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.

not taking you too seriously, but looking at the sprues in hand, all i'm saying is that the casting quality is no better than another across the 4 companies...
design is a whole other matter, and isn't the same as casting quality...
the point being, there are no objective casting flaws that exist on the latest plastic sprues to put one of the top contenders above another...
it is just a purely subjective matter of opinion...

if you don't like the current GW plastics, that is completely understandable, but the casting quality is still just as good as any KD sprue out there...
the difference is design philosophy, which is where KD wins every single time...

cheers
jah

There is no national championship for 8th or 9th age but there is for AoS so it is alive nationally, though locally representing 10% of the population there is only two active players hosting monthly games with randomers. Problem with randomers is that they don't buy models and prefer card games and normal board games instead of tabletop.

So I think it's on lifesupport locally but nationally it's doing okay.

KoW got really popular though with the AoS release as it took over the entire WHFB scene, even surpassing the established Warmachine/Hordes community.

still one of the extremely few still playing it here. stopped bothering with the GW store though, we just gather in the basement like a bunch of hooligans, so I would say AoS is virtually extinct or an underground speakeasy type game.

Fantasy in general has evaporated. The people playing are not doing so in public, but in their houses and garages.

The new big thing is Infinity and X Wing.

A lot of people are waiting to see what emerges - playing what people consider to be the #1 game seems to be a very important factor to a lot of people.

I haven't been to my local store in over a month, but as far as I could see, everyone was excited to start up AOS and get a league going, but then it slowed down and everyone went back to 40k and Malifaux. I was going to finish painting Nagash and the rest of my Tomb Kings, but I'm probably going to be selling them in all honesty.

Xwing is killing every other miniature game from what I'm seeing.

 darkjedi203 wrote:
Xwing is killing every other miniature game from what I'm seeing.

Because Fantasy Flight is an amazing company that makes games to be games.

Definitely from a pure gamist standpoint - the gamer-gamers I know base their primary #1 reason for playing a game not on how it looks, its background, etc, but how it plays.

One of the thing AOS is not good at is being a game in its own right, it leans on RPG aspects and its visuals and its new background to pull people in, but that will never really appeal to gamer-gamers.

krodarklorr wrote:Because Fantasy Flight is an amazing company that makes games to be games.

I think you mean, because Fantasy Flight Games has the Star Wars license. Wings of War was popular, but not THAT popular. And FFG failed to get Dust Tactics/Warfare, Mutant Chronicles, Tannhauser, Anima Tactics, or Disk Wars to even remotely the same popularity.

auticus wrote:Definitely from a pure gamist standpoint - the gamer-gamers I know base their primary #1 reason for playing a game not on how it looks, its background, etc, but how it plays.

I think that's incorrect. I've been curious about why games catch on the way that they do, and I've noticed that it is very inconsistent. There are great games that everybody seems to like, but nobody plays, and apparently terrible games that everybody complains about that everybody plays. For instance, Kings of War had some popularity before AoS, but it gained the majority of its current players from people abandoning WHFB. So can you say that people are playing KoW because of how it plays? Or are they playing it for completely different reasons altogether?

Near as I can tell, most of the Warmachine players I play with like the look of the models. Some of them are big into the steampunk aesthetic. They'll tell you that they like the gameplay the most, but I'd say most of them came from a 40k background before getting pissed at GW and leaving (like KoW). If WMH changed its entire ruleset into something that was more complicated or less complicated, they'd still play it, so long as Privateer Press didn't piss them off over long periods of time like GW did. And if PP ever did that, they'd find another miniatures game to play rather than abandoning the hobby. So there's nothing unique about Warmachine. It was just in the right place at the right time, was high quality, and looked pretty cool.

So, I'd say the most important elements for a game being adopted by players are, in order:

1) The quality and aesthetic of the models.
2) Games Workshop just pissed you off.
3) Having a group of available players.
4) How often the game is updated with new rules and models.
5) The continued cost of investment (see also #3)
6) The quality of the gameplay itself.

It seems to me that the best way to gain critical mass in game adoption is to A) create amazing looking miniatures and B) hope Games Workshop does something really stupid.

One of the thing AOS is not good at is being a game in its own right, it leans on RPG aspects and its visuals and its new background to pull people in, but that will never really appeal to gamer-gamers.

