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.

The tabletop gaming experience I tend to think of taking modelers who would like to play with what they make.
Some rules for the game help with getting it to progress beyond saying "pew, pew, your dead!" when playing with said toys.
The gold standard for uninhibited fun is a sandbox (Minecraft these days?).
My wish is to play games that looks like a diorama AND have some tactics.
It just sucks when you bring the little green plastic army men to a GI Joe "action figure" fight.

AoS has too much "do what you want!" that requires further discussion with your opponent who may have their heart set on using what they have.

I like the idea of AOS and had fun playing a game - but I think a big big problem is that it might not work for anyone who has even a bit of competitive spirit.

Not the way it comes straight out of the rules anyway without creating a comp system yourself.

Which you can see by the army list section is a bit of a problem when every other list is posted with a different comp system.

And every week it seems someone else creates a new comp system lol.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I like the idea of AOS and had fun playing a game - but I think a big big problem is that it might not work for anyone who has even a bit of competitive spirit.

That's probably a fair assessment, but there are several boardgames, like BattleLore 1E and Memoir '44, which have wildly imbalanced scenarios. Their solution is that you play a scenario, then switch sides and play again. Despite the fact that you may play scenarios in which you will almost certainly lose, you can compare how much you lose compared to how much your opponent loses. So any game could be made competitive regardless of comp system or balance issues.

Age of Sigmar could work the same way except for two problems: 1) the games are generally longer and 2) Nobody better fething touch my painted minis. The first can be solved by using the School League rules, which are tailored to games less than an hour in length. There's really no answer for the second problem though

puree wrote:

Tournaments do not need points, it is not necessary that units are balanced with each other.

True. Tournaments don’t need points- not using them is fine, but is also missing out on a very useful tool. Often, it can make things harder for the designer.

Regarding the point that units need to be balanced with each other – that’s not true. And with respect, you are making a common mistake of equating ‘balance’ with ‘homogenous’. That said, whilst individual units can be better or worse than each other, and don’t need to be balanced against each other in those simplistic terms, they should be balanced against a universal and overarching governing structure. If you want to have an eco system that promotes and provides legitimate variety 'out of the box' and not via the indulgence of potential opponents. Units x and y can be completely different, with x being vastly more powerful than y. but the game system should reflect this. it should represent a far bigger investment in terms of your army’s composition. A higher points cost (or points by another name) is one way of representing that increased value.

puree wrote:

For years players have been playing with a system they regularly say is broken in that regard. That didn't make the tournies imbalanced as everyone works from the same set of parameters, each person decides whether he can make use of whatever unit. At the point you enter a tourney you are all in the same position.

You’re missing one key thing here. Now, its true that you can say ‘well, all you need to do is buy uber list 101 – simples’, because at the end of the day, we can all buy into that power build but that, in and of itself denies the concept of personal choice, and variety. What you refer to here at the end of the day isn’t ‘points’, but rather ‘points used poorly’. Which does make tournies imbalanced.

Its also a point worth noting that players have been playing with broken systems because for the longest time, that’s what was there. You play what your mates play. The alternative to 40k was fantasy, which was just as open to abuse. Its only in the last five years that a lot of other games have been allowed to flourish and thrive that you are seeing a big migration over to more balanced systems.

puree wrote:

Points have determined the size of the games not whether you will get a balanced game.

No.

In this regard, you are quite wrong. Or rather, not seeing the bigger picture and are very much seeing through a GW-prism. Points are a structural tool that offers two purposes. Size, as you point to here, and a measure of value, which you omit. Points in and of themselves are just abstract math. The use of points (along with other elements) is what makes a balanced game or not. Like any tool, they can be misused. There is a big difference in the use of points in Corvus Beli’s Infinity, Wyrd’s Malifaux and Privateer Press’ Warmachine when compared to GW and their games with regard to whether you get a balanced game. And often, points are just part of the overall picture. You can’t build a house with only a hammer after all.

In other words, balanced games use points effectively. So yes, points do determine whether you get a balanced game, or not. Using GW as a basepoint, or viewing this argument through the prism of GW tinted lenses just misinforms and skews ones perception.

puree wrote:

You can probably assume that anyone else entering with any serious intent to do well in the tourney will look for the OP units and combos that we all know GW will not worry about, yet has some how not stopped tourneys in the past. You will get reasonably balanced games if you are expecting to play against competitive players.

