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.

I agree with all of your points here Matt. I loved 8th edition, but AOS is like a breath of fresh air, 8th had become stale for me as well.

MongooseMatt wrote:
All my favourite characters are gone!
Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).

Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.

Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…

We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.

Manfred, for example, has just popped up...

Just putting it out there but a ton of characters we simply don't know if they are still around or not, and that in itself is a huge problem.

MongooseMatt wrote:
There are no tactics in Age of Sigmar – just dice rolling
You have not got to grips with the game. If you really believe there are no tactics present, you have made that judgement too quickly. I’ll give some brief examples;

Spoiler:

Age of Sigmar is a very mobile game, with a lot of movement and units exerting ‘zones’ of control (effectively, everyone has a 3” area around them that ‘traps’ enemy models). This makes movement very important, and leads to the ability to bait enemy models and block their own movement.

The randomisation of who goes first in a turn (and the possibility that you can have two turns in a row) is a big deal, and it will catch you out when you first play. However, once you get a few games under your belt, you start to figure out how to compensate for it. Basically, you can no longer march up your rock hard close combat unit and be ready for a charge – there is every chance you will be the one charged, and you need to pre-plan how you will counter that. Pre-planning is a basic definition of the use of tactics…

Another example; retreating. You don’t see this done too often in AoS, and that is because it can be quite hard to pull off. When you retreat a unit out of combat, you are basically ensuring it will not fight that turn and, even if you run, it is probable that the enemy will simply charge again and catch up with you. The trick here is to feed the enemy someone else, tying them up (remember the zones of control!).

For example, your elite archers get charged – this is bad news because even though they can theoretically shoot in close combat, many dedicated ranged units get bonuses to firing if the enemy is not right in front of them. So, if you stay there, you will be firing less effectively, and likely getting torn up by a unit that can fight well in close combat. If you just retreat, the enemy will soon catch up and finish you off, and barely miss a beat in doing it.

However, if you retreat your archer unit, and then charge in with your cavalry, the enemy will be unable to follow up, and your archers will be able to reposition themselves and keep firing in the next round.

This sounds simple, but with everything else going on in a turn, it is not always that easy to pull off.

And I have not even touched upon the synergies between units which are far, far more important than they are in Fantasy Battle or 40k…

I get what you're trying to say there. I really do. I think the problem is that most people aren't literally complaining that there is zero tactics and we all might as well play snakes and ladders, people are complaining that it is tactically very shallow. All those examples you brought up there are really just screening and threat range, which are themselves rather basic. And the two turns in a row thing is just bad, yes you can plan for it but planning for something decided by a single dice roll like that is not a part of 'tactics'. You should be planning for what your opponent will be trying to do to disrupt your plans.

MongooseMatt wrote:
There is no balance in Age of Sigmar
There is, but it is in your hands.

Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.

This feels more like a band aid than an actual justification for it. I'd put it to you that those community points systems should not have to exist because, even if points aren't being used (historicals often don't use them), there should be some way to play a fair game out of the box with only the rules provided from the actual manufacturer. Timmy and Billy getting their first AoS models together aren't going to know about the community comp and they aren't going to know what is better than what until after a lot of trial and error.

MongooseMatt wrote:
But they could have added a points system, and all those ‘narrative’ gamers could have just ignored them – then everyone would have got what they wanted
This is true (leaving aside the benefits of community-pointing for a moment). However, there is another problem and, speaking as a games designer, this is a very real one.

If you put a points-based system in, 99% of all players will use it to the exclusion of all else. Yes, they could just ignore points. But they won’t. Gamers just won’t.

Doesn't that just suggest that 99% of all players want a point system?

MongooseMatt wrote:
“The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast”
Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.

But the game does in fact give the sudden death advantage to the 65 sigmarines over the 100 goblins doesn't it?

MongooseMatt wrote:
Games Workshop does not care about gamers
Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.

However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GW HQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.

You know I don't doubt this, I really don't. But it doesn't show at all thanks to the higher ups policies of never interacting with your fanbase ever (and those little jems we get like "our customers favourite part of the hobby is buying stuff from us"). I am sure there are people inside GW really excited about the game but they are not jumping on the official podcast to talk fluff, their painters are not jumping on their own forum to give painting tips, and they are not getting on board with the convention circuit to chat to their fans.
You have to admit that from the outside they are a very cold, faceless kind of company compared to the likes of PP, CB, Mantic and the like.

Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!

No it really couldn't have.

This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)

If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).

But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.

TheCustomLime wrote:

LucidNinja wrote:
Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.

I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.

Defending his opinion from what? An endless stream of devoted contrarians positing strawman fallacies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominem?

Basically every thread has gone the same way:
"I like AoS, it does these things in a way that I think works pretty well."
"Well you're wrong."
"But all I'm saying is that it works well for this way that I want to play, so maybe other people might like that as well."
"No you're just wrong. The game doesn't do what I want so clearly I'm right. Full stop. Anyone else's preferences for their hobbies be damned."

And then it just devolves into both sides throwing ad hominem, trying to pass opinion as fact, and generally making the community look like donkey hats.

Yes, Jack Flask, from people who disagree with him. You know, like every topic in a discussion forum?

If you have problems with people's conduct click the yellow triangle.

I also like how you painted the not Pro-AoS crowd as "contrarians". As if the only reason they don't like Age of Sigmar is just so that they can go against the crowd. Way to dismiss the opposition!

Jack Flask wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!

No it really couldn't have.

This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)

If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).

But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.

TheCustomLime wrote:

LucidNinja wrote:
Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.

I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.

Defending his opinion from what? An endless stream of devoted contrarians positing strawman fallacies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominem?

Basically every thread has gone the same way:
"I like AoS, it does these things in a way that I think works pretty well."
"Well you're wrong."
"But all I'm saying is that it works well for this way that I want to play, so maybe other people might like that as well."
"No you're just wrong. The game doesn't do what I want so clearly I'm right. Full stop. Anyone else's preferences for their hobbies be damned."

And then it just devolves into both sides throwing ad hominem, trying to pass opinion as fact, and generally making the community look like donkey hats.

So the game's not perfect, but if we say that we're mindless haterz.

TheCustomLime wrote:Yes, Jack Flask, from people who disagree with him. You know, like every topic in a discussion forum?

If you have problems with people's conduct click the yellow triangle.

My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother. They've demonstrated that they don't care actually care about peoples conduct or effort to contribute so long as they put on a facade of politeness. Its the Southern US "..., God bless her soul" gak in another form.

I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.

We all know the answer to that, because the majority of people who don't like or have no interest in other games, have the tact to not post about things they don't like.

Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.

And this is just some peoples hobby.

I also like how you painted the not Pro-AoS crowd as "contrarians". As if the only reason they don't like Age of Sigmar is just so that they can go against the crowd. Way to dismiss the opposition!

