers).

What are your thoughts on price points for impulse buys? I find that the thresholds for impulse buys (i.e. guys that you're 95% certain are going to hang out in their baggies and/or boxes in the closet) are set much lower vs definite buys - especially when a fixed budget is involved.

-edit- I think the AoS box set is well priced for the impulse buy - the rest of the stuff... not so much. But maybe GW is zeroing in on a one-and-done strategy.

@Killkrazy: sure, i'm a collector...
that doesn't make my voice invalid...

i also buy all the books, as well, as the fiction, art, and rules inform my painting, so that my customers can actually use the painted models they buy from me...
my business as a painter is entirely dependent on the attitudes of the buyers, and those who come to me are willing to pay top-dollar to get exactly what they want, in a way nobody else has done it before...
without research, i would not be able to do what i do, and without a passion for the setting, even less so...
the majority of my clients use my minis in their games...
a $250-and-up custom made special character like my Tycho, Draigo, and the like see a ton of table time in my clients' armies...

just because i am a collector doesn't mean that i am not invested in the lore, or interested in the rules...
i love the art and fiction of every setting i have collected models and books for, such as Confrontation, AT-43 (thanfully there were a few good non-prepainted minis made), Warhammer, 40K, Celtos, Dark-Age, Infinity, Warmachine, Hordes, and more...

cheers
jah

Jah - Mierce, seriously.

Do it.

@keezus - I've only played 3 games of Sigmar, and 2 of those games we were figuring out the rules and laughing at what we botched, so I'm hardly an expert. However, placing your units and moving advantageously is certainly of value (I don't know why you wouldn't think that it's not; if so, let me place and move YOUR units and let's see how you do ). It doesn't have to be a rush to the center, and I'd argue that against an experienced player that's a great way to lose every game.

There are many special rules (mountains of them), and the special abilities can be combined to create interesting tactical advantages; for instance, the new Lord Castellant that has a lantern that always deals a mortal wounds against chaos and D3 against chaos demons, without having to roll to hit. How you use and protect that model can make a real difference, as can protecting your chaos models in such a way that they aren't erased. In the same way as 40k, there will be (already are) killer combos that are just fantastically powerful or instant-win. The dynamic in this case is that GW's response is, "Sure, this is intentional. These players won't have anyone to play with."

You can love or hate that response; but only scanning through the warscrolls, I could imagine some pretty interesting ways to use some units in combination. It will likewise be important to bait your opponent into committing to forces and overextending their reach, such that you might lose a disproportionate number of units but are able to take out a key unit of theirs. Really, no different than other games in that respect, except that there is a crap ton of special rules (that I haven't and don't intend to read "cover to cover").

The game is tactically shallow to casuals, in my mind, because a lot of them will just play the models they want to buy, and they won't be optimizing any strategies based on special rules. This is how hypercasual MtG players play their games: they pick cards that are pretty, not build decks that are functional. About as functional as they get is, "I'll restrict myself to THREE land colors". I don't have a problem with things like random charge distance. I like that skilled players can lose to unskilled players, because in a tabletop game, you get a lot of lopsided matches (since there's no matchmaking). I do not like games with my buddies that are predetermined as a result of skill, as they would be in chess, where a skilled player will win 20 out of 20 games against an unskilled player.

In this sense, I guess, I'm one of these players that grate on some of the posters here, being in the camp of prioritizing "having a good time" than "winning because of skill".

Regarding sales - Yes, I have seen a few people actually BUY the game, who are not traditional wargame players. Maybe they'll give up on AoS after a week; who knows.

Of course limits have to be set. But on the pickup games I've observed of AoS locally, the discussion about armies takes a couple of minutes, and then they get down to having fun. The difficulty of establishing approximately competitive armies is exaggerated by the pro-points crowd.

Regarding prices - Of course there are cheaper options. And I'm happy for people who avail themselves of those. I really think that the price of models at $10 or whatever per model is a drop in the bucket for a hobby, if I'm going to spend any time at all on the model. I don't really want to go into the whole comparative thing again; but suffice it to say, building models from whatever company is a lot cheaper than most of the other things that I like to do -- whether it's going to the movies, or dinner out, or most video games, or whatever. It's not that I'm price inelastic (because at some point I'd say, nah, that costs too much); it's just at the prices they're at today, for the amount of time and enjoyment I spend on models, it's not really a big deal -- especially if I were to only buy the models that I actually intended to build and paint.

For modellers like myself, the aesthetic isn't the only important thing: the breadth of the collection is very important. I want to be able to keep going and build my interesting army, not run out of stuff to build and model. More than anything, this, and really enjoying Space Marines, are the two reasons GW is my top modelling vendor. And, I really, really prefer high impact polystyrene over resin or metal -- both for intricate small models, and especially for vehicles. As I've stated before, I have zero interest in historical, which is about the only place that you can find a variety of other plastic vehicles.