The game system also plays a role. You will find other games offer a far more ‘tournament friendly’ eco system.

puree wrote:

Equally what unit is balanced against others can depend heavily on what comp rules and game size you have. Only the TOs can decide those things, there's a staggering difference between 50 clanrats backed by the hero and 1 unit of 15 clan rats, but points for clan rats combined with game size may make one very hard to field in one tourney whilst being OP at another game size.

You’re assuming a completely open ended picture here. That’s often why governing structures, and things like unit caps and unit size limits exist. Like I said, balance doesn’t stop with the use of points. The resolution methods of the game in question may also mean that dealing with 50 clanrats or 15 is not as zero/sum as you claim. For example, in warmachine, most things are capable of killing most other things. Along with multi list formats, sideboards and multiple win conditions, there is always a way. In Infinity, with the crit mechanism, and the universal nature of the combatants (essentially, everything is human-ish scale), even a mook with a pistol has a decent chance of taking down the heavily armed and armoured multiwound elite soldier or mech.

puree wrote:

Points are useful for some styles of play, but they have little to do with tournament. Those wanting points for tournaments are not really after points for tourneys, they are after a specific style of game, that they then want to play in a tourney as well. There is nothing wrong with that desire, but it is somewhat disingenuous to say it is needed for tournaments as a generalization.

I think you are being disingenuous. Points have a lot to do with tournaments I’m afraid. And casual games. And pretty much everything in between. Points are a universal language and metric. They’re simply a very useful and universal structural tool that is applicable to TTGs in a big way as it allows for both definitions of size, and definitions of value. Which equates to a role across the board, if you pardon the pun. It’s also a bit dishonest and factually incorrect of you to claim those wanting points for tournaments aren’t after points for tournaments, but ‘something else’. Points at the end of the day are just a structural tool. I think its fairer to say that people want a well worked and robust points system that accurately reflects in-game value, is fair and reasonable, rather than open to abuse. Bear that in mind when talking about points and tournaments, along with the fact that GW have never done either well.

Are points needed for tournaments? Strictly speaking- no. But you will need other replacement mechanisms and tools that will need to step in and carry the weight. And all of these other replacement mechanisms are as open to fault and stress as points use and often simply breed in different sets of weaknesses, so in the end, I would argue that really, you don’t really gain anything by not using points as a structural tool. Dismissing their value is foolish. The alternative is not better.

In this regard, you are quite wrong. Or rather, not seeing the bigger picture and are very much seeing through a GW-prism.
...
Using GW as a basepoint, or viewing this argument through the prism of GW tinted lenses just misinforms and skews ones perception.

My view is to do with over 30 years (getting depressingly close to 40) of wargaming in primarily non GW games, with a good mix of both board and mini games. Apart from a period around 1st ed and then 6ed WFB the GW scene has been an occasional game at best for me. I suspect that is why I see all the arguments about points and tourney balance being made and wonder what people are on about because, contrary to what you claim, I am not looking through the GW prism.

I will, however, note that I am not opposed to points, I am neutral. As I posted elsewhere I would probably use them if they seemed OK, and may even pick up one of the user created systems at some point. Equally I have no issue with being without points.

I've been following this forum for some time now and just want to share with you what do i think about all this 'grabbing my toys and leaving" situation.
To start with, I believe that the possibly worst customer is someone who thinks of himself as a "true fan". Person who can cite whole pages from his favourite book, name all easter eggs in a fav. movie and so on. I'm afraid that WHFB tabletop had mostly true fans. people who had spent hundreds of $ on miniatures, lore books, sacrificed hours on painting and playing Warhammer. What all true fans have in common? They hate the word CHANGE. As soon as they feel cosy in their hobby kingdom they rage in a shitstorm whenever anyone wants to a) move forward with the plot b) change existing parts c) open for wider community.
You all know that WHFB was dieing. GW had little profit with it and something had to be done. Maybe they rushed a bit but COME ON! Most reactions where as if they all got diarrhea and somebody put a cork in them. Blind rage in all directions ended in leaving their favourite hobby, universe, game.
This is how I feel with all that situation. I've been a Warhammer and Warhammer 40 k fan for a few years now. Warhammer Invasion, Relic, Chaos in the Old World, Warhammer Conquest, console game Space Marine, few books. When I heard that they are moving forward with the plot and then saw what's going on I decided to buy AoS - my first tabletop game. I want GW to continue this universe.I've grown up enough not to abandon my fav. world just because somebody introduced Stormcast or killed Slaanesh. Come on guys. End yeah. I am aware of the changes in rules. Most of the guys however where like "round stands wtf? ain't touching this!"