When you see the same faces show up in every thread that tries to discuss the game in general, just so that they can trot out the same tired arguments, yeah I'd call that being a contrarian. Its not like they post any other time in the board to contribute. Then they accuse everyone posting about the ways they utilize the rules as being unnecessarily positive. As if liking AoS basically makes you a shill, con man, or liar.

Oh and if anyone expresses for a desire for productive threads on this board like every other? Well, they're an advocate of censorship and just want an overly positive hugbox.

MWHistorian wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!

No it really couldn't have.

This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)

If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).

But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.

TheCustomLime wrote:

LucidNinja wrote:
Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.

I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.

Defending his opinion from what? An endless stream of devoted contrarians positing strawman fallacies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominem?

Basically every thread has gone the same way:
"I like AoS, it does these things in a way that I think works pretty well."
"Well you're wrong."
"But all I'm saying is that it works well for this way that I want to play, so maybe other people might like that as well."
"No you're just wrong. The game doesn't do what I want so clearly I'm right. Full stop. Anyone else's preferences for their hobbies be damned."

And then it just devolves into both sides throwing ad hominem, trying to pass opinion as fact, and generally making the community look like donkey hats.

So the game's not perfect, but if we say that we're mindless haterz.

Well if you are going to go to a board about something you don't like, reading threads about something you don't like, posting about how you don't like something that you've been claiming not to like for over three months now? I'll let you conclude.

There is no right or wrong answer about AoS. If you don't like it and have no intention of liking it then why not move on? There are plenty of other games out there, is it really so bad that the people who enjoy AoS have such a game and want a community to go with it?

Jack Flask wrote:
Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.

You realize that evolution vs creationism debates are very popular and, since people are debating instead of yelling (almost like Dakka rules apply there too) it actually serves a valuable purpose.

Jack Flask wrote:

TheCustomLime wrote:Yes, Jack Flask, from people who disagree with him. You know, like every topic in a discussion forum?

If you have problems with people's conduct click the yellow triangle.

My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother. They've demonstrated that they don't care actually care about peoples conduct or effort to contribute so long as they put on a facade of politeness. Its the Southern US "..., God bless her soul" gak in another form.

I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.

We all know the answer to that, because the majority of people who don't like or have no interest in other games, have the tact to not post about things they don't like.

Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.

And this is just some peoples hobby.

I can understand your frustration with the state of the AoS board. I do think some people in the Anti-AoS crowd can be very rude at times and do seem to come on just to piss all over people who like the game.

Let me just make this absolutely clear. I like Age of Sigmar. I think it's a dumb little game to facilitate a mock battle between two collections of awesome miniatures. I respect that. I enjoy that kind of simplicity. If I wanted a tactically deep game to pit my wits against my opponent's I would go play WM/H, X-wing or Infinity. It's same relationship I have with 40k. I enjoy the game despite it's deep, deep flaws.

But here is my problem with the pro-AoS crowd: A lot of them act like there is nothing wrong with the game. I think that is what draws a lot of vitriol to these boards: the denial of the most ardent defenders of this game. I mean, most of the OP's argument boils down to "There's nothing wrong with Age of Sigmar as long as you ignore the problems" and people are responding with "Great post!" or "Well said!". It's like they'll agree to anything posted as long as it's positive. Frankly I can't blame them. It must be tough being an Age of Sigmar fan on the internet with how much flak the game gets. Any bit of positivity must be nice to read just for a change. Surely, though, you are doing a disservice to the game if you just happily agree with blind optimism. Blind optimism is just as bad as blind vitriol, imo.

I would've agreed with the OP if he said that "Okay, Age of Sigmar may have it's problems, but here are some solutions to help you have a good time". Maybe I'm wrong about the OP and he does recognize that AoS has problems but he just doesn't think that these are necessarily issues.

I also like how you painted the not Pro-AoS crowd as "contrarians". As if the only reason they don't like Age of Sigmar is just so that they can go against the crowd. Way to dismiss the opposition!

When you see the same faces show up in every thread that tries to discuss the game in general, just so that they can trot out the same tired arguments, yeah I'd call that being a contrarian. Its not like they post any other time in the board to contribute. Then they accuse everyone posting about the ways they utilize the rules as being unnecessarily positive. As if liking AoS basically makes you a shill, con man, or liar.

Oh and if anyone expresses for a desire for productive threads on this board like every other? Well, they're an advocate of censorship and just want an overly positive hugbox.

Again, I think the problem isn't that people are trying to make the game work. I think the problem a lot of these posters have is that the pro-AoS crowd just denies any problems the game has. Though you are right that some do just like to jump on the "Let's bash Age of Sigmar!" band wagon for some easy 'internet points'.

Jack Flask wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!

No it really couldn't have.
This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)
If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).
But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.

You contradict yourself.

So the game has flaws and has a lot of people tweaking and chomping things, but there really us no way it could have been better? You know... Flaws wtc.

Matt - thanks for taking the time to go through and respond to a few of my counterpoints. I can't say I agree with you, but you absolutely seem like someone I'd have a blast playing a game with.

Just, you know. Not Age of Sigmar.

MongooseMatt wrote:


Those are fair enough points, but whatever was going to happen after the End Times some characters were not going to make it, and each one was always going to be someone's favourite. My point, and reading back I only kinda backed into it, was the remaining links to the Old World that are present. It is not a completely clean sheet, and while it is not the Old World, it is still Warhammer.

That was what I was trying to say

That's fair, and it's one of the reasons I think they should have either kept Warhammer as a setting, rather than a storyline (I mean, once you retcon something as big as Storm of Chaos, might as well stick to the status quo) or quietly retired it and replaced it with something entirely new - Age of Siegfried or something. It'd still be a 'replacement' and there would still be much gnashing of teeth - I, for one, would be among that group - but not blowing up the Old World might have soothed some ruffled feathers.

MongooseMatt wrote:


Not yet. There have been bits and pieces of 'normal' folk popping up in the new fiction, but they have had no focus as yet - perhaps understandably, as there are bigger things going on right now.

However, the Realms seem to be, to all intents and purposes, infinite - I think that may very much have been the point behind them. No reason those characters you mention cannot/will not exist. Still early days, but I would venture the Mortal Realms were designed to serve as the foundation for a multitude of stories.

Still early days - neither the Old World nor 40k had the superstructure, as you say, right from the start. They did not kick off with a major event either.

I think this may be something worth reserving judgement on. If we still have not seen anything like this in the next year or so, may be worth revisiting!

There needs to be that kind of focus on the little people from the start, though, and the infinite-ness of the Realms is a major weakness in the setting. You know GW's just going to throw out AdjectiveNoun names themed around whatever Realm they're in as impressive set-pieces for some big battle and then never mention them again. Altdorf won't get a chance to grow, at least not until the dust settles, and that's a huge problem. They're not creating a setting and universe from whole (and occasionally borrowed, admittedly) cloth this time, they're replacing an incredibly rich and detailed world that a lot of people really liked. Comparisons are inevitable, and 'wait and see if it turns out to be just as good' doesn't get many people paying GW prices.

