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.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I remember readining a post on BoLS where people were asked whether they think that Age of Sigmar hurt 40k through generating distrust and hate or that it had no impact on 40k apart from summer of Sigmar dry spell. To my suprise, there were tons of comments saying that it did a lot of hurt and afair exactly one claiming it didn't, I thought it's only me and other 3 foaming at the mouth haters heh.

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

More than a few people in the 40k sub expressed a fear that 40k would get an Age of Emperor when AoS hit, and when you question the longevity of your game like that your buying habits inevitably suffer.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

I've seen little evidence that 40k was actually hurt in any noteworthy way by the death of WHFB. I think there was a lot of empty posturing online mixed with some worried speculation about the AoS-ification of 40k, but I don't think it made too much of a difference with those who actually played the game regularly.

(Side note: It's a Colombian Necktie. The Italian mafia were bad, but they weren't South American drug lord bad)

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

I've seen little evidence that 40k was actually hurt in any noteworthy way by the death of WHFB. I think there was a lot of empty posturing online mixed with some worried speculation about the AoS-ification of 40k, but I don't think it made too much of a difference with those who actually played the game regularly.

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about increasing the chances of brand disloyalty happening or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers had in GW, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about generating brand disloyalty or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

The ''shadow of AoSification'' has come over 40k players also here. Some bought the AoS starter kit to see how the game works. Today, only some of the proper Fantasy players play AoS games from time to time. Otherwise, its dead here.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about increasing the chances of brand disloyalty happening or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers had in GW, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

Yeah, but is the brand disloyalty higher, or does it just take a different form? Most of the grumblings I hear from 40k players is about how so-and-so army hasn't had a codex update in years, that GW doesn't balance their games, that GW price gouges them, that GW doesn't listen to them, that GW closed their favorite FLGS with their business practices, and so on. Is AoSification really that much more threatening than any of their numerous other complaints, or is it just one more piece of straw for the haystack?

I mean, I don't think I've ever seen less trust or affection for a corporate entity, except maybe in the cases where fracking caused tap water to catch on fire. More people like Monsanto than GW. Gamers would rather trust Bill Cosby with their sister than Games Workshop with their wallet. I don't think it's possible for gamers to hate GW more than they already do.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Exactly - the advent of AoS also hurt 40k (in a way, of course) by pretty much showing 40k customers that no GW brand is above getting a Sicilian Necktie.

I've seen little evidence that 40k was actually hurt in any noteworthy way by the death of WHFB. I think there was a lot of empty posturing online mixed with some worried speculation about the AoS-ification of 40k, but I don't think it made too much of a difference with those who actually played the game regularly.

(Side note: It's a Colombian Necktie. The Italian mafia were bad, but they weren't South American drug lord bad)

The comments were exactly about people disgusted/ dissapointed with GW leaving 40k for other games so yeah it's your anecdote vs theirs except that the general positive to negative ratio is like 1:100 lol. But the internet loves to whine and there surely is a hidden underground network of Age of Sigmar players where the first rule of the club is that you don't talk about the club. I need to check ww2 bunkers around, they must be there.

For what it's worth, I stopped buying 40k because of Age of Simar and it wasn't a boycott or sth, I just lost heart to it. And I had some to buy list and had been spending $100 - 200 equivalent monthly for at least half a year before AoS hit.

I doubt AoS hurt 40K directly. It has already been hurt enough since 6th edition by GW themselves, who have been making the same kind of changes to the game and models that they did with WHFB. We all know how that worked out.

Personally I would welcome an AoS version of 40K because it would be cheap and easier to play.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I would welcome an AoS version of 40K because it would be cheap and easier to play.

You say that now....

No, I really would. I stopped playing 40K in 6th edition due to rules and prices.

A free AoS version would let me get some use out of my old Tyranids and Tau without having to spend £110 on rulebooks.

If they kept vehicles having vulnerable sides/ rear and cover mechanics, imo AoS esque simplification of 40k wouldn't be that bad as far as depth goes. 40k is already quite shallow and simple at its core, not a complete bottom like AoS ofc but it would be easier to preserve its depth with few simple rules.