They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The whole situation described in the End Times could have ended in two ways:
1. Empire ONCE AGAIN defends against the evilness of this world and we come back to scenario: chaos rising, gaining power, becoming threat, running home with tail between its legs. Roadrunner vs Coyote anyone?
or
2. blow everything up

 infinite_array wrote:


The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

I might be new to tabletop but defenitely not new to Warhammer. Or perhaps I will always be new to a true fan who is always right.

aryann wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The whole situation described in the End Times could have ended in two ways:
1. Empire ONCE AGAIN defends against the evilness of this world and we come back to scenario: chaos rising, gaining power, becoming threat, running home with tail between its legs. Roadrunner vs Coyote anyone?
or
2. blow everything up

In my defense, just rebasing my fantasy Skaven army will cost about 350 dollars. 700 small models, 20 large models, 10 cavalry models, 6 mostrous creature models, 1 gargantuan model.

I think I have a pretty good idea why I'm upset about round bases. not to mention I have around 600 redundant models.

so hey! I guess I only need to rebase around 150 models of different sizes!

I guess I could just leave them on square bases too. Oh! except GW really used to push "regiment bases" for rank and file troops, so the bulk of my troops are on bases 20mm by 100mm.

Lastly, Archaons' 40K counterpart has had, like 15 major crusades to end the world and those got stopped everytime. No chaos god has smacked him down for failing.

 infinite_array wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

It is important to empathize with the lifelong gamers who garner it, not all of them by default. I have found many die-hard gamers to be socially unpleasant to be around, and AoS has ran a lot of these people away from my local store. Good riddance.

A little about me. I bought my first box of skaven clanrats 18 years ago. I am 32 so that was over half my life ago. There have been years where I've played a lot, and years my armies collected dust. The problem with the game to thousands of casual players like me is, real life/other hobbies/work/etc oftentimes takes precedent, and if you don't fully dedicate yourself to the hobby you will find yourself scratching your head and thumbing through a bible of rules more than you will ever find yourself enjoying the game. Even die-hard, competitive power-gamers succumb to mind slips and brain farts. Now try playing as a guy who hasn't picked up the army in a long time, and there's a NEW rulebook, and perhaps someone has a new army book, and the two of you have to look up rules all day. If you fluently speak the language, this doesn't sound as much of a hassle as it is, but trust me, it is.

Going back to what I said earlier, the gamers who took Fantasy really seriously helped ruin an already niche market by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere for new players. My store was one of the few in the city that had several Fantasy players, and the last thing you want to experience as a casual player is a mouth-breathing powergamer standing on the table edge questioning why you performed certain actions, or why you chose certain magical items, or how you SHOULD have done this-instead-of-that.

Fantasy is extremely complicated and the rules are often contradictory, and you throw your hat into the ring only to get picked on by powergamers who seemingly have an exorbitant amount of their self-esteem resting on it. So in this regard, I too am guilty of the "I've got mine" attitude. AoS has culled the herd and now the remaining players are good-natured ones who play for casual fun, and for enthusiastic newcomers.

 SolidOakie wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The only thing worse than a "true fan" is a "new fan" who has zero empathy for the people that came before him. It's a literal case of "I've got mine" attitude.

It is important to empathize with the lifelong gamers who garner it, not all of them by default. I have found many die-hard gamers to be socially unpleasant to be around, and AoS has ran a lot of these people away from my local store. Good riddance.

A little about me. I bought my first box of skaven clanrats 18 years ago. I am 32 so that was over half my life ago. There have been years where I've played a lot, and years my armies collected dust. The problem with the game to thousands of casual players like me is, real life/other hobbies/work/etc oftentimes takes precedent, and if you don't fully dedicate yourself to the hobby you will find yourself scratching your head and thumbing through a bible of rules more than you will ever find yourself enjoying the game. Even die-hard, competitive power-gamers succumb to mind slips and brain farts. Now try playing as a guy who hasn't picked up the army in a long time, and there's a NEW rulebook, and perhaps someone has a new army book, and the two of you have to look up rules all day. If you fluently speak the language, this doesn't sound as much of a hassle as it is, but trust me, it is.