Now, if they REALLY came out swinging, released giant glorious books about the worlds (beyond Stormcast killing people in them) and tantalizing bits about the civilizations that fell during the Age of Chaos and actually came out and told us what all the different factions were up to (with a focus on their new poster boys, of course, but not the overwhelming one we've gotten), THEN maybe we could talk about reserving judgment to see where the setting goes. As it is, though, it feels very shallow.

MongooseMatt wrote:


Anyway, communication not always the best in all areas.

No arguments here for sure, although I might use stronger language

MongooseMatt wrote:


However, what happens on the tabletop is subject to the players' own interpretation. A unit in close combat fires on an enemy further away? Well, assuming they have LOS (which is going to restrict this a great deal anyway), maybe some of their guys pull back from the fighting for a moment to get the shots in (they are not all going to hit, so maybe some of those misses are not actual misses but the guys still battling away who did not get to fire?). Maybe some of them temporarily get some high ground, a fallen statue or whatever is close by, to shoot over someone's heads. The combat in this game seems to be more fluid, so it will take an adjustment from the old rank and file way of doing things.

It is, but at some point the rules have to back that up. KoW, for example, abstracts in a way that makes sense. You don't take models out of units because it's at a scale where the unit is representational of a regiment; the models aren't supposed to be one for one. Age of Sigmar is more of a skirmish level game, and it makes sense for them to have the kind detail in the rules that leaves room for giving you consequences for shooting in combat.

At the very least, a morale penalty for your own men dropping giant rocks next to you because they really want to splat that enemy general you're trying to stab would be nice...you could call it the "I Never Liked Karl Anyway" rule, and I'd be a happy man.

No, I'm not adding it myself, that's on GW's table

MongooseMatt wrote:


I did not post that comment but, if you are interested, I could dig up some lists tomorrow that we have actually used. Would be happy to go through the thought processes that went to create them too...

I would, thank you very much if you'd like to take the time! Mostly, I'm interested in how various themed armies that were perfectly possible in Warhammer work in Age of Sigmar - how does one go about balancing goblins against ogres out of the box, for example?

If you haven't done that, of course, that's totally fine, but my poor gobbos are a particular sore spot for me.

 Sqorgar wrote:
That's a lot of effort for something that has exactly zero chance of changing your views. I feel like if you let go of the concept of "balance", you'll have a good time of Age of Sigmar. The game itself isn't broken, just the game while holding a certain perspective. It's not something I can prove (or would bother to try, as AoS opposition refuses to cede ground on any point, EVER, like a flat earth creationist debating an evolutionary biologist), but I have fun with AoS and I think my expectations are in line with the design philosophy behind it, and maybe that's why I can enjoy it as much as I do while others only see red. As long as I felt like I played a good game, it doesn't matter to me who begins with what advantage or disadvantage, or ultimately who won. Some of the best games I've ever played, I never had a chance of winning.

Yes, that is a lot of effort, which is why I said 'if you have the time or inclination'. And no, I'm not going to end up playing Age of Sigmar, it's very clearly not intended as the sort of game or setting I enjoy, but I do like to see how people try and make things they enjoy work, and I'm curious about different people's viewpoints on this whole thing. I, for example, probably wouldn't ever argue for a game using the phrase "if you let go of the concept of 'balance', you'll have a good time". Thanks for comparing me to a flat earth creationist, though. It's not that I can't enjoy losing - my absolute favorite game of Warhammer was one that I lost - but I'm not really interested in doing the designer's work for them. Coming up with scenarios? Absolutely! Writing background? Just try and stop me! I'm not going to go back and do something as basic as making a point system, though. That's their job, not mine.

In the end, you're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you, and I'm certainly not going to convince Matt - we've clearly got different tastes, and that's fine. I am, however, enjoying seeing the other side of things.

Kudos for bringing it up and trying to defend a game you like, but I've got a few minor points (I'm largely in agreement though - it does get bashed mercilessly):

MongooseMatt wrote:

Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…

Wasn't there a running theme in the Gotrek books that he was somehow corrupted/charmed by his axe that was making him largely invincible? Surely out of all of the realms of man/dwarf, he'd be the least likely to be killed off? They live to hundreds of years old and he can quickly heal the most serious of wounds and take on any foe? I don't get how it makes sense to have killed him off. Felix? Aye, he'd have died of old age at some point, but Gotrek?

Age of Sigmar is failing
No one (except a few at GW HQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.

True, but there's a huge amount of anecdotal evidence about it not doing well, and almost none about it doing well. Can we assume for now it's not doing that well until we discover otherwise?

Shooting in close combat makes no sense
Sure it does. It is a different type of fighting to what you might be used to. I’ll give an example using 40k, as everyone will be familiar with that – feel free to substitute for Bloodreavers and Stormcasts.

A Dark Angels Tactical Squad charges the remnants of an Ork mob cowering behind a barricade, determined to shift them and claim this flank of the battle. One Tactical Marine leaps over the barricade, and kicks an Ork in the chest, leaving it flat on the floor. Stamping on its head with an armoured foot, he turns as another Ork rushes him with a massive cleaver. Raising his Bolter, he fires three rounds which tear through the alien’s chest. Giving praise to the Emperor, he continues firing as the rest of the Orks flee from the assault of the Dark Angels.

Can you see that happening in your head? It is a more cinematic approach to combat but, whether it is your cup of tea or not, it is one that works.

I can see it to a limited extend with automatic hand weapons. Would said Dark Angel be able to reload a bow and fire at another unit across the field? No. It'd have almost no accuracy, he'd leave himself wide open and he'd have other things to focus on. The Bolt gun/pistol can be fired at point blank range with one hand.

There is no balance in Age of Sigmar
There is, but it is in your hands.

So no, there isn't.

It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another
Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.

The rules imply it does?

Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.

Yup, and ranges are measured figure to figure, so the only way various combats work is to either overlap bases, or to pretend they are closer than they are.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.

I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!

The *point* of Minecraft is to make things, and the Mario Maker lets you create new levels for a platform game to enhance it. With AoS, a lot of the effort is completely unrelated to the core point of the game - to play the game. Some people like writing rules/scenarios, but why would they choose to do it with AoS over literally any other tabletop game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jack Flask wrote:

If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).

It could be written much better (in terms of clarity) without changing anything. And it could have been written much better without changing the feel of things.

So yes, it really could have been better.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.

I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!

Both Mario Maker and Minecraft are expressly about using your imagination to create new things. That is the point of those games.

You want to compare it properly, compare it to D&D 5e. Homebrew material is very common with D&D, and it works well because the developers actually published a finished, balanced, and good ruleset, not this sack of gak we all call Age of Sigmar.