Unfortunately, AoS falls under the "Games Workshop just pissed you off" category, so it doesn't matter how good the game is for gamer-gamers. Most of them hate AoS and haven't played even a single game of it.

Unfortunately, AoS falls under the "Games Workshop just pissed you off" category, so it doesn't matter how good the game is for gamer-gamers. Most of them hate AoS and haven't played even a single game of it.

And which are those parts that are good for gamer-gamers? The need to faq without any FAQ, the imbalance between armies or the imbalanc linked to a non existing points system?
Because for all games the most important things are clear rules and balanced rules.

Some valid points, but a lot of the gamers i know would gladly play any game wtih wooden pogs or bottlecaps. They don't care about the models or what they look like, their main concern is the gameplay and how cheaply they can get a force together.

If the models were puddles of glop with googly eyes inserted onto them, they'd be fine with that.

Makumba wrote:

Unfortunately, AoS falls under the "Games Workshop just pissed you off" category, so it doesn't matter how good the game is for gamer-gamers. Most of them hate AoS and haven't played even a single game of it.

And which are those parts that are good for gamer-gamers? The need to faq without any FAQ, the imbalance between armies or the imbalanc linked to a non existing points system?
Because for all games the most important things are clear rules and balanced rules.

Certainly not, or no one would play 40k. I'd wager most gamers value setting and aesthetics higher.

Aye, I'd class anyone who is mainly interested in models as not being a 'gamer-gamer'. A vague term to be honest, but I take that to mean someone who is interested in games first and foremost, not models. I'm close to that. I play many many games, and see models generally as a downside to any game. I want to play and not spend valuable 'gaming' time buying, making, painting etc.

The number of games using models is vastly outnumbered by the ones that don't. Even for wargames there are far more games without models than games with them. Among games using models there are more games that have just rules and no specific model range. Most games have no cost at all after the initial purchase.

One the best game written for minis I've played has never been played with minis by us. I bought the game, a load of MDF bases and glued print outs of the birds eye view of troops on them. Up and playing in a fraction of the time with minimal input in money or time from anyone else; who didn't have to worry about 'getting an army'. Any 'block' style mini game can be played like that, and if the game is good will stand on its own without models.

I've actually given serious thought to doing that with Warhammer as well. Large MDF bases, printout the unit overheads and play. Its easy to print pictures out, and without the need to have minis far easier to do whatever units or size of game you want.

Not to say I don't like models. Seeing fully painted models with nice terrain is really nice and cool. The few models I do get I will put some effort into, but I always go for small model count so I don't get bogged down in the side of a 'hobby'; that doesn't interest me. Plus I certainly don't mind playing with someone else's figures.


The bit about franchise I agree with. There are some games that are always going to be more popular simply due to subject, like Star wars. The same with one of the Grand Daddy of war games, star fleet battles. I doubt that would even be known about nowadays if it had been its own generic universe instead of Star Trek.

auticus wrote:
Some valid points, but a lot of the gamers i know would gladly play any game wtih wooden pogs or bottlecaps. They don't care about the models or what they look like, their main concern is the gameplay and how cheaply they can get a force together.

If the models were puddles of glop with googly eyes inserted onto them, they'd be fine with that.

I know some people like that, and honestly, they don't play miniature games because of the expense and effort required. I mean, let's face it. People play miniature games for the miniatures. If they didnt' care about the miniatures, they'd play one of the millions of cheaper, easier board games available.

Because for all games the most important things are clear rules and balanced rules.

There is no real thing as balanced rules. Balanced games maybe, but rules? Rules like how you move, combat, morale etc are not really a reflection of balance. For a DIY battle game like Warhammer balance is decided by the scenario you play, not the rules. It is for the players to come up with a balanced game session. A points based session is still a scenario, one where you use points to decide what to bring, then work out what the terrain is and then how you will win. Some games will give you a default scenario with default terrain placement and default victory conditions. You don't have to use those, they are not 'rules' they are merely one possible scenario.

The scenarios you play in Warhammer are part of the rules.

Scenarios in warhammer are no more part of the rules than in any other such DIY battle game.

You choose a scenario, from any source e.g. main book, supplement, favorite fiction, your own imagination, and then play a game according to the rules of the game itself, plus any scenario rules that help reflect the peculiarities of that scenario.