Problem would be if they removed point costs, also people love their codieces and fiddling with equipment/ weapons/ artifacts on model level. Anyway I don't think GW is going to do it, too much risk.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I doubt AoS hurt 40K directly. It has already been hurt enough since 6th edition by GW themselves, who have been making the same kind of changes to the game and models that they did with WHFB. We all know how that worked out.

I wouldn't think that as well but people were posting stories of entire groups going feth that gak and switching to other games. Idk might be all bs but it's easy to believe for me given how AoS killed my lifelong nostalgia and love for GW products over just few days. The way they cleared out any doubt about their stance on gaming could be enough to put many people off of their products.

A free codex thing like AoS for 40k would get me on board, as it stands I only use alternative killteam rules. Dex prices are something I have no interest investing on.

So AoS does really changed the formula for fantasy and its a nice refreshing way to handle the rules which allows both vets and new people to spend the coins only on the models if they wish so.

Facebook for AOS is really busy!

Yes I agree, I would looooove free rules. As it stands my Skitarii are more likely to see a game in Necromunda than they ever are in actual 40k because of the barrier cost with rulebooks.

Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

The alternative to codieces would be warscrolls. GW is not going to give you a book for free lol. The problem is, with 40k warscrolls customisation would go out of the window and that could make a lot of people angry.

I like the idea of codieces as in great looking book with art and rules but those are much too expensive atm and the latest art is mostly cheap videogamey cg crap straight from deviant art or sth. Bad art and bad rules kind of defeat the purpose of it heh

So yeah bring on 40k AoS! Not really though because GW would manage to feth it up really bad anyway like they did with AoS, the less they touch atm the better.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

3 days ago? Doesn't seem that serious lol.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

List building in AoS is an issue in the same way that passing the ball is an issue in WMH.
List building isn't a 'thing' in AoS. It's not "should", it's "what people are used to in other games and expect to encounter".
The list forum has been pretty dead for months. Vanilla AoS doesn't use lists, and until there's a clear 'winner' out of the comp systems not a lot of point of seeing what people think of your list.

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

List building in AoS is an issue in the same way that passing the ball is an issue in WMH.
List building isn't a 'thing' in AoS. It's not "should", it's "what people are used to in other games and expect to encounter".
The list forum has been pretty dead for months. Vanilla AoS doesn't use lists, and until there's a clear 'winner' out of the comp systems not a lot of point of seeing what people think of your list.

You are, of course, correct. List building would only be a thing if AoS had an intented competitive side. As AoS (played as "intended" of course) clearly doesn't, list building and its discussions are, essentially, moot points.

I've spent a lot less on GW products since AOS was released. To be honest, I was planning on boycotting them, but now, the frustration has mostly passed. The main reason I bought less from them is that I had no interest in their recent relaeses, but that will change dramatically when/if they relaese the genestealet cult boxset.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I've spent a lot less on GW products since AOS was released. To be honest, I was planning on boycotting them, but now, the frustration has mostly passed. The main reason I bought less from them is that I had no interest in their recent relaeses, but that will change dramatically when/if they relaese the genestealet cult boxset.

I don't think boycotting GW is a good idea, and I'd never go in for that myself. Personally I think this is the better option. Don't not buy GW on principal, but look critically at what they release, keep in mind the quality of the game the models are for, and because of that I've found myself buying basically nothing.

 streetsamurai wrote:
I've spent a lot less on GW products since AOS was released. To be honest, I was planning on boycotting them, but now, the frustration has mostly passed. The main reason I bought less from them is that I had no interest in their recent relaeses, but that will change dramatically when/if they relaese the genestealet cult boxset.

Conversely I've spent more, because of the Lizard Men £50 starter set deal. I'm not going to play AoS with these figures, though.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Free rules are great, but GW have a serious problem with good ideas but terrible implementation recently.

List building should be an important part of the game as it is in 40k or other games like WMH.
But list building in AoS is an issue. Have a look at the section of AoS Army Lists, the last comment was at Jan. 13.