ASIDE from that, the developers are fething paid to create a whole, complete game. They clearly can't be arsed to do so.

 McNinja wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.

I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!

Both Mario Maker and Minecraft are expressly about using your imagination to create new things. That is the point of those games.

You want to compare it properly, compare it to D&D 5e. Homebrew material is very common with D&D, and it works well because the developers actually published a finished, balanced, and good ruleset, not this sack of gak we all call Age of Sigmar.

ASIDE from that, the developers are fething paid to create a whole, complete game. They clearly can't be arsed to do so.

Considering how the 40k team "designs" the game, I am actually amazed their game systems haven't collapsed already. The "Here's this "cool" looking miniature now make rules for it" approach is.... lacking, to say the least.

Warmachine - there are a number of rules in WMH that I think don't make a massive amount of sense, but that's just the way PP decided to abstract 'real' combat into a tabletop game format.
I very much dislike FFG's business model for X-wing.
(Yay! Just spent £30 on ships - now to spend another £40 on ships I have no intention of ever using in order to get the rules I want for them!)

But I can still enjoy both games, and don't feel the need to berate people or constantly post in those forums to let people know I dislike these elements.

AoS' pros and cons are now extremely well documented.
You either like it or don't.
There *is* a difference between discussing and critiquing a system that you are involved in, and simply butting in to complain about something that you aren't.
To go back to the evolution/religion example, there is a difference between a debate between the two sides and simply standing at the back shouting and waving placards.
It's evident from these boards that even within the (broadly) 'pro' segments, there are differences of opinion - different comp systems being a prime example.
I'm not after an echo chamber, but if you do not and never will play AoS, then I genuinely don't understand why you feel you have anything to add to the debate, especially on the purely subjective sections of the discussion - which frankly is 99.99% of it. It is, after all, a leisure activity.
Or do people just not have enough ulcers already?

LucidNinja wrote:
Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.

Looked at from a different angle, it was a troll post in the beginning, and your post simply adds to that.

Do you have an opinion about the game, rather than whether other people should or should not be allowed to express their opinions about the game depending on whether you agree with them?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Just putting it out there but a ton of characters we simply don't know if they are still around or not, and that in itself is a huge problem.

Well, it is not really a huge problem, is it?

For the models that were in the current range, you have the Warscrolls, so they can still be used. As for the background side of things... have a little patience. No one in their right mind, least of all GW (who are quite good at this sort of thing), is going to lay out the entire background for us. Ever, actually.

* And we don't really want them to - this is one of the components that makes their background compelling *

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think the problem is that most people aren't literally complaining that there is zero tactics and we all might as well play snakes and ladders,

Oh, I have seen a few who have said exactly that

 jonolikespie wrote:
All those examples you brought up there are really just screening and threat range, which are themselves rather basic.

Hmm... Would we say basic - or fundamental?

I am not claiming AoS is chess and that people could become Grand Masters, but if we decide that movement-based tactics are basic, that removes a lot of what made WHFB what it is.

 jonolikespie wrote:
there should be some way to play a fair game out of the box with only the rules provided from the actual manufacturer.

But there is - we played through the scenarios given in the starter set, which use all the models contained. And they not only seemed nicely balanced for us, they gave us the baseline we needed to start putting together our own forces.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Doesn't that just suggest that 99% of all players want a point system?

It could. But it could also mean that 99% are just used to them. It is a ballsy approach to go against that kind of expectation but, surely, it is good to have something go against the status quo from time to tinme (I do understand the counter 'yes, but not in my favourite game!' ).

 jonolikespie wrote:

But the game does in fact give the sudden death advantage to the 65 sigmarines over the 100 goblins doesn't it?

It does - if you play with nothing but the core 4 page rules which, beyond your first trial game, I would not recommend anyone does. The strength of AoS (for me!) lies in the Battleplans.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I am sure there are people inside GW really excited about the game but they are not jumping on the official podcast to talk fluff, their painters are not jumping on their own forum to give painting tips, and they are not getting on board with the convention circuit to chat to their fans.

I cannot argue that at all. To give an example, I invited a certain well-known staffer to an interview on my blog, something I did many, many moons ago on an old web site I used to run. He was up for it, but the idea got skotched by management.

So I am with you there!

 jonolikespie wrote:
You have to admit that from the outside they are a very cold, faceless kind of company compared to the likes of PP, CB, Mantic and the like.

True, but...

Running a tiny gaming company myself (which I really should be attending to instead of typing this!) I can understand that GW has to do things in a different way. I (and the other companies you mention) have the luxury of jumping onto forums and chatting directly to gamers and we only have ourselves to answer to if something goes wrong. GW is a very different beast with a 'proper' company structure and shareholders to answer to. As companies, we all play with live ammunition on the Internet, but GW's shells are somewhat heavier and the is a bigger explosion if they drop them, so I can understand why they err towards caution.

Wow, that was a weird analogy, no idea where that came from!

Jack Flask wrote:
No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.

Actually, if you go to the 40k rumours threads, you will find a lot of people who seem to hate GW, hate the game, but feel forced to buy their products and use them

It is very strange...

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong about the OP and he does recognize that AoS has problems but he just doesn't think that these are necessarily issues.

Oh, that is a good point to raise...

Let me see if I can explain my position on this.

I can understand that AoS has caused some problems with other people - I have seen that in my own gaming group. I can understand that some were annoyed about how their old game is gone (it is a tough thing, but that is probably spilt milk now), and I can understand how people can't or simply don't want to get to grips with a point-absent system.

However.

It works for me (and enough of my gaming group for it to work). And that is all I need to play it and chat about it on a forum.

But, being a professional game designer, I do find it difficult not to take the next step - in short, I believe that if I could get you down here to play a few games, I could have at least a 50% chance of changing your mind Doing that over the Internet is more difficult, but talking about games is almost as good as playing them, so why not explore that route?

Put another way, you list all your issues with AoS, and I can respect and understand all of them. But if you like Warhammer and GW games as a whole (and I make the presumption that this applies to everyone who posts on these forums - otherwise it is just plain weird), then I also believe there is at least something in AoS that you can enjoy. And if you enjoy it, and I enjoy it, we can chat about it - and everyone wins!

As for the contrarian thing, I am honestly not too fussed about that. I just get irritated when people get downright rude over a game.

(not you incidentally, but I am sure you have seen one or two others who have stepped over the line).

Herzlos wrote:

Wasn't there a running theme in the Gotrek books that he was somehow corrupted/charmed by his axe that was making him largely invincible? Surely out of all of the realms of man/dwarf, he'd be the least likely to be killed off? They live to hundreds of years old and he can quickly heal the most serious of wounds and take on any foe? I don't get how it makes sense to have killed him off. Felix? Aye, he'd have died of old age at some point, but Gotrek?