Are you saying that you believe that you are not allowed to play warhammer in any other way other than whatever generic scenarios the main book has in it. That you are not allowed to deviate from point based lists or default victory conditions, that those are somehow part of the warhammer rules themselves and not merely one 'suggested' way to set up a game?

Maybe some people do think that way, personally I find that odd. I can't think of any other DIY battle wargame where that would be considered normal.

What on Earth is a 'DIY battle (war)game'?

... for everyone ain't comfort with dakka, you should try Age of Sigmar thread on /tg/ 4chan, resourceful and helpful. There are sxxxposter lurking around, but we can deal with them, really nice place to talk about AoS.

Current thread: http://boards.4chan.org/tg/thread/43465833/age-of-sigmar-general

I'm going to take the controversial stance that people play games for different reasons, thus allowing a variety of products to flourish. Some of us even play for multiple reasons!

Personally, I'd rank setting as the strongest draw for myself, followed by rules and ending with miniatures. I like 'em all, but even the pretty AoS models (I'm willing to admit there's some neat stuff, and even a Sigmarine might look nice if it was used as a standout model instead of the basis of an entire clone army) aren't enough for me to get around their excuse for a rule system and the buzzword-heavy fluff edited by the Committee for Hammer Porn.

puree wrote:
Scenarios in warhammer are no more part of the rules than in any other such DIY battle game.

You choose a scenario, from any source e.g. main book, supplement, favorite fiction, your own imagination, and then play a game according to the rules of the game itself, plus any scenario rules that help reflect the peculiarities of that scenario.

Are you saying that you believe that you are not allowed to play warhammer in any other way other than whatever generic scenarios the main book has in it. That you are not allowed to deviate from point based lists or default victory conditions, that those are somehow part of the warhammer rules themselves and not merely one 'suggested' way to set up a game?

Maybe some people do think that way, personally I find that odd. I can't think of any other DIY battle wargame where that would be considered normal.

I open a rulebook, I see rules. Some of them are scenarios and instructions for setting up battles. Obviously these are part of the rules.

Plus, to echo jonolikespie, I never heard the term DIY battle wargame until you posted it just now. I have been playing tabletope wargames since the early 1970s, and I've been a member of DakkaDakka and TMP for over 10 years.

Went back to Bremerton WA for a visit and the one game store clerk I talked to told me warhammer. He said that GW had terminated the line. Although he did mention AOS, but he said that nobody played it in the store. I only asked him because he was using a GW bag for the board game my wife was buying. The store had six or so boxes of AoS crammed up on top of the shelving unit that holds all their 40k stuff.

They'd actually switched the space for warmachine and warhammer while I've been in japan as well. GW went from about 40 feet of shelving to 10. There was maybe three feet of horizontal space for left over WFB and AoS boxes.

Which is really too bad as I used to get games in pretty easily at this store when I had the time to drive up there.

DIY battle, meaning 'do it yourself' battle.

You have a wargame that is not representing a fixed battle like the battle of the bulge or waterloo etc. It simply provides rules for unknown opposing forces to meet over an unknown battleground fighting for unknown reasons. The battle you fight is for you to make up (DIY).

The scenarios in such a game are not the rules of the game, being in the same book as the rules does not make them the rules. How you set up a game is part of any given scenario rules not the rules of the game.

This concept isn't something that should be unfamiliar to anyone (the term I used of course might not have been). Warhammer always made this this clear, and if you have been wargaming since the 1970s like I have then you would have read such things many times by now. I can only lay my hands on the 6th ed rules right now, and some older 40k rules. But my 6th ed warhammer rule book has a whole section on scenarios, explaining that the game isn't about one setup etc, that you are invited, even expected, to come up with your own scenario. That such scenarios need not involved equal forces or kill the other guy objectives, you can have your own setups and forces that do not meet army list formats etc. 40k books convey the same thing.

The 2000pt battle based on army lists and victory points for banners (or whatever the latest take on that was) was simply one possible generic scenario, but no more than that, a scenario that the rules did not say you had to play. The points, the army lists etc were simply part of the that scenario setup rules.