Going back to what I said earlier, the gamers who took Fantasy really seriously helped ruin an already niche market by creating an unwelcoming atmosphere for new players. My store was one of the few in the city that had several Fantasy players, and the last thing you want to experience as a casual player is a mouth-breathing powergamer standing on the table edge questioning why you performed certain actions, or why you chose certain magical items, or how you SHOULD have done this-instead-of-that.

Fantasy is extremely complicated and the rules are often contradictory, and you throw your hat into the ring only to get picked on by powergamers who seemingly have an exorbitant amount of their self-esteem resting on it. So in this regard, I too am guilty of the "I've got mine" attitude. AoS has culled the herd and now the remaining players are good-natured ones who play for casual fun, and for enthusiastic newcomers.

Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

It's also really hard to be characterized as a powergaming TFG mouth-breather with no social skills just because I liked and played WHFB and don't find AoS as a good replacement.
The only thing I ever pushed onto new and old players alike was to get their models painted. I also kept my shop clean, well lit, enforced a policy of no bullying, and ran both tournaments, escalation leagues, and campaigns of all point costs ranges so all types of army sizes and play styles were welcome.

Do you think it was the general culture of WHFB battles that was so toxic? or just specific game stores? Is that something that's just caused by tournaments?

 pox wrote:


Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

It's also really hard to be characterized as a powergaming TFG mouth-breather with no social skills just because I liked and played WHFB and don't find AoS as a good replacement.
The only thing I ever pushed onto new and old players alike was to get their models painted. I also kept my shop clean, well lit, enforced a policy of no bullying, and ran both tournaments, escalation leagues, and campaigns of all point costs ranges so all types of army sizes and play styles were welcome.

Do you think it was the general culture of WHFB battles that was so toxic? or just specific game stores? Is that something that's just caused by tournaments?

Oh yeah man I can definitely see why they would be upset. I do think it is selfish on their part, though. A business needs to appease the masses, not tailor their product to appease the (albeit faithful) niche that actively shoo's away new players.. I have previously described it in beer terms, since most of us enjoy beer. I can understand a stout drinker being upset that their favorite beer company stopped making stouts and started making pilsners to reach a broader market. Just realize you are a percentage, not the whole, of a niche market that would surely die if changes favoring the masses weren't put into place. It's AoS or BUST. If Fantasy was accessible, if it sold well, if (some) of the players didn't take it so seriously, then the last thing GW would do is change the formula.

And I don't characterize you as TFG, I don't know you. All I know is the people I have played with, and in front of. And as far as culture goes, all I wanted was to be welcomed in the store,and to play a fun game that both players enjoyed. Sometimes I got that and sometimes I didn't. The only concrete conclusion I can draw after AoS is the people I didn't "enjoy" very much were the ones most devastated by its release, and the guys I had the most fun with welcomed the change. I never hit the tourney scene because I am not that type of player.

 pox wrote:

Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

IMO, the culled part of the herd is only upset because they've spent a large amount of money on figures for which they won't get their regular rules updates (you know, to make it official). There is IMO no certain connection to the amount of time spent playing, though there are opinions that tournament players, that used to play the most, are also crying out the loudest. Players with smaller collections and those with small investments will most likely adapt quickly enough. GW is not entitled to release further products to appease those that have bought a certain amount of items.

For example (if you cannot tell from my signature), FFG recently canceled CoC. It was a very rich game, run for more than 12 years and was certainly my favorite among the LCG/CCGs I have played. Card games are played on a scale that mini-games just can't compare with (your store may be an exception to the rule, I cannot tell for certain). They are faster, more addictive, more oriented at collectors and can induce the same feeling of attachment in a person as a mini-game. Yet when it was cancelled there was no loud growl of defiance, no burning of entire collections - just a sad sigh and comments that " her time has come". It was known for some time that the game was going dead as it was known for WH. The difference is that while WH clients may have spent thousands upon thousands of pounds for minis, CoC fans spent much less (I have approximately 2/3 of everything printed and have spent no more than 1000$). Clients spending large amounts of money tend to be a bit snobby and demand that, after you provide the service they paid for, you should also wipe their ass.