Many, many moons ago, I was drafted in to help write background text for the Third War of Armageddon. I remember chatting with Andy Chambers (in Bugman's Bar!) about the coming events, and I mentioned that if they wanted to make Armageddon truly epic, there had to be a great emotional cost - a well known character would have to meet his end in the war.

The result of that conversation was the death of Captain Tycho,.

Anyway, I am just saying that if it had been down to me, and I had to pick just one character to die in the End Times, it would have been Gotrek

Herzlos wrote:

True, but there's a huge amount of anecdotal evidence about it not doing well, and almost none about it doing well. Can we assume for now it's not doing that well until we discover otherwise?

Actually, I am going to say no

Anecdotal evidence is just not good enough for a matter of this import!

Herzlos wrote:

It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another
Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.

The rules imply it does?

Ive given AOS a fair chance, ive played a fair few games and I really dislike it.

1: it is very tactically shallow, and while the op is correct to a point, it does feel like im just pushing models forward and rolling some dice, no arcs, no facings, movement is redundant to a point, not a fan of that.

2: it simply is not the game I want to play, and that's fine, its not warhammer, and that's fine too, but I liked warhammer, I liked how complex it was, so I will continue to play 6th or 8th.

3: its too expensive still, the only real reason that warhammer has failed is that GW kept pushing for larger and larger armies and jacking the price, the buy in to fantasy was huge, this is the only reason it sunk, people were not buying it in the end. AOS is quite likely to go the same way.

MongooseMatt wrote:
Now, you see, this is difficult to accept as an idea.

40k is the most widely played miniatures game in the world, by far, and has been for many, many years. Two strangers can meet up, pull out armies and begin playing immediately. Do you really think that happens just by accident, over all those Codexes and all those units?

* And yes, I realise at least one person is just itching to come back at me and say 'but you can't do that with AoS, eh?' I would argue that if you come down to my place, we could do exactly that, but I don't think AoS was meant to replace 40k in that way at all - I do think it is something different (which is why I like both AoS and 40k, and have no compulsion to pick one over the other!) *

The success of 40k can be derived from far more than its rules system. Sure it's an acceptable system (I won't call it acceptable after 5th when it started going downhill in my opinion) but 40k has a lot more going on for it than AoS.

As for the "pick up" game; - you can do the exact same with WHFB, for instance (I always have my 40k and WHFB army cases in my trunk, just in case ). And we all know WHFB went down the fething toilet.

And I am not saying that AoS is going to substitute 40k, I am just saying that I am amazed that all the gaming systems made with such an inherently flawed design philosophy haven't imploded yet... But then again,.. 40k IS the only system left...

I'm a little lost. What is the inherent design flaw of 40k and why is it the only one left?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

I am just saying that I am amazed that all the gaming systems made with such an inherently flawed design philosophy haven't imploded yet...

Do you think it possible that the reason this has not happened yet is because your assumption is, umm, wrong?

Jack Flask wrote:

Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.

It's more like Boo Ben Konop. Pro-AoS posters are just trying to have a conversation and discuss something they honestly enjoy and EVERY THREAD becomes "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."

"Here's a lot of things that I like and enjoy about..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar"
"But I really do like it and I think..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar"
"That's unfair. I really would..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
"Are you done?"
"..."
"Okay, let's talk about..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."

I found it exhausting and left for a while because it got tiring having to defend EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT. It doesn't matter if it was something like "Age of Sigmar is a game". Then it's like "No it isn't." This place is basically the dead parrot sketch, except we're the customers trying to explain that the parrot isn't dead. "Yes it is."

At this point, I realize that nobody is going to be convinced of anything, and I'd just be happy to sit and discuss the game with like minded people with being interrup... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is.

That's exactly it. It isn't that Age of Simar is flawed, it's that what it is, some people don't like. I think it is a novel approach to playin... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."

I saw this, and while it is a valiant attempt at defending a company, it does fall short on most points.

MongooseMatt wrote:

All my favourite characters are gone!
Just about all Chaos characters are still present.

So one of sixteen? different factions has their characters present? And all my old models are now totally out of scale? (GW seems to be making all the AoS and newer 40k stuff scaled up to 32mm or higher to prevent the sale of aftermarket pieces or alternative models).

Age of Sigmar is failing
No one (except a few at GW HQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.

It really is okay to wait and reserve judgement for later. There is no requirement to make a decision on this immediately!

Well, except that there are dozens of other games out there that are doing really well right now, and gamers are very much "now" people, and all they see are dusty AoS boxes on shelves. More failure now means more failure in the future as the thing never sells. Most people are becoming invested in other games and even if AoS becomes something near a game in a few years it won't help. Too little, too late.

I'd love to hear your opinion on other games out there that are doing really well that are objectively better games - Kings of War, SAGA, WMH, Bolt Action, etc that have a lot more going for them. Why wait for Age of Sigmar to become a real game with more than two factions when you have so many other options?

And regarding people not buying Fantasy, or the perception of that - after 8th Edition fantasy released, GW put out two army books in 18 months. That decided lack of support and lack of understanding that the game was priced too high, yet releasing more and more expensive models and repacks made the game not profitable enough. Yet even the Fantasy End Times books sold out quickly, while AOS books have been pulled from the site for not selling, lol.

There is no balance in Age of Sigmar
There is, but it is in your hands.

Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.

It is no secret that you don’t have to go far on a gaming forum to see people complaining about points imbalances in Fantasy Battle or 40k, and in these rants someone always bemoans the fact that GW does not engage in community-led pointing for units. After all, if thousands of people are submitting results, and points costs are updated, they will be far more accurate, right?

Well, that is what you have, right now, for Age of Sigmar. What is more, if you do not agree with one system (a certain points value for a unit will not be agreeable for everyone, you can be sure of that), then there are already others to try.

If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…

Given time, what can be more balanced than that?

Why does a company with 'Games' in the title of it make their customer write games? Why is it so easy for dozens of other companies to write games with point values? Judge Dredd (amazing book, btw. Haven't had a chance to play yet) has 'points values' does it not?

By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing. You are being forced out of the comfort zone, and this is where the designers want you. They want you to experience Warhammer in a variety of formats that will keep you gaming for, well, forever.

Are you sure they're not just being lazy, skimping on $$ for rules (what, two guys salaries per year?) and FAQs and erratas so they can spend 1.7 million dollars on the FW website? lol

Games Workshop does not care about gamers
Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.

However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GW HQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.

This is a huge cop-out. They've cared about gamers in the past. Look at any white dwarf pre-~2008 and you'll see that. Check this out when you have a chance - http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/10/warhammer-40000-open-day-in-detail.html - an easy way to tell that they just don't care about anything but $$$ for their investors (like their former CEO). "The hobby" is purchasing Citadel miniatures, not painting and playing.

Not to mention that most any other game company out there cares intensely about their customer. Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Mantic, Battlefront, Hawk, Spartan, all these people have Facebook pages, interact with their customers, genuinely provide value, and don't just see the people purchasing their stuff as a walking wallet. GW has gone astray and desperately needs to be purchased by a better company to get it back to what it used to be.