@Kilkrazy - Yeah, I would call myself a collector. But I actually do use MOST of the models (in the GW world, anyway) to play the game, at least a little. I mean, I don't just paint piles of terrain for nothin' And although there are models I paint just to collect, there are definitely models I paint because I want them to play with. For example, there is no way on earth I would paint 8 razorbacks or 8 drop pods, except that they are going to be interesting to field. And if I weren't playing them, I'd paint a LOT fewer basic bolter marines, lol.

I actually have far more rulebooks I've read and never used than GW models that I've painted that I've never used. I do have a lot of PP and other models that I buy and paint just to collect, though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 keezus wrote:
@Jah: Thanks for that post. I agree with your point that GW's prices are perfectly fine for the premeditated buyers (both hobby and gamers).

What are your thoughts on price points for impulse buys? I find that the thresholds for impulse buys (i.e. guys that you're 95% certain are going to hang out in their baggies and/or boxes in the closet) are set much lower vs definite buys - especially when a fixed budget is involved.

-edit- I think the AoS box set is well priced for the impulse buy - the rest of the stuff... not so much. But maybe GW is zeroing in on a one-and-done strategy.

I think that for people I see who wander the hobby shop just itching to buy something, $3 is a price point, and $50 is a price point for those impulse buys. I see a lot of people who buy stuff they don't need between those two prices, or picking between two boxes that are in those ranges.

@keezus: i don't know what a fixed budget feels like, because i have always had an aversion to money in my pocket...
i spend money as fast as i make it, but i have never had bills like a credit card, phone, car, or anything other than food and rent...

since i rarely have time to paint the minis i buy (but have plans for them all), i would say that pretty much everything i purchase is an impulse buy...
i can definitely see where a $10-$12 Infinity model (versus a $33-$40 GW mini) is way more of a no-brainer for most...

for me, i buy the Infinity guy in the hope that i will have some spare time one day to paint it up because it is an awesome sculpt, even knowing that it will bring in half of the return of a GW mini...
the GW mini i buy in the same hope, but it will get my spare time first, because i know it will bring in twice the return that the Infinity mini will...
meanwhile, my queue is too full to paint either one, because my work is always in high demand, and my schedule is booked months in advance...

i get why some people are upset over the rising prices, but pretty much every gamer i know (all around the world) has just as many, if not more, massive stacks of unpainted, unassembled minis as me, so it is not like i am a unique case...

cheers
jah

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?

I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.

I'm actually NOT advocating that for the game, and only minimally for the playstyle (lord, how many times can I say that I don't really like AoS that much as a game?). I'm stating that there is a percentage of people who quite enjoy it -- go look at the poll that was done here and on Warseer. I think it's important to:

1. Be respectful of people who do like it and not denigrate them as players
2. Recognize that there may be new players entering the wargame market who wouldn't play more complex games
3. Understand that there are people who like the models for what they are

I think it's fantastic that there's a game that fills this niche, as people that I would not have thought would be into miniatures are now looking at a miniature game. I am happy for them that there is something fun for these players; the alternative is being angry at Games Workshop for not making another game that would be for me. I have no energy or time to be angry about something that isn't targeted to me, and clearly, AoS is not targeted to steal players who are HAPPY with games with complex rules from those games. Keep in mind, too, that some of these people may then go on to try other games, and might like them -- thus growing the market.

Personally, I like the Sigmarite models more than anything about the game (and I will buy them), the fluff is a little interesting (I'll buy some, but not all of it), and the game is moderately fun, but not my thing to do regularly.

I enjoy games that has both heroic and nonheroic models on the same board and I like high model count games; I think AoS strips out the usefulness of everything nonheroic in an attempt to reduce model count and simplify the game.

For what it is worth, it is quite possible to separate Fluff (Background, World Building, History, Etc.) from Rules.

Most of the people in my Kings of War group are perfectly happy with using the Kings of War rules to represent battles in The Old World of Warhammer. (The exceptions do not object - they just don't care. The games could be taking place in the deserts of Barsoom as far as they are concerned.)

Me... I kind of want Mantic to expand on the world of Mantica more - so I would like to play in their background - but the Kings of War rules are admirably setting independent.

If I liked the Sigmarines more, I might feel differently about the game - I consider them to be background breaking - but then the world done went *BOOM!* and there just ain't much more background breaking than that.

I remember how well taking a similar approach to the Forgotten Realms did for Wizard of the Coast.... (Subtle hint: Wizards has admitted that that was one of the big mistakes that they made with 4th edition... turns out folks are attached to their fluff.)

GW could have avoided some of this backlash by looking at how other companies have done after similar Fluff breaking changes. (Old World of Darkness sold better than New World of Darkness, old Forgotten Realms sold better than the revised Forgotten Realms, etc..)

Incidentally - Age of Sigmarines is the politest term that my group uses to describe the new models.... Some of them have watched Red Dwarf and The Young Ones a few too many times....

The Auld Grump - those familiar with Lister no exactly what word I have been suppressing....