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.

 Ravenous D wrote:

And one of the GW stores tried to make a competitive system and posted it up, the manager nearly got gak canned and was reamed out hardcore for it.

Which if true is simply proof that GW definitely want to discourage the notion of comp with AoS in the wider world.
I don't think any GW staff member would expect otherwise, by the way. They are employed to promote GW products in a GW environment in the way that GW want it done.
Anything they produce and distribute publically will be seen to be sanctioned.

You know you can refuse to play anyone in any game system, right?

When are gw's financials due?

RoperPG wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

And one of the GW stores tried to make a competitive system and posted it up, the manager nearly got gak canned and was reamed out hardcore for it.

Which if true is simply proof that GW definitely want to discourage the notion of comp with AoS in the wider world.
I don't think any GW staff member would expect otherwise, by the way. They are employed to promote GW products in a GW environment in the way that GW want it done.
Anything they produce and distribute publically will be seen to be sanctioned.

I think it's more that GW doesn't want to make an "official GW" comp, but encourages people to find out their own systems. They know that if they do it, that's how the game will de facto be played, and then they're back to square one with the problem of points, balance, etc.

I think it's more that GW don't want to put the effort in to do a Comp right, and they are fed up with the complaints from players when they get it wrong. So they just can't be fethed any more.

This is of course Good News!!

coldgaming wrote:


I think it's more that GW doesn't want to make an "official GW" comp, but encourages people to find out their own systems. They know that if they do it, that's how the game will de facto be played, and then they're back to square one with the problem of points, balance, etc.

Everyone has their own little theory about the lack of comp. Mine is as goes:
Since GW states it manufactures the best miniatures they won't settle not to be the best in the gaming area aswell. Since they're either not sure if they can be, or are not willing to try, they simply wave a flag that they are mostly indifferent to rules. In other words: "We're not the best at making good rules because we don't want to".

I don't even think their intent is to encourage people to find new ways to play - they'd like to sell their books where you'll find all the new scenarios. For me there's no evidence for such encouraging otherwise instead of 8 scenarios and two triumph tables per book they'd give you much more random tables to roll on, ways to build artifacts, ideas for encounters etc ( like in a rpg book for example which depends on the user to do most of the work himself). Look at the custom scenario (Slaves to darkness) that MongooseMatt has created. He's working for Mongoose publishing and obviously knows what type of stuff to give a player in order to stimulate him to be more creative. His custom stuff is much better than all a new player could find in the books and even keeps the same spirit.

If you have to guess what GW is trying to encourage... then they are not encouraging it.

Popped into my local GW today. Sundays are advertised as AoS days (40K Saturdays). The place was rammed with players and games.

 CoreCommander wrote:

coldgaming wrote:


I think it's more that GW doesn't want to make an "official GW" comp, but encourages people to find out their own systems. They know that if they do it, that's how the game will de facto be played, and then they're back to square one with the problem of points, balance, etc.

Everyone has their own little theory about the lack of comp. Mine is as goes:
Since GW states it manufactures the best miniatures they won't settle not to be the best in the gaming area aswell. Since they're either not sure if they can be, or are not willing to try, they simply wave a flag that they are mostly indifferent to rules. In other words: "We're not the best at making good rules because we don't want to".

I don't even think their intent is to encourage people to find new ways to play - they'd like to sell their books where you'll find all the new scenarios. For me there's no evidence for such encouraging otherwise instead of 8 scenarios and two triumph tables per book they'd give you much more random tables to roll on, ways to build artifacts, ideas for encounters etc ( like in a rpg book for example which depends on the user to do most of the work himself). Look at the custom scenario (Slaves to darkness) that MongooseMatt has created. He's working for Mongoose publishing and obviously knows what type of stuff to give a player in order to stimulate him to be more creative. His custom stuff is much better than all a new player could find in the books and even keeps the same spirit.