Herzlos wrote:

It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another
Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.

The rules imply it does?

Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.

Yup, and ranges are measured figure to figure, so the only way various combats work is to either overlap bases, or to pretend they are closer than they are.

The rules imply no such thing. This is a case of taking an extreme edge case and presenting it as more common than it actually happens. Most of the models, and especially the newer AoS-specific ones, do not have problems with this, and in the extreme edge cases, we always have common sense and The Most Important Rule to settle disputes. For instance, I would have no problem at all measuring from the bases for melee ranges (1/2") - I think most of the time, it's pretty darn obvious which units are in melee and which ones aren't. And the threat bubble of 3" around each model - since you can't move into that bubble except to charge into melee, and they can't move into yours, it should be obvious which units are within the bubble and which ones aren't just based on their last movement.

The *point* of Minecraft is to make things, and the Mario Maker lets you create new levels for a platform game to enhance it. With AoS, a lot of the effort is completely unrelated to the core point of the game - to play the game. Some people like writing rules/scenarios, but why would they choose to do it with AoS over literally any other tabletop game?

I think the point of AoS IS to make things. AoS is the most modular game system I've seen in a long time, with very few restrictions on what can be used where and how. Off the top of my head, you've got:

The 4 Page Rules
Scenarios
Warscrolls (many of which have multiple variants)
Battalion Scrolls
Scenery Warscrolls
Battlefield Time of War Rules

And with few exceptions, you can mix and match ANY of those together. You can take most of the Scenarios and use them with most of the terrain scenery, with whatever army and make up you want. It is BEGGING for the players to create unique combinations to create the gaming experiences that appeals to them. Play in the Realm of Azyr with an Stormcast army using the Devastation Brotherhood battalion, fighting through a battlefield filled with giant skull towers and ruins that come alive and eat people. I love the modular aspect of the game, which makes creating new scenarios easier and more creative. Every new release creates more options. Each new book has new (optional) rules and battalions. Each new scenery adds new rules. Each new unit or faction adds new rules. The options grow, but unlike something like Warmachine which has very specific builds and counter-builds, you actually have more possibilities, not less.

But that's just my opinion. I like that aspect, a lot, and... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

I am just saying that I am amazed that all the gaming systems made with such an inherently flawed design philosophy haven't imploded yet...

Do you think it possible that the reason this has not happened yet is because your assumption is, umm, wrong?

As I said before I think 40k has a lot more going for it than just the rules system, and that is no doubt what helps keeping it afloat.

But I think a lot of your excuses/dismissals in your pretty little cardboard defense of AoS are wrong so... let's keep it at that, heh? I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong.

 Bottle wrote:
I'm a little lost. What is the inherent design flaw of 40k and why is it the only one left?

Sorry Bottle, I should've provided context:

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/10/warhammer-40000-open-day-in-detail.html

Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::

"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"

Fethin' top notch rule design process, ain't it?

 mugginns wrote:
I saw this, and while it is a valiant attempt at defending a company, it does fall short on most points.

Do tell, Sir!

 mugginns wrote:
So one of sixteen? different factions has their characters present?

We already know it is more than this - as I said earlier, Tyrion and Teclis still look to be a thing. Some will disappear, some will pop back up - we can wait, surely, especially as we have the Warscrolls to use them.

 mugginns wrote:

And all my old models are now totally out of scale? (GW seems to be making all the AoS and newer 40k stuff scaled up to 32mm or higher to prevent the sale of aftermarket pieces or alternative models).

This debate popped up in my own gaming group.

The Dryads and Plague Monks got re-released and are still the same size, suggesting that maybe the scale creep is not happening. The Stormcasts, as we all know, are supposed to be big, honking guys. Same with the Blood Warriors, Given all that, I would be surprised if things like Bloodletters and Plaguebearers were redesigned any time soon, so we might assume they are staying the same.

The point of contention, I think, would be the Bloodreavers. Are they normal guys suffering from scale creep? Or have they been pumped up by the power of Khorne?

I am not really convinced either way as there is no good evidence for scale creep or not, but I am leaning slightly towards not, primarily because of the Dryads and Plague Monks.

As mentioned before, it really is okay not to make a firm judgement until we know more

* Another argument for not is that scale has not changed in 40k in recent releases, and I don't think they would run two different scales (LotR was a separate thing) *

 mugginns wrote:

Well, except that there are dozens of other games out there that are doing really well right now, and gamers are very much "now" people, and all they see are dusty AoS boxes on shelves. More failure now means more failure in the future as the thing never sells. Most people are becoming invested in other games and even if AoS becomes something near a game in a few years it won't help. Too little, too late.

We only see part of the picture. For example, you see dusty boxes on shelves and conclude failure. On the other hand, for the past couple of years our own GW sales (a little sideline we have) saw a Fantasy sale once in a blue moon over the past couple of years. Since AoS was released, we have seen them increase by two orders of magnitude and cannot keep the starter set on the shelves, nor the terrain. Sales of the separate Stormcast sets have been brisk, and both the Sylvaneth and Pestilens boxes disappeared quickly (actually, in the interests of honesty, we still have a Plague Furnace on the shelf).

Speaking as someone in the 'trade' (as opposed to simple retailer), I would be faintly surprised if the AoS starter's sales have eclipsed the sales of all those other games that you say are doing really well. Just my opinion, but a semi-informed one.

GW really is that large.

 mugginns wrote:

I'd love to hear your opinion on other games out there that are doing really well that are objectively better games - Kings of War, SAGA, WMH, Bolt Action, etc that have a lot more going for them. Why wait for Age of Sigmar to become a real game with more than two factions when you have so many other options?

Ack. Okay, I am going to break one of my own rules here and discuss the games of other companies (GW games do not count for this rule because they are too large and really don't care what I say ). However, I want everyone to understand that this is just my opinion as a gamer, and nothing else.

Kings of War: When I first saw this game, I thought it was the answer to everything, and I actually told Ronnie that if I were to design a fantasy mass-battle game, I would have come up with exactly the same movement system. However, it did not survive playing. We played it a few times, but hit an issue with armies that did not possess missile weapons (two armies advance towards each other and stop, because neither wants to get into charge range of the other and hand a big advantage over). I also feel, in terms of background, KOW lacks... heart. This may well change over time - after all, the Old World and Imperium were not built in a day - but it is an issue right now. The same applies to most of their minis - though I happily collected a Vampire Counts and Orc army composed mostly of Mantic rank and file. Their zombies are a very good deal.

SAGA: Looked at this but, to be honest, I found their dice system a bit 'gimmicky'. No reflection on the game, this is a personal thing on my part - I hate counters and special dice.