Such a scenario has it good and bad points. A well published and known generic scenario that appears balanced (albeit continuously moaned at for not being) is good for taking a case of minis and quickly starting a game with some random guy. It allows GW to make money by doing Army List books. On the other hand it risks starting to slip into the only way you are expected to play with talk all focused on the points and army lists. It gets in the way of understanding that any system like this can offer a lot more if you can break out of the mind set of equal points and army lists, but those such games tend to work best amongst a group of friends who play regularly and can readily discuss what they want to play next.

Putting aside whether you like mechanics of either game, both warhammer and AOS can be played in both ways. Indeed many Warhammer players have argued that 'narrative' players didn't need a new system as they could play like that in warhammer. Equally of course point based comp players don't need warhammer, AOS can be played like that just as well. Both games can be played in both ways, it is just that the set of players that need to do the groundwork in scenario design has flipped around. In instead of focusing on selling army list books GW get to sell scenario and background focused books. I have no idea whether it was part of any decision they made, but on the face of it they get to break a product cycle that has a tendency to send you down regular new versions and new army lists and more towards version independent fictional type stuff.

For me it depends. When the rules cover set up and there is standard scenario table to roll on to decide which scenario is played, then they are very much part of rules. There can be other scenarios that exist outside of the core rules for special games too.

Take for example WHFB 8th. There was a scenario table and some core scenarios very much part of the rules.

There was also a range of extra scenarios not within the core rules covered in the BRB. (Such as the Bugman's delivery battle).

puree wrote:DIY battle, meaning 'do it yourself' battle.

You have a wargame that is not representing a fixed battle like the battle of the bulge or waterloo etc. It simply provides rules for unknown opposing forces to meet over an unknown battleground fighting for unknown reasons. The battle you fight is for you to make up (DIY).

It sounds like you are describing any game with a points system instead of scenarios, I've just never heard the term before.

 Bottle wrote:
For me it depends. When the rules cover set up and there is standard scenario table to roll on to decide which scenario is played, then they are very much part of rules. There can be other scenarios that exist outside of the core rules for special games too.

Take for example WHFB 8th. There was a scenario table and some core scenarios very much part of the rules.

There was also a range of extra scenarios not within the core rules covered in the BRB. (Such as the Bugman's delivery battle).

Exactly, the table was core rules because even the most generic games played (battle line) were played from that table.

The scenarios in the back were never intended to be any kind of standard, they were just a fun addition.

AoS never presents the game as one that HAS to be played according to one of the battle... I want to say plans but these days everything is a battle-something so I might have the term wrong.


I think this is where AoS when wrong actually. Consider for a moment, before this you had 2 types of games, points based and historicals that used scenarios. In the historicals you know that historically at the battle of X Y troops fought Z troops. You know A army is supposed to win B battle against C army because of reason D, but can see how things go differently with you in command.

Points based games don't have this, you instead invent your own stories and use said points to create your armies. Now here you have the option to allow people to bring more points than you to create a last stand scenario or alter deployments from those set out in the rulebook, but the rulebook does have to have scenarios for people who don't want to do that or who are new and don't know how.

I think AoS is failing because it tried to do something new and land somewhere in between. It doesn't want to be a point system game, but it still wants you to create things yourself without any history behind it. We can't look at a battle and say that we know exactly who fought there with how many troops on what terrain outside of the battleplans, but neither can we not use points to build our own BALANCED scenarios like we are used to.

It feels like it either tried to jump from one to the other and fell short, or deliberately aimed for some place in between in the hopes of hitting some untapped market that just doesn't seem to exist right now (given the results of this poll).

It sounds like you are describing any game with a points system instead of scenarios,

More specifically describing any game where the players are expected to make some decisions on how and what they play (armies, limits, victory conditions). The points system is nothing more than a scenario with formal setup rules, a way of describing what forces face each other etc.You can equally choose to (and warhammer encouraged you to) play different scenarios and therefore not bother with points and army lists which were features of that generic scenario..

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think this is where AoS when wrong actually. Consider for a moment, before this you had 2 types of games, points based and historicals that used scenarios. In the historicals you know that historically at the battle of X Y troops fought Z troops. You know A army is supposed to win B battle against C army because of reason D, but can see how things go differently with you in command.

No.