Not a guess so much as going off all the news/podcasts where people have talked to GW about the rules. Might be wrong but think Garage Hammer in a previous episode, might have been Heelen now that I think about it, talked to a GW guy who basically said that.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you have to guess what GW is trying to encourage... then they are not encouraging it.

Oh but they are, if that thing they are encouraging is balkanizing the WHFB community, not just with the WHFB/AoS split; but with splits within each of those groups. WHFB has at least 3 splits right now (4 if you count those that have ported their armies to KoW), those that continue to play 8th, 8.5 fan rules and 9th age fan rules. For AoS we have the numerous different comp systems that no two groups will use the same.

I would love to know why a company would do that when it is trying to grow this new game. Did they honestly think everyone would be accepting of this system as-is?

 Grimtuff wrote:
I would love to know why a company would do that when it is trying to grow this new game. Did they honestly think everyone would be accepting of this system as-is?

Nope - because if they did then GW would be dumber than even the most cynical assessment of their business plans.
While we wait for Schrodinger's financial reports (as according to a number of people who claim to be in "in the know" they are somehow simultaneously terrible and amazing), I think the effect is exactly as GW intended, as evidenced from this very forum.
1) People who had never played WFB are playing AoS.
2) People who had given up on WFB came back to AoS.
3) People who played WFB are shifting to AoS.
4) People who played no games but just bought minis.
5) People who played WFB are quitting/shifting to other games.

Groups 1 & 2 never spent money on WFB. Groups 3 - 5 weren't spending enough.
So the AoS gamble is that the increase in 1-4 is more than the decrease is 5.

RoperPG wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I would love to know why a company would do that when it is trying to grow this new game. Did they honestly think everyone would be accepting of this system as-is?

Nope - because if they did then GW would be dumber than even the most cynical assessment of their business plans.
While we wait for Schrodinger's financial reports (as according to a number of people who claim to be in "in the know" they are somehow simultaneously terrible and amazing), I think the effect is exactly as GW intended, as evidenced from this very forum.
1) People who had never played WFB are playing AoS.
2) People who had given up on WFB came back to AoS.
3) People who played WFB are shifting to AoS.
4) People who played no games but just bought minis.
5) People who played WFB are quitting/shifting to other games.

Groups 1 & 2 never spent money on WFB. Groups 3 - 5 weren't spending enough.
So the AoS gamble is that the increase in 1-4 is more than the decrease is 5.

I haven't seen anyone except GW say their financials are amazing. Quite the opposite in most cases. "Meh," in some.
1,2,3 matter if the numbers are significant enough. That's yet to be seen.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I haven't seen anyone except GW say their financials are amazing. Quite the opposite in most cases. "Meh," in some.
1,2,3 matter if the numbers are significant enough. That's yet to be seen.

That was kinda my point. GW haven't said anything on their financials because there are laws about that kind of thing.
So anyone claiming they have insider info or whatever is to be taken with salt at this stage.

GW's last three annual reports have been amazing because they are nice and profitable, throw off lots of cash, and pay good dividends while keeping money in the bank for investment.

They are simultaneously bad because there was a year on year decline in baseline sales revenue each time, amounting to something like 25% compared to four years ago.

Ignoring any arguments about why that has happened, it clearly will become a bad situation for the company if it continues.

If AoS can stabilise the company at the level it is now, they will be doing well. The half-year report expected in late January will be the first indicator of this.

As for GW's comments on their financial results, they are of course required to present them according to UK accounting law which has a respected level of quality internationally. However this does allow for changes to the way the figures are presented, for example the change from geographical reporting to vertical reporting (web, direct retail, indie retail) makes it possible not to be precise about sales in each country and the details of exchange rate changes.

Obviously the company must internally have the knowledge about whether they are doing worse or better in say Germany, Japan and Canada, but it is no longer possible for the observer to know.

One thing I've noticed just from general discussions and posts on boards like this, is that there seems to be a geographical trend involved in that those saying that AoS is having some sort of impact appear to generally be more likely to be UK players, while there seems to be proportionally far less in other areas indicating such.