WMH: Never played it, I have to say I collected a little force a while ago (I want to say Khador, is that right? The red guys...), but the background just never appealed to me. I also have a little problem with the whole idea of 'play like you have a pair' but, again, that is my issue and not a reflection on the game.

Bolt Action: Love it. I have nearly a whole regiment of Soviets painted up, though they desperately need some transports (one cannot ride on tanks alone!) and one can always use more artillery. Big thumbs up.

 mugginns wrote:

Why does a company with 'Games' in the title of it make their customer write games? Why is it so easy for dozens of other companies to write games with point values? Judge Dredd (amazing book, btw. Haven't had a chance to play yet) has 'points values' does it not?

Ah, using my own game against me. Smart

Here's the thing: The first draft of that new edition of Dredd looked a lot like AoS. In fact, my main model for it was 1st edition 40k, and I went heavy on the idea of creating whatever games you liked with the system. Sound familiar?

I backtracked because all my playtesters told me it needed to be points-based with a solid campaign system.

With that in mind, you could say that GW just had the balls to do what I chickened out of In my defence though, we are a small company and do not have 40k to fall back on if a new game falls flat on its face.

 mugginns wrote:

Are you sure they're not just being lazy, skimping on $$ for rules (what, two guys salaries per year?) and FAQs and erratas so they can spend 1.7 million dollars on the FW website? lol

I can't defend web site spending (though I paid enough for ours, borders on criminal, I tell you). However, given the amount of redundancies that have taken place at GW (and knowing some of the past Studio Managers), I am not sure laziness is believable...

 mugginns wrote:

This is a huge cop-out. They've cared about gamers in the past. Look at any white dwarf pre-~2008 and you'll see that. Check this out when you have a chance - http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/10/warhammer-40000-open-day-in-detail.html - an easy way to tell that they just don't care about anything but $$$ for their investors (like their former CEO). "The hobby" is purchasing Citadel miniatures, not painting and playing.

Again, I cannot really defend, or even speak to, the Games Days - there certainly seems to be something 'else' happening there. In this department, I can only speak about members of the design team, past and present, whom I have known personally. |nything else would be anecdotal, and we don't like doing that

 mugginns wrote:
Not to mention that most any other game company out there cares intensely about their customer. Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Mantic, Battlefront, Hawk, Spartan, all these people have Facebook pages, interact with their customers, genuinely provide value, and don't just see the people purchasing their stuff as a walking wallet. GW has gone astray and desperately needs to be purchased by a better company to get it back to what it used to be.

That is how they survive. It is how my company survives (right now we have a major playtest going on that we have engaged the community in). However, I can see that this kind of attention might not scale up to a company the size of GW.

In which case, we all have a choice. We can enjoy the (absolutely superb) models GW do, and engage in universes we have 'lived' in for decades in some cases, or we can enjoy the games of companies that have a more human face.

Or we can do both.

* Not saying GW cannot or should not be more human in its approach, only saying I can understand why it is more difficult for them *

MongooseMatt wrote:
We already know it is more than this - as I said earlier, Tyrion and Teclis still look to be a thing. Some will disappear, some will pop back up - we can wait, surely, especially as we have the Warscrolls to use them.

I mean, there are definitely people who can wait, but I'm not going to slog through five different $80 hardbacks or whatever to get there. I already did that with End Times.

This debate popped up in my own gaming group.

The Dryads and Plague Monks got re-released and are still the same size, suggesting that maybe the scale creep is not happening. The Stormcasts, as we all know, are supposed to be big, honking guys. Same with the Blood Warriors, Given all that, I would be surprised if things like Bloodletters and Plaguebearers were redesigned any time soon, so we might assume they are staying the same.

The point of contention, I think, would be the Bloodreavers. Are they normal guys suffering from scale creep? Or have they been pumped up by the power of Khorne?

I am not really convinced either way as there is no good evidence for scale creep or not, but I am leaning slightly towards not, primarily because of the Dryads and Plague Monks.

As mentioned before, it really is okay not to make a firm judgement until we know more

* Another argument for not is that scale has not changed in 40k in recent releases, and I don't think they would run two different scales (LotR was a separate thing) *

I would say the re-release was just to capitalize on their old models still being in a box in a warehouse in Nottingham or China. Any future releases for AoS are gonna be HUGE GUYS like the Sigmarines or the bloodguys. The bloodguys definitely are a lot larger.

Re: 40k - not so much the 'ground scale' in so much as the 'model scale'. Every army is now getting huge $150 kits and multiple $75 kits. It becomes increasingly harder to find alternative models or parts for these selections. They've f'd around with the base size for half the line of models. The new Ghostkeel thing is on its own base size.

We only see part of the picture. For example, you see dusty boxes on shelves and conclude failure. On the other hand, for the past couple of years our own GW sales (a little sideline we have) saw a Fantasy sale once in a blue moon over the past couple of years. Since AoS was released, we have seen them increase by two orders of magnitude and cannot keep the starter set on the shelves, nor the terrain. Sales of the separate Stormcast sets have been brisk, and both the Sylvaneth and Pestilens boxes disappeared quickly (actually, in the interests of honesty, we still have a Plague Furnace on the shelf).

Speaking as someone in the 'trade' (as opposed to simple retailer), I would be faintly surprised if the AoS starter's sales have eclipsed the sales of all those other games that you say are doing really well. Just my opinion, but a semi-informed one.

GW really is that large.

The KoW kickstarter did amazing and the Warpath kickstarter did a half a million dollars. The AoS starter would have to sell over 4,000 kits to get to a half a million dollars. I wonder if it even did 2,000 And you didn't address the lack of support from GW for Fantasy - two army books in eighteen months after launching eighth edition.

Ack. Okay, I am going to break one of my own rules here and discuss the games of other companies (GW games do not count for this rule because they are too large and really don't care what I say ). However, I want everyone to understand that this is just my opinion as a gamer, and nothing else.

Kings of War: When I first saw this game, I thought it was the answer to everything, and I actually told Ronnie that if I were to design a fantasy mass-battle game, I would have come up with exactly the same movement system. However, it did not survive playing. We played it a few times, but hit an issue with armies that did not possess missile weapons (two armies advance towards each other and stop, because neither wants to get into charge range of the other and hand a big advantage over). I also feel, in terms of background, KOW lacks... heart. This may well change over time - after all, the Old World and Imperium were not built in a day - but it is an issue right now. The same applies to most of their minis - though I happily collected a Vampire Counts and Orc army composed mostly of Mantic rank and file. Their zombies are a very good deal.

SAGA: Looked at this but, to be honest, I found their dice system a bit 'gimmicky'. No reflection on the game, this is a personal thing on my part - I hate counters and special dice.

WMH: Never played it, I have to say I collected a little force a while ago (I want to say Khador, is that right? The red guys...), but the background just never appealed to me. I also have a little problem with the whole idea of 'play like you have a pair' but, again, that is my issue and not a reflection on the game.