With respect jonolikespie, you have a very poor understanding of historical games if all you can do is define them simply as fighting at battle xyz where a fought c and won because of reason d. Or if you try and define all of war gaming as '2 types of games'. What you describe here specifically is reenactments. And yes. They are a thing. Historicals can be that. Even if it's quite often we don't know exactly what got fielded against what in whatever battle - the historical record is remarkably patchy, misleading or flat out wrong a lot of the time... And let's be honest here - 40k can be as much of a reenactment based game, where people replay, or reinvent many of the iconic battles of the lore - whether it's of the battle of orks drift or any other named battle in the narrative, just as warmachine can be about khador storming point Bourne against cygnar, cryx raiding port vladovar, the battle over the temple garrodh, the battle between cygnar and the protectorate over caspia/sul, any of the named and profiled battles in the lore/expansion books (which literally read like a battle report, so you know precisely what got fielded too) or combined army versus pan-o during the paradiso campaign etc where some of the various order of battle are described either through the lore, or through various official rosters and lists.

But historicals can be so much more than just reenactments as well. And frequently are played as such. They don't have to be a particular battle x. Or y. Take my Normans versus your Vikings or Anglo-Saxons. Imagine a raiding party scenario or any particular story that you find evocative. Over a river ford, town, beach, doomed last stand, defending the breach, or anything else that picks your fancy. Why can't they be striking to rescue a spy or kidnap a particular royal, or other important person of some nameless enemy tribe or enemy force? History is big. There is a huge amount of room there to imagine a premise for a Wargame scenario.

The simple truth is that historicals drawn an as much of the 'but, what if', 'yes, this could have happened' and 'wouldn't it be fun if this went up against that' as anything from 40k or any other Wargame. In other words, Normans versus Anglo Saxons and Carthaginians versus Romans is just as open to interpretation as tau versus imperial guard, khador versus cygnar, pan-o versus yu-jing and so on. And frankly. 'What if' scenarios between celts and Mughals which would never have happened historically can be fun. And just as unlikely to be honest as tau versus space wolves (different sides of the 40k galaxy at the end of the day...) or thagrosh1 versus kromac2- champion of the wurm, considering they would never have come across each other in the fluff. Dont be so narrow minded in your definitions of historical gaming. So much of the tapestry that historicals draw on is grey and unknown - we don't know about all the battles thst happened Or even might Have happened in the historical context of the Romans versus the Carthaginians, or the celtiberians, or the Macedonians or Caesar versus the gauls or even a fraction of the battles between the diadachoi thst split Alexander's empire after his death. Heck, or even the Wehrmacht versus the red army. And at the end of the day, what's stopping me doing a Bernard Cornwell or Simon scarrow, and having my own general deadnighticus leading a fictional Roman legion during their conquest of Britain, or having a Norman mercenary and his band of merry men as they fought across Europe during the dark ages? Simply put, there is so much potential there for interesting wargames scenarios thst could have been throughout history that to simply reduce it all to the level of reenactments is being dishonest and just doing yourself a disservice. And frankly, you are making yourself look bad. It really bothers me that people are so small minded in terms of how they view what historicals can be about. Please, don't be like this Jono. you are better and smarter than this...

The only difference between tau and khador and the Romans at the end of the day is that the Romans are based in a historical narrative, rather than a fictional narrative. From that point, frankly, you can go whatever direction you want. Just as historical fiction/fantasy writers happily go off in their own direction with and against the backdrop of what we know, or think we know, and do a bloody good job of bringing those lost worlds and times to life, we, as wargames players can do exactly the same thing within the context of the narratives and settings we play our games in. They are all woven from the same cloth.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Points based games don't have this, you instead invent your own stories and use said points to create your armies. Now here you have the option to allow people to bring more points than you to create a last stand scenario or alter deployments from those set out in the rulebook, but the rulebook does have to have scenarios for people who don't want to do that or who are new and don't know how.

No.

This is not a thing about 'points based games' Jono. We often play flames of war, historicals games like dux bellorum and infinity without points[u] and 'invent out own stories'. Adding more points to side x is kind of irrelevant structurally when the narrative itself suggests side x gets more anyway. You don't need points to tell you this. They're a useful structural tool, not a bible or a way to play.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think AoS is failing because it tried to do something new and land somewhere in between. It doesn't want to be a point system game, but it still wants you to create things yourself without any history behind it. We can't look at a battle and say that we know exactly who fought there with how many troops on what terrain outside of the battleplans, but neither can we not use points to build our own BALANCED scenarios like we are used to.

