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.

Just had the chance to check out GW's annual report, and must say that for the first time in a while felt some optimism
Yes, it's another year of falling sales, but the smallest fall for some time (remember to correct for inflation, and disregard the smokescreen about currency fluctuations).
The Age of Sigmar stuff came too late to influence these figures, and I reckon it's the best thing they've done in a long time, so next year might actually see a rise in sales?!?
When I say AOS was a good thing, I mean the new rules system which is an absolute stroke of genius in my opinion. Nothing like yet another iteration of the awful, overblown monstrosity that I was expecting.
It has certainly inspired several people, me included, to start collecting GW fantasy armies again.
Trashing the Old World was obviously a moment of madness, reminds me of when Tuomas Pirinen replaced the Colours of Magic with "lores". People just quietly ignored it, and it went away.
Hopefully, this "realms" stuff will go the same way, and before you know it we'll be be back in the Old World battling with our much loved armies using the new streamlined rules system.

40K next

 marlowc wrote:
Just had the chance to check out GW's annual report, and must say that for the first time in a while felt some optimism
Yes, it's another year of falling sales, but the smallest fall for some time (remember to correct for inflation, and disregard the smokescreen about currency fluctuations).
The Age of Sigmar stuff came too late to influence these figures, and I reckon it's the best thing they've done in a long time, so next year might actually see a rise in sales?!?
When I say AOS was a good thing, I mean the new rules system which is an absolute stroke of genius in my opinion. Nothing like yet another iteration of the awful, overblown monstrosity that I was expecting.
It has certainly inspired several people, me included, to start collecting GW fantasy armies again.
Trashing the Old World was obviously a moment of madness, reminds me of when Tuomas Pirinen replaced the Colours of Magic with "lores". People just quietly ignored it, and it went away.
Hopefully, this "realms" stuff will go the same way, and before you know it we'll be be back in the Old World battling with our much loved armies using the new streamlined rules system.

40K next

careful this website is not the best place to say you like AoS, people will hump you like a greater daemon of slaanesh in heat.

bitethythumb wrote:

 marlowc wrote:
Just had the chance to check out GW's annual report, and must say that for the first time in a while felt some optimism
Yes, it's another year of falling sales, but the smallest fall for some time (remember to correct for inflation, and disregard the smokescreen about currency fluctuations).
The Age of Sigmar stuff came too late to influence these figures, and I reckon it's the best thing they've done in a long time, so next year might actually see a rise in sales?!?
When I say AOS was a good thing, I mean the new rules system which is an absolute stroke of genius in my opinion. Nothing like yet another iteration of the awful, overblown monstrosity that I was expecting.
It has certainly inspired several people, me included, to start collecting GW fantasy armies again.
Trashing the Old World was obviously a moment of madness, reminds me of when Tuomas Pirinen replaced the Colours of Magic with "lores". People just quietly ignored it, and it went away.
Hopefully, this "realms" stuff will go the same way, and before you know it we'll be be back in the Old World battling with our much loved armies using the new streamlined rules system.

40K next

careful this website is not the best place to say you like AoS, people will hump you like a greater daemon of slaanesh in heat.

Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

 marlowc wrote:

Trashing the Old World was obviously a moment of madness, reminds me of when Tuomas Pirinen replaced the Colours of Magic with "lores". People just quietly ignored it, and it went away.
Hopefully, this "realms" stuff will go the same way, and before you know it we'll be be back in the Old World battling with our much loved armies using the new streamlined rules system.

40K next

I really have my doubts about that, simply because they seem to have invested a lot in the new setting.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

Wow, was worried you were going to say something really patronising!

Complex game play doesn't require complicated rules.

RoperPG wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

Wow, was worried you were going to say something really patronising!

Complex game play doesn't require complicated rules.

Chess anyone?

Well, keep in mind that the amount of revenue for GW was up this year as they didn't spend 4 million pounds updating their website, plus they got a nice 1 million pound windfall in reduced taxes.

You're definitely right that AOS wasn't a factor in this round, so if it's successful we may see a dampening of the severe constriction GW has been undergoing the last few years. It will remain to be determined if WH-AOS becomes successful- I'm not sure at this time if it will be more successful than WHFB or not.

People seem excited but then it's a new GW thing, and a complete restructuring of one of their two flagship products, so it's definitely going to bring some buzz. The AOS boxset seems like a good deal, but the new releases seem to be high in cost (IMO at least), so we will see if the reduced size of the game deals with that problem. I personally think it will, but I feel the game itself lacks appeal to a significant part of the GW audience, being those who enjoy competitive experience (competitive by the definition of the word "game," not to be interpreted as WAAC or something like that) and others who enjoy the pick-up-and-play nature of an FLGS (a bigger audience in my mind than any other sector).