TLDR IMO some WHFB players that feel outrageously alienated may feel that way because of a subconscious feeling that GW will owe(lol auto-correct changed this to owl ) them life long support because they were at some time bigger than the average guy buyers.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 pox wrote:

Well, can you not at least see that the part of the herd that got culled might be a wee bit upset over it?

IMO, the culled part of the herd is only upset because they've spent a large amount of money on figures for which they won't get their regular rules updates (you know, to make it official).

It's also a tad bit difficult to watch the setting you liked put out to pasture.

On a farm.

Upstate.

Honest, there's lots of room for it to run around...

Yes, I know it's still there to read, and no, I don't feel that GW owes me anything. Then again, I don't owe them, either. They've stopped making a product I enjoy, I'll stop buying it, fair play - but people are going to be disappointed when something they like is canceled. That's a fact, and the earlier shots GW took at their old setting (Averland is dead. Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn, etc., etc.) didn't exactly help smooth things over.

WHFB was around for more than thirty years. That's not just a monetary investment, that's a time investment, with a lot of fond memories.

 Spinner wrote:

It's also a tad bit difficult to watch the setting you liked put out to pasture.

You mean it is difficult for you not to get your next re-printing of the armybooks fluff, crulebook fluff or is it the loss of FB novellas and the finishing line that the old world was destroyed. The last is a finishing line to a setting that was stagnant anyway and of the latter only the novellas are worth mourning for (depends though - I didn't like those that I tried to read)

 Spinner wrote:

WHFB was around for more than thirty years. That's not just a monetary investment, that's a time investment, with a lot of fond memories.

Time investment IMO is second to monetary investment. I have spend more time as of now with CoC than with FB and have fond memories as well, but the monetary investment is lower thus my time was well spent. However should it have been reversed I wouldn't be so happy. Imagine what would happen if Wizards go on a sales decline and decide to reboot magic (we have seen these in fact and it was ugly) - the storm would blow the internet away. Magic is the most expensive and most competitive of all CCGs.

There was a local discussion with some people that had MASSIVE collections and maybe played one game per year - they literally flipped over when they learned that their yearly planned game wasn't going to be official. Their time spent/investment ratio was much lower than other people that played it much more, but had smaller collections, and yet those same people felt like GW was obliged keeping the game the way they knew it. And this is where it gets really difficult for me to grasp - why, given one's investment becomes more valuable (as you don't need to pay for the new game) should he be angry for the death of the game that he knew was dying. The only reason I can think of is that he feels that GW owns him continuous support for the game frozen in time at the moment when he bought it the most. I may be wrong - it's just a late evening bone box rattle after all

Ofc all the fresh AoS players of today will gracefuly accept their game's fate when it inevitably bites the dust 2 years from now. They're the new, better men.

Well, Jebus said that you need new people for a new law (new vessels for new wine or something like that) . But don't worry - I feel like I've already overstepped the line a little so I'll just go and burn my dead card and fb collections in honour of the searing pain that FB left behind

Countless starter box Stormcast Eternals will burn in basements around the world.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ofc all the fresh AoS players of today will gracefuly accept their game's fate when it inevitably bites the dust 2 years from now. They're the new, better men.

Haha! You are right. If this were to happen I don't know what I would do. I think (hope) I would continue to buy the rage-quitters models on Ebay but who knows. I know I would never sell my own, since I've had them since puberty, at least the skaven anyway. But that would never happen!!







Right guys?












Right?

 pox wrote:

aryann wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
They didn't move the plot forward, they blew it up and made something very different. You don't see how that could cause friction?

The whole situation described in the End Times could have ended in two ways:
1. Empire ONCE AGAIN defends against the evilness of this world and we come back to scenario: chaos rising, gaining power, becoming threat, running home with tail between its legs. Roadrunner vs Coyote anyone?
or
2. blow everything up

In my defense, just rebasing my fantasy Skaven army will cost about 350 dollars. 700 small models, 20 large models, 10 cavalry models, 6 mostrous creature models, 1 gargantuan model.

I think I have a pretty good idea why I'm upset about round bases. not to mention I have around 600 redundant models.

so hey! I guess I only need to rebase around 150 models of different sizes!

I guess I could just leave them on square bases too. Oh! except GW really used to push "regiment bases" for rank and file troops, so the bulk of my troops are on bases 20mm by 100mm.