I don't have much in the way of hard data on that, it's just an observation I've noted from things like forum tags and the like, it seems that the UK is much warmer to AoS than other places like the US or continental Europe. Not sure why (though if I had to guess it'd probably be that there's fewer independent stores that stock lots of non-GW product), but that's just something that struck me today.

 Vaktathi wrote:
One thing I've noticed just from general discussions and posts on boards like this, is that there seems to be a geographical trend involved in that those saying that AoS is having some sort of impact appear to generally be more likely to be UK players, while there seems to be proportionally far less in other areas indicating such.

I don't have much in the way of hard data on that, it's just an observation I've noted from things like forum tags and the like, it seems that the UK is much warmer to AoS than other places like the US or continental Europe. Not sure why (though if I had to guess it'd probably be that there's fewer independent stores that stock lots of non-GW product), but that's just something that struck me today.

Uk is quite simply more GW centric.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
One thing I've noticed just from general discussions and posts on boards like this, is that there seems to be a geographical trend involved in that those saying that AoS is having some sort of impact appear to generally be more likely to be UK players, while there seems to be proportionally far less in other areas indicating such.

I don't have much in the way of hard data on that, it's just an observation I've noted from things like forum tags and the like, it seems that the UK is much warmer to AoS than other places like the US or continental Europe. Not sure why (though if I had to guess it'd probably be that there's fewer independent stores that stock lots of non-GW product), but that's just something that struck me today.

Uk is quite simply more GW centric.

I'd go along with that.
Store penetration/Density is far higher in UK and Western Europe, and many local scenes are based around GW as a jumping-off point.
Antipodeans are already arguably getting dry-humped on pricing, so understandable that GW's apparent shift to higher cost per unit is amplified for them.
The US scene does appear to be far more focussed on competitive play, so again can understand the greater inclination to dumping AoS, especially as the States are 'home turf' for PP and FFG.

Yes GW marketing penetration is incredibly high in the UK. .

Is the UK still GWs biggest market?

 Bottle wrote:
Yes GW marketing penetration is incredibly high in the UK. .

Is the UK still GWs biggest market?

I would believe so, yes.

They stopped reporting by region a few years ago but I was under the impression the US was as big a market or even bigger as the UK just because of the higher population even though it has significantly less market penetration.

RoperPG wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I haven't seen anyone except GW say their financials are amazing. Quite the opposite in most cases. "Meh," in some.
1,2,3 matter if the numbers are significant enough. That's yet to be seen.

That was kinda my point. GW haven't said anything on their financials because there are laws about that kind of thing.
So anyone claiming they have insider info or whatever is to be taken with salt at this stage.

They've made a few points in their AGM that are telling if you read behind the lines. Update of secondary AoS material has been high (i.e. the downloads and the WD with the free Sigmarine), and that AoS is a long term investment.

What that reads is that update of primary AoS material (starter set, books) hasn't been high, or they'd mention it. Long term investment also sets expectations towards poor performance in the short term. Had AoS been doing well they'd have been able to say something more directly about it, so the inference is that even GW don't think it's doing well enough to shout about.

It's close to dying out. While it initially caught interest, we soon realized that it would take so much work to...make it work that it's not worth our time. Gamestores around our area report similar developments - AoS caught interest at first, but after the weeks / months, people grew tired of it and its shallowness. GW has so far failed to follow-up on the initial release and the loss of interest was to be expected. Sales at FLGS in the area are extremely low and some have stopped selling it.

Herzlos wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I haven't seen anyone except GW say their financials are amazing. Quite the opposite in most cases. "Meh," in some.
1,2,3 matter if the numbers are significant enough. That's yet to be seen.

That was kinda my point. GW haven't said anything on their financials because there are laws about that kind of thing.
So anyone claiming they have insider info or whatever is to be taken with salt at this stage.

They've made a few points in their AGM that are telling if you read behind the lines. Update of secondary AoS material has been high (i.e. the downloads and the WD with the free Sigmarine), and that AoS is a long term investment.