And of course, we will see how 40k continues to fare next year. I think that will be entirely dependent on whether 8th edition 40k is following the two-year timeframe. If 40k were to take a hit, I don't think any level of fandom for AOS will be able to resolve it.

I'd say I'm tentatively feeling more positive for GW, but I think that has more to do with Kevin Rountree becoming the new CEO. It probably helps your company when the acting CEO doesn't seem to have literal psychological disturbances.

Snapshot wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

Wow, was worried you were going to say something really patronising!

Complex game play doesn't require complicated rules.

Chess anyone?

Chess is like flipping a coin. Heads you win. tails you lose.

 illuknisaa wrote:

Snapshot wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

Wow, was worried you were going to say something really patronising!

Complex game play doesn't require complicated rules.

Chess anyone?

Chess is like flipping a coin. Heads you win. tails you lose.

Not when I play. Heads you win, tails you win.

Don't have to wait till next year. 6 months from now, and GW will give another update. They do this twice a year.

 toasteroven wrote:


I really have my doubts about that, simply because they seem to have invested a lot in the new setting.

It's pure speculation of course, but it may be that the End Times stuff was too advanced to change, when the new ceo took over, but the radically streamlined rules were his baby? There was not a whisper of them from rumour control.
One thing is for sure, the Old World is not going away - the Total War Warhammer pc game will be a huge plug for the setting, much as Dawn of War was for 40K.

Snapshot wrote:

Not when I play. Heads you win, tails you win.

The proper way to flip a coin is to say, "Heads I win, tails you lose, sound good?"

 marlowc wrote:

It's pure speculation of course, but it may be that the End Times stuff was too advanced to change, when the new ceo took over, but the radically streamlined rules were his baby? There was not a whisper of them from rumour control.
One thing is for sure, the Old World is not going away - the Total War Warhammer pc game will be a huge plug for the setting, much as Dawn of War was for 40K.

I just don't think they're going to spend so much on introducing a new setting just to drop it, unless it ends up a financial failure.

I do have some hopes from the Total War game... at the very least it'll be nice to still be able to mess around in the old world.

Snapshot wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

Wow, was worried you were going to say something really patronising!

Complex game play doesn't require complicated rules.

Chess anyone?

Yeah complex gameplay doesn't require complicated rules. Btw have you heard of the new Age of chess-mar? It's like chess except you can play with whatever pieces you like ( I prefer 20 Queens personally). It's way better than old chess cause that was too darn confusing. And old chess wasn't even balanced anyways cause some pieces are way stronger than other pieces! Plus those stupid neck-beard chess players will never let you win:( But now it's more accessible to players of all skill or mental retardation! This will be a new era for chess!

 Sigvatr wrote:


Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

Yes, the new ruleset is very simple, but surely that's the whole point? It's aimed not especially at beginners, though that's a good thing, but more at people who collect and paint the models as their main hobby.
Let's be honest, if it's serious gaming you're after, particularly competitive tournament play, GW is not the place to look is it? We're all into Star Wars Armada at the moment for our gaming fix, and it has more gameplay richness in it's little finger than 40K has in a whole arm

 Sigvatr wrote:

Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

You could have been a lot less kind with that comparison. Russian Roulette is a fantastic song with more meaning and thought behind it than most songs in general, even outside the realm of pop. Not that Rihanna wrote it at all.

These forums are a lot nicer to AoS though, and most of the complaints are valid or at least coming from genuine concerns. Unlike Warseer which is full of raging neckbeards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 marlowc wrote:

One thing is for sure, the Old World is not going away - the Total War Warhammer pc game will be a huge plug for the setting, much as Dawn of War was for 40K.

The Old World may not go away, but it probably isn't going to be updated by Games Workshop anymore. They're making a new Bloodbowl game on PC and the tabletop game has been abandoned for a long while now.

Though people still play Bloodbowl I guess. So there's no reason to give up on 8th edition if that's your game of choice.

 marlowc wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Huh? The general concensus is pretty clear-cut. AoS is fun for people new to tabletops but has as much depth / complexity as your average Rihanna lyrics.

Yes, the new ruleset is very simple, but surely that's the whole point? It's aimed not especially at beginners, though that's a good thing, but more at people who collect and paint the models as their main hobby.