Lastly, Archaons' 40K counterpart has had, like 15 major crusades to end the world and those got stopped everytime. No chaos god has smacked him down for failing.

If you bought sabot bases or new round bases from someone other than GW, it could be done a lot cheaper.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 pox wrote:

In my defense, just rebasing my fantasy Skaven army will cost about 350 dollars. 700 small models, 20 large models, 10 cavalry models, 6 mostrous creature models, 1 gargantuan model.

I think I have a pretty good idea why I'm upset about round bases. not to mention I have around 600 redundant models.

so hey! I guess I only need to rebase around 150 models of different sizes!

I guess I could just leave them on square bases too. Oh! except GW really used to push "regiment bases" for rank and file troops, so the bulk of my troops are on bases 20mm by 100mm.

Lastly, Archaons' 40K counterpart has had, like 15 major crusades to end the world and those got stopped everytime. No chaos god has smacked him down for failing.

If you bought sabot bases or new round bases from someone other than GW, it could be done a lot cheaper.

I recommend Litko Aero. They have a huge range of bases and can make any custom size you might want.

Spent the whole day at my local GW today, a couple of 10 year olds played a game of AoS and the manager was legitimately shocked that people where playing that and not 40k.

I think what legitimately confuses me is how some people here keep saying that this new ruleset is not for "true fans" but for a wider demographic. What about these new rules and setting are better written and sculpted to pull in new players? Free rules are nice, but most of the free rules armies arent being pushed right now. It's all sigmarines and bloodbloods, both having 50+$ codexes and very expensive models outside the starter box. So what actually is happening is that the game is about the same cost as it would have been, just with fewer models. What incentive does lil Timmy or older Carl have to get into this new hobby when they see the 50$+ dollar codexes and boxes of 5 shiney knights (plus costs for paint and knives and files and glue and brushes)? In my local area the only way to encourage new players beyond them liking an army is to show them the cheapest way to get those supplies. In a place with little to no fans of the game, which is sounding like a lot of the US but less so in the UK and Europe as a whole? Less new fans, and a lot of missing old fans.

Codexes provide fluff, formations, and battleplans. Unit warscrolls are still free.

edit: So I could buy a box of Ironbreakers(50$), and a Dragon Slayer (21$), build 5 Ironbreakers and 5 Irondrakes from my box and have a little army.
My friend could buy a box of Skaven Clanrats(35$) and a Grey Seer (22$) and get 2 units of 10 rats.

That's ~70$ investment and we both have playable and expandable armies, because all of the rules are available totally free.

That is far, far less than WHFB ever was. Most definitely not the same startup cost.

Rihgu wrote:
Codexes provide fluff, formations, and battleplans. Unit warscrolls are still free.

edit: So I could buy a box of Ironbreakers(50$), and a Dragon Slayer (21$), build 5 Ironbreakers and 5 Irondrakes from my box and have a little army.
My friend could buy a box of Skaven Clanrats(35$) and a Grey Seer (22$) and get 2 units of 10 rats.

That's ~70$ investment and we both have playable and expandable armies, because all of the rules are available totally free.

That is far, far less than WHFB ever was. Most definitely not the same startup cost.

Battle for Skull Pass was...what, $45? If you split it with someone and each got an army book...I can't remember if the 7th edition books were $20 or $25, but either way, that adds up to $40-$50 each. There's a small rulebook to share, 73 models for the goblin player, 33 models for the dwarf player, and some nifty scenery, along with the standard dice/templates/whippy sticks for when you catch your opponent nudging a unit.

The whippy sticks even had numbers on them, so you could use them to measure in a pinch!

Admittedly, those are small and unoptimized armies, but they both had enough for a 500 point army, if you worked it out. Playable AND expandable!

 Spinner wrote:

Battle for Skull Pass was...what, $45?

I have to admit that I didn't believe you, so I went and looked it up. It is truly amazing to me that GW ever released anything of that size at that price point - and only 8 years ago! Island of blood cost at least twice that and had half as many figures.

By that same logic, two guys can split the current starter and pay nearly the same amount of money (inflation included) for half the models and still have two very functional armies. The current models are a lot bigger so let's say you get the same quantity of plastic. I really can't say that, for its time, one starter is better than the other. The downside is that both players don't get to read their respective armybooks with the AoS starter. I'd say both ways of starting the hobby (then and now), by means of the starter, provide similar gains and are of similar cost.