Bolt Action: Love it. I have nearly a whole regiment of Soviets painted up, though they desperately need some transports (one cannot ride on tanks alone!) and one can always use more artillery. Big thumbs up.

I'm glad to see you providing opinion - but don't you think saying Mantica lacks heart... i mean, does anyone actually really know what AoS is even about? Some dudes fighting in heaven until they die and then being reborn? I'd definitely recommend SAGA - it is a sword and shield game (like AOS) that actually does require a ton of strategy in movement, fatigue, and the battle board. 'Play like you have a pair' is definitely overblown on the webs.

Again, I cannot really defend, or even speak to, the Games Days - there certainly seems to be something 'else' happening there. In this department, I can only speak about members of the design team, past and present, whom I have known personally. |nything else would be anecdotal, and we don't like doing that

That is how they survive. It is how my company survives (right now we have a major playtest going on that we have engaged the community in). However, I can see that this kind of attention might not scale up to a company the size of GW.

In which case, we all have a choice. We can enjoy the (absolutely superb) models GW do, and engage in universes we have 'lived' in for decades in some cases, or we can enjoy the games of companies that have a more human face.

Or we can do both.

* Not saying GW cannot or should not be more human in its approach, only saying I can understand why it is more difficult for them *

I mean, that kind of attention could absolutely scale up to a company the size of GW. They're a niche hobby company, not the IRS. Their lunch is getting eaten by dozens of other companies day in and day out and these other companies are fighting for that market share while GW is trying to tell people what they want. They truly believe that people buy their models to buy their models, not to play games.

Kings of War: When I first saw this game, I thought it was the answer to everything, and I actually told Ronnie that if I were to design a fantasy mass-battle game, I would have come up with exactly the same movement system. However, it did not survive playing. We played it a few times, but hit an issue with armies that did not possess missile weapons (two armies advance towards each other and stop, because neither wants to get into charge range of the other and hand a big advantage over). I also feel, in terms of background, KOW lacks... heart. This may well change over time - after all, the Old World and Imperium were not built in a day - but it is an issue right now. The same applies to most of their minis - though I happily collected a Vampire Counts and Orc army composed mostly of Mantic rank and file. Their zombies are a very good deal.

that is my problem with Kings of War as well. It takes everything I hated about 6th and 7th warhammer, and promotes them. The armies that run forward and stop so they don't get into the others' charge range is what I call the 1/8" dance - and ruins immersion for me.

As to the rest of your post - thank you for your insight, its always good to read what other game developers think and how they do.

The Age of Sigmar point-less construct is indeed a giant gamble on GW's part because modern gaming dictates you must have points values or you will largely be shunned by the vocal part of the community.

GW is our first litmus test into if the vocal part of the community is really representative of the majority.

i mean, does anyone actually really know what AoS is even about?

Having read three of the novels now and processing the archaon short stories, what AOS is narratively is becoming more clear to me.

 mugginns wrote:

I would say the re-release was just to capitalize on their old models still being in a box in a warehouse in Nottingham or China.

I have no doubt that is true.

 mugginns wrote:

Any future releases for AoS are gonna be HUGE GUYS like the Sigmarines or the bloodguys. The bloodguys definitely are a lot larger.

However, we don't know this. We are just trying to figure it out on scant information, which leads us to...

 mugginns wrote:

Re: 40k - not so much the 'ground scale' in so much as the 'model scale'. Every army is now getting huge $150 kits and multiple $75 kits. It becomes increasingly harder to find alternative models or parts for these selections. They've f'd around with the base size for half the line of models. The new Ghostkeel thing is on its own base size.

This is a good point - have the new Fire Warriors gone up in size? If they haven't, I would suggest this means that the basic human (alien) is not suffering from scale creep.

But yes, I would expect more of the big models too.

 mugginns wrote:

The KoW kickstarter did amazing and the Warpath kickstarter did a half a million dollars. The AoS starter would have to sell over 4,000 kits to get to a half a million dollars. I wonder if it even did 2,000 And you didn't address the lack of support from GW for Fantasy - two army books in eighteen months after launching eighth edition.

Well, our own Paranoia KS got into that sort of territory, but I wouldn't delude myself in thinking that we have any kind of decent fraction of the player-base that GW has

As for 4,000 units - that is piddly numbers for GW on this sort of product. I have a feeling we would be looking at decent five figure unit numbers for the starter set already, and I would not be surprised to hear in a couple of years that they are well into six figures

Put another way, I can shift 2,000 copies of something, and I don't have the Warhammer brand behind me

 mugginns wrote:

I'm glad to see you providing opinion - but don't you think saying Mantica lacks heart... i mean, does anyone actually really know what AoS is even about?

Well, on a macro level, I think we do - it is Warhammer, which comes with a great deal of weight and expectation behind it (yes, I know we can argue about whether it is actually Warhammer ). For example, they release a Khorne Bloodbound book - I have reasonable expectations as to what I will find in it. If we talk about Slaanesh or Tzeentch or Orcs (Orruks), we basically know what we are going to get.

KOW does not really have that kind of pull yet for me.

 mugginns wrote:

They truly believe that people buy their models to buy their models, not to play games.

Who knows? They might be right. You and I only see our little corner of the universe.

I honestly don't know what the answer to that is. The trouble is, no one here does.

MongooseMatt wrote:
Well, on a macro level, I think we do - it is Warhammer, which comes with a great deal of weight and expectation behind it (yes, I know we can argue about whether it is actually Warhammer ). For example, they release a Khorne Bloodbound book - I have reasonable expectations as to what I will find in it. If we talk about Slaanesh or Tzeentch or Orcs (Orruks), we basically know what we are going to get.

KOW does not really have that kind of pull yet for me.

I guess the point is that it isn't Warhammer, and it has no weight behind it. From your example, Slaanesh isn't even around anymore. And we don't know if anybody else is, either, because all we've seen are bloodguys and Sigmarines with a lot of really abstract lore about heavens and fighting and gods and 'realms'.

Who knows? They might be right. You and I only see our little corner of the universe.

I honestly don't know what the answer to that is. The trouble is, no one here does.

Would you try to sell Judge Dredd models without a good game behind it? Even with the pretty great background and lots of interest from reading comics, movies, etc. I doubt I would try to do that. And we're told that they do no market research, so they end up at places like this. I think we can likely give ourselves a little more of a nod than 'who knows?'. Does GW really deserve the benefit of the doubt here?

The fiction that GW has produced up to this point for AoS goes well beyond bloodguys and Sigmarines.

There is the short story collection on Archaon and collecting his champions, and a lot of focus has been given to Nurgle, Tzeentch, and some on the skaven.

The Sylvaneth feature in the novels as well, heading into Ghar Maraz where the wood elves become more prominent. I don't even know what the 5th novel holds but the fiction definitely has started getting into the other races.

The duradin as well - the stormcast are searching for them as allies.