It is specifically aimed at beginners. People who just want to collect / paint do not need any rules whatsoever. Rules are for people who want to play. AoS has very poorly written rules that lack any sort of inherent balance - and that's not just the lack of a balancing factor such as points, the rules itself are extremely poorly internally balanced. AoS was developed to sell as many starter sets as possible and get new people into the hobby, therefore, the rules are very simple and quick to understand. In the long run, they fall short of pretty much everything, but GW does not plan long-term, they only plan short-term. That ain't a bad thing - people start with AoS to get into the tabletop hobby and then, if interested, pick up actual tabletop games such as KoW, WM/H etc.

AoS is an objectively bad set of rules and every designer with any self-respect would be ashamed to release such a set poorly-written rules. What people don't understand is that subjectively, AoS games can still be fun. It all depends on what you are looking for in a game.

 Sigvatr wrote:


It is specifically aimed at beginners. People who just want to collect / paint do not need any rules whatsoever. Rules are for people who want to play.

I'd have to disagree with you there. The new ruleset appeals to me, and I'm certainly no beginner, in fact the lack of points values makes it harder for beginners. I spend 10 hours modelling and painting for every 1 spent gaming, but still need rules to give life to the miniatures.
AoS represents a whole new way of gaming, or perhaps a return to an earlier, more creative style of play that had been smothered by the vast rules tomes.
I too was a bit suprised when I realised that AoS had no points values, but soon remembered that in reality, points never actually lead to balanced battles anyway. Anyone but a complete beginner has no trouble telling if two proposed forces are balanced or not, and unbalanced attacker/defender type battles are often the most enjoyable don't you think?

 marlowc wrote:

AoS represents a whole new way of gaming, or perhaps a return to an earlier, more creative style of play that had been smothered by the vast rules tomes.

Which is why Rogue Trader only had 10 pages of rules, right?

I too was a bit suprised when I realised that AoS had no points values, but soon remembered that in reality, points never actually lead to balanced battles anyway.

Maybe in GW's games, sure. But plenty of other systems seem to have points values and manage to keep their various factions pretty balanced.

Anyone but a complete beginner has no trouble telling if two proposed forces are balanced or not, and unbalanced attacker/defender type battles are often the most enjoyable don't you think?

That depends. I'd imagine imbalance of forces works when the two sides have asymmetrical goals. One side might be weaker, but perhaps they only need to hold a point for a certain amount of turns, or get a convoy or some models to a certain area or table size. In a straight up brawl? Why shouldn't both sides be equal then, to make sure that a game isn't decided by what people brought, and instead by what players did on the table.

 marlowc wrote:

Trashing the Old World was obviously a moment of madness, reminds me of when Tuomas Pirinen replaced the Colours of Magic with "lores". People just quietly ignored it, and it went away.
Hopefully, this "realms" stuff will go the same way, and before you know it we'll be be back in the Old World battling with our much loved armies using the new streamlined rules system.

Huh, my army books refer to them as lores...

And hoping to battle in the Old World again is funny for two reasons, first it won't happen. Second, you're still in your basement/flgs/living room.

This is that escapism people talk about, you can't even cope with the new alternate reality, and are compelled to escape that one as well.

 marlowc wrote:

I'd have to disagree with you there. The new ruleset appeals to me, and I'm certainly no beginner

Target group and a member not in the target group liking a product aren't mutually exclusive.

In fact the lack of points values makes it harder for beginners.

Wrong. Beginners use the starter set and expand upon it. Points are irrelevant with small collection of miniatures.

AoS represents a whole new way of gaming, or perhaps a return to an earlier, more creative style of play that had been smothered by the vast rules tomes.

Expand upon that? The "whole new way" literally is throwing stuff on the table.

I too was a bit suprised when I realised that AoS had no points values, but soon remembered that in reality, points never actually lead to balanced battles anyway.

X-Wing / WM:H use points limit and are extremely well-balanced. Points value work extremely well, you need to broaden your horizon and look into other games bar GW. GW is just terrible at writing rules, with the trashy AoS rules being a sad recent testimony to it.

Anyone but a complete beginner has no trouble telling if two proposed forces are balanced or not

Wrong on all accounts. Knowing whether two forces are balanced or not requires exact knowledge of any unit's strength - which is an ability far, far over the heads of anyone but people already having spent quite some time on the game.

bitethythumb wrote:

careful this website is not the best place to say you like AoS, people will hump you like a greater daemon of slaanesh in heat.

Seems you were right my friend - hope they are using the ship issue triple strength condoms