What that reads is that update of primary AoS material (starter set, books) hasn't been high, or they'd mention it. Long term investment also sets expectations towards poor performance in the short term. Had AoS been doing well they'd have been able to say something more directly about it, so the inference is that even GW don't think it's doing well enough to shout about.

There was a link somewhere - maybe BoLS? - to a blog by a private investor in GW after the AGM. He said that the secondary AoS products were mentioned because they can't discuss the primaries due to being in a "closed period" (presume something to do with public company legalities), but they can mention the secondaries.
So two options there really - bigging up the trading they are able to talk about in order to either make things look better than they are, or reporting it because things are actually going well.
So still no clearer until the January report...

I'm not aware of any accounting regulations that say a company can't talk about the success of its products. Just that the figures presented in the annual report have to conform to specific standards (balance sheet, profit and loss account, and so on.)

AoS is utterly dead here. Everyone gave up not long after it was released. Now talking about it results in laughter and thrown tomatoes.

I know AOS seems dead but in my area I actually see people buying it!And these people are 10-14 people who I never saw playing the game at my local store .Every time I come in there's kids now which might show that GW's tactic might work in the end.There's especially this one kid you comes in with his mom and spends all day painting his minis ,some of us have gone so far as to give him good painting advice like THIN YOUR PAINTS!

It's doing ok here at the GW store, you can usually get a game on the weekends. with the focus going back to 40K there's more interest in that, but our redshirt is still supporting a league and people really like to discuss the rules and find solutions to issues as they crop up.

There are two other games stores in town, one has reduced its GW stock to just two shelves and dropped fantasy tourneys, the other still has models but all discussion of AoS has been banned due to too much negativity and arguments. people still play AoS there, just no one is allowed to comment on it.

Locally, AoS ended up being a momentary palette cleanser... a sorbet course if you will.

WHFB players tried it using the free warscrolls as they released, found it light, and kind of novel after crunchy-ass WHFB 8th, and quickly realized we weren't satisfied with our time with the game.

But feeling weirdly reinvigorated to mass-battles it made a pleasant move over to Kings of War where we got the "mass battles" part, but also the ultra-lean rules of AoS, just with a proper balancing in place.

Anyone who did like AoS introduction to a more skirmishy style of game drifted over to Frostgrave, which again was lean on rules, but much more satisfying and complete-feeling.

It's dead. AOS is largely hated by the 40k players in my area, who are the only people who still play GW games anymore.

"Let's play Age of Sigmar" was a running joke at start, now noone even mentions it.

It's funny, I even tried to play a test game with local casual skirmish guys and after hearing the rules, they all refused, despite me trying hard to stay neutral and hide how much I loathe it. It was either at imaginary horse rules or army composition (heh) rules where I heard a convinced 'nope'. None of them is a waac or has negative feeling towards GW, I know from old conversations they were put off of whfb largely by the amount of work required to start but it was always respect for GW and old world. Lots of people liked warhammer around here btw, random girls I met in the pub knew it and asked me for a game when I mentioned it, pc game devs I know looked up to it, even console bro guys who remember Shadow of the Horned Rat. Some brand to kill heh.

 Mymearan wrote:
Not unexpected that it's doing poorly when they have only released Stormcast and Khorne. I expect it to slowly pick up steam as more factions are released. My group is still playing though.

Disagree. It's already a failure in how GW expected sigmarines to be a smashing succes, to a point that they didn't bother with preparing more updated factions. Space marines in fantasy, what could go wrong? They must still be in shock looking at sales.

I think people don't buy sigmarines because they are too weird (in a bad way) for fantasy and obviously shoehorned there. "Chambers" lol subtle, some wink they got there, you can see the studio's creative spark with your soul's eyes immediately. I checked all the books mainly to see the art and while I don't really like the style, there are some cool bits, or rather would be if weren't spoiled by a fat gold golem something every 2 pages.