List building in AoS is an issue in the same way that passing the ball is an issue in WMH.
List building isn't a 'thing' in AoS. It's not "should", it's "what people are used to in other games and expect to encounter".
The list forum has been pretty dead for months. Vanilla AoS doesn't use lists, and until there's a clear 'winner' out of the comp systems not a lot of point of seeing what people think of your list.

You are, of course, correct. List building would only be a thing if AoS had an intented competitive side. As AoS (played as "intended" of course) clearly doesn't, list building and its discussions are, essentially, moot points.

Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Less interesting to players whose main interest is list building, but for a lot of people they don't care or even prefer it without.

Personally I think it would have been better to give AoS a basic power level system of some kind, like the various fan productions are trying to implement, but not because I find list building a particularly interesting pastime.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Be careful about assuming that your person preferences represent the will of all gamers. Not having list building may actually make a game more appealing to a wider range of potential gamers, but you'd never know it if you only interacted with a small group of gamers with shared interests. You'd ultimately end up making it look like you claim ownership over wargaming and that anybody who disagrees with you is not welcome - the end result being that those potential gamers never become actual gamers. Which I guess would then mean that you actually do speak for all the gamers. Woah. Self fulfilling prophecies blow my mind.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Just to make things a bit clearer - I am not saying that the advent of AoS caused any 40k players to leave or stop playing, At the most that would only happen if the customer was also a FB player and felt so betrayed/disgusted that he decided to quit all GW games. In this case I am talking about increasing the chances of brand disloyalty happening or at least damaging the trust of 40k customers had in GW, and I think it's quite noticeable that the "shadow of AoSification" has come over 40k players, regardless of them welcoming such changes or not.

Yeah, but is the brand disloyalty higher, or does it just take a different form? Most of the grumblings I hear from 40k players is about how so-and-so army hasn't had a codex update in years, that GW doesn't balance their games, that GW price gouges them, that GW doesn't listen to them, that GW closed their favorite FLGS with their business practices, and so on. Is AoSification really that much more threatening than any of their numerous other complaints, or is it just one more piece of straw for the haystack?

I mean, I don't think I've ever seen less trust or affection for a corporate entity, except maybe in the cases where fracking caused tap water to catch on fire. More people like Monsanto than GW. Gamers would rather trust Bill Cosby with their sister than Games Workshop with their wallet. I don't think it's possible for gamers to hate GW more than they already do.

Hyperbole aside, I think there is a lot more water in that well. at some point, people will become angry enough to stop buying.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Which makes the game definitely less interesting for gamers!

Definitely ? That is one hell of a sweeping statement, with no obvious evidence to back it up.

I am a gamer. Lack of points is in no way making it less interesting, it makes it more interesting.

It may make it less interesting to competitive gamers who need some way of saying we had equal armies so my win was down to my skill at list building/playing. But don't lump all gamers in the competitive subset.

Going back to what how many times do you have to play sigmar before you can make a review, i played it 3 times a week since it came out and since then i've tried all the points systems, i've tried all the player made FAQ's and errata's and ive definitely tried all the scenario's in every book and the conclusion is that its still gak!

My local GW hasnt sold any thing for age of sigmar since november and on a whole except the xmas virgins most stores were down 60% down in sales from last year, oh dear what has gone wrong? commence operation knee-jerk in earnest!

Hettar wrote:
Going back to what how many times do you have to play sigmar before you can make a review, i played it 3 times a week since it came out and since then i've tried all the points systems, i've tried all the player made FAQ's and errata's and ive definitely tried all the scenario's in every book and the conclusion is that its still gak!

My local GW hasnt sold any thing for age of sigmar since november and on a whole except the xmas virgins most stores were down 60% down in sales from last year, oh dear what has gone wrong? commence operation knee-jerk in earnest!

Just curious, why did you play it 3 times a week since release if you hate it?

Just love fantasy in general so i persevered as i could, trying every different angle i could find.

Hettar wrote:
Just love fantasy in general so i persevered as i could, trying every different angle i could find.

This is very admirable. Some games can grow on people, but many times they (the games) aren't given a second chance. Kudos for sticking with it long enough to find out if there was something for you there.