Again, no. You are being dishonest again (I'm assuming not intentionally by the way) with this characterisation of what historical or what 'players-in-the-driving-seat'-type games are about.

Aos might arguably be failing (it may be, and while I think it's doing ok, it's not doing as well as it could..) but it's for a variety of different reasons. And we won't know for sure until the annual year reports come in. I suspect gw will cover the cracks up again...

Aos isn't doing anything new. Players have been playing and creating these types of games since the 70s. Just because it's something you are not familiar with doesn't mean it's not a thing. You don't need 'history' to make it work or tell you exactly how to create stuff and play it- at its core, and frankly, like any Wargame, all you just need interesting ideas and clever scenarios with some imagination behind them. Battleplans and lore-based 'events' are certainly a great source of inspiration to draw from. But being honest - You don't necessarily need a defined order of battle or a pre written story to tell you how to do these things or how to make them work. Just some imagination. As I said before. 'Hmm, wouldn't it be interesting if x fought y over z while abc is happening during the events of w'. There is your hook. Now take it and run with it. That's literally all you need to start with.

And while balanced scenarios where both players can win should be a thing, they don't need to be the 'only' thing. Sometimes. Boiling things down to 'win' or 'lose' misses the point entirely. Sometimes, scenarios with a pre-determined or 'obvious' conclusion can be just as fun and just as engaging too. Spartans lost at thermopalae. Any Wargame trying to represent this needs to have the Spartans losing. But kudos if they kill far more than they should. Or make the Famed immortals retreat. They'll still lose. And by definition,That's not winning, in anything more than a purely academic sense even if they did cool stuff. But more importantly, it's still cool, it's still bragging rights, and it's still evocative and engaging. And damn it, but it's still a bloody good evening with my mates, which at the end of the day, is what counts the most.

 jonolikespie wrote:

It feels like it either tried to jump from one to the other and fell short, or deliberately aimed for some place in between in the hopes of hitting some untapped market that just doesn't seem to exist right now (given the results of this poll).

No, I just think it's a mechanically uninteresting game with no structural tools or guidance. It tries to suggest a different way of playing, and by different, I mean that diy approach thst so many people are unfamiliar with. And it does not give any guidance as to how to approach this. That and gw's baggage along with pissing off their consumer base in a focus on potential casuals is why it's not succeeding as it could.

I had a rather sad realisation yesterday. I attended the first day of an AoS campaign organised by my local GW. The planning started months ago, and the store manager really put a lot of effort into writing a back story, rules, and a method of escalation. It taught beginners and encouraged everyone else who already played to get involved with something that really held some kind of balance between factions.

Although I really should have been working, I stayed up late and painted my entry character from scratch and went in the next morning to play. There were three of us, and four playing if you include the manager. It just seemed like all of this effort and careful planning towards a really fun campaign was wasted and you could see that the manager - who is wonderful - was pretty defeated by it.

Obviously, the HH release shadows any new AoS releases, and there's more coming out for 40K per week than I ever imagined, but this was really disappointing on a community level. It suggests that all interest in AoS in my local area is gone.

I'm kinda interested in AoS, and even considering rebasing my old armies at some point since I do prefer round bases, despite my enormous collection of square based models (though of course that's easier said than done)

But I've never seen anyone playing this game, or met anyone who collects it in person

 slowclinic wrote:
I had a rather sad realisation yesterday. I attended the first day of an AoS campaign organised by my local GW. The planning started months ago, and the store manager really put a lot of effort into writing a back story, rules, and a method of escalation. It taught beginners and encouraged everyone else who already played to get involved with something that really held some kind of balance between factions.

Although I really should have been working, I stayed up late and painted my entry character from scratch and went in the next morning to play. There were three of us, and four playing if you include the manager. It just seemed like all of this effort and careful planning towards a really fun campaign was wasted and you could see that the manager - who is wonderful - was pretty defeated by it.

Obviously, the HH release shadows any new AoS releases, and there's more coming out for 40K per week than I ever imagined, but this was really disappointing on a community level. It suggests that all interest in AoS in my local area is gone.

That's quite sad to hear. Our store's AoS community isn't as big as the old 8th community as not everyone made the transition. If the 4 of you are able to get some regular games in though you should be able to slowly bring in more interest though. Especially if you're having fun and playing with a low model count.