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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
How about Elfs jumping over Dorfs climbed on other Dorfs?

Is that low fantasy?

That's neither high nor low fantasy, that's redacted. Mind your word choice, please. --Janthkin

I know right? The dwarves have a really solid shield and spear wall ready to receive a charge that couldn't have broken them, instead the elves jump into the charge with their lighter armour and no shields ready to get butchered.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play fluff. It still exists, though, and the fluff says there is no world, but a collection of magic elemental realms, etc, being attacked by immortal warriors souls bound into gold armour, and so on.

I'm not interested in playing a skirmish with 20 Brettonians against 30 Empires. I think the rules of AoS are very limited and dull.

Lol, love them changing goal posts. What point are you even trying to make?

I tell you the distinction between low and high fantasy exists in the fluff.

You tell me you don't play the fluff you play a wargame.

I tell you you can play a low or high fantasy wargame with Warhammer and Age of Sigmar Rules.

You tell me you don't want to because of the fluff??

Age of Sigmar is a High Fantasy setting. No one is going to argue anything else. Your initial point that the Warhammer has bounced back and forth between High and Low because of the game rules is just nonsense though.

Hummm do not know the numbers and really do not care... sorry to be blunt but whats it to me if in the other corner of the world no one plays, and if me and my friends have fun with it? I know I Know its to evaluate the acceptance of AOS and to see if the misconceptions are actually true and a real obstacle to players actually enjoy the game.

Let me just say that its a new game style and it will take time to take off, it may even never do but as long as Im having fun today Im happy with it. I think the different style will cater to different audience but unlike mass battle games your investment on AoS will be a small fraction of what it used to be with WFB.

SO yeah different and much more flexible game that will not cost you an organ, so less investment with equal amounts of fun its all good if you ask me. I can even now have loads of different factions with not much stress and as for my big WFB armies well I fragmented them in small themes and will have loads of options and forces with AOS scrolls.

I think the big misconception here is that this will replace WFB... will never do, its a different thing altogether so enjoy for what it is and stop comparing with a different game, I know I did and its the best thing that happened to my WFB forces.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I think the big misconception here is that this will replace WFB... will never do, its a different thing altogether so enjoy for what it is and stop comparing with a different game

This is not Warhammer 9th edition, we know that, but this is very much a replacement for WHFB and so people simply will compare them and aren't wrong for doing so.

I mean they literally blew up WHFB in order to get AoS for khorn's sake.

 jonolikespie wrote:
This is not Warhammer 9th edition, we know that, but this is very much a replacement for WHFB and so people simply will compare them and aren't wrong for doing so.

But it doesn't accomplish anything because AoS is not WHFB, wasn't intended to be WHFB, and will never be WHFB. It's like resenting an orange because it isn't an apple... for, like, ever. You may not like oranges, but the anger is completely misplaced and useless. It's like WHFB fans entered the 5 stages of grief and got stuck on anger. Time to move to bargaining, guys.

Okay, before I start I should point out that I'm one of those who hates AOS and will never play it. I also was never into WHFB even slightly, but still feel for its fans mistreated by GW. I don't normally come into this forum, was kinda funneled here this time by another topic, but since this is specifically directed at those who have it out for AOS I figure it's perfectly kosher for me to respond.

Thing is, my hate is amplified because of a few big things:
1) GW's behavior with the whole thing has been appalling (like with the way they killed off WHFB when it uses the same models mostly so they could've kept it around and not banned it from being played in the stores and making the horrid joke rules for units just to make them embarrassing to use) and it represents all their worst aspects. To support AOS is to support that.
2) A lot of the problems really aren't matters of opinion, personal preference or anything of the like, they're just straight-up mistakes and missteps with AOS.
3) People have been speculating that 40k might go down this route. If AOS gets popular they'll give the same treatment to 40k and then that's my hobby dead right there! I can't put up with this crap and I'm not interested in any of the other popular wargames out there, plus it seems like it would be a lot harder than it sounds to just keep playing 7E. It's not a matter of "live and let live" so much as "kill or be killed" with this...

Moreover, at least a couple of the points in the OP are off-base...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

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?

Having an actual baseline to start with.

At least with 40k 7th Edition as bad as its balance can be at times, you have a standard system and only maybe a handful of things MUST be fixed to work.
If you can't agree on what house-rules and fan stuff you want to use in 40k 7E, you can generally still play the game because you have the defaults to fall back on, even if it won't be optimal.
If you can't agree on what house-rules and fan stuff you want to use in Age of Sigmar, you're screwed! You probably can't play at all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

How a game presents itself has a direct effect on how it is played, generally speaking. And this, I know, was a very real issue for the guys at GW in the past. During the days of 3rd Edition 40k, to cite an example, the vast majority of games played used the Dawn Assault mission because, for some reason, people had got it into their heads that it was the ‘fairest’ mission. They also tended to default to 1,500 points.

The problem for the designers is that they have all these other types of battles, and worlds, and models to show you, but if you are just playing 1,500 point Dawn Assault games, you are not getting any of it. You are missing out on a massive amount.

If you are the games designer responsible, that is a big issue. You are creating all this wonderful material, and none of it is getting used. It also means the game is going to stagnate – at some point, you will get bored with Dawn Assault, but if you have been conditioned to think that this is the only way of playing 40k, you may not be looking for alternatives.

I know this sounds ridiculous. But it is a very real thing, and it is very common.

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.

For one thing, as mentioned earlier in this thread 99% of players using it probably just means it's that necessary/desired.
But even putting that aside, think of it this way:
Imagine the whole group of players
Now take out the ones that are willing to ignore the points as needed - They obviously aren't affected by this, they would've tried it anyway.
Now take out the ones who would either house-rule points back in or just plain give up - They obviously aren't getting the benefit of no points either.
Now take out the ones who tried it without points and didn't like it for whatever reason - You could try to paint it as them getting the benefit because they at least tried it, but not in the slightest, it just sucked for them, they aren't benefiting from it.
Now finally you have the ones who wouldn't have tried it otherwise, did now and liked it - These are the only ones who benefit from this.

Giving the benefit for that least, teeny tiny minority absolutely does NOT outweigh the harm to the other groups (including the ones who are already willing to play without points, they might also play WITH points sometimes or at least appreciate the option of doing so!) and that is the plain and simple FACT of the matter.

There are of course alternative balancing mechanics, in which case you can replace "points" with "balancing mechanics" in this part and I'll still be making the same point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MongooseMatt wrote:
So, if I have a model with a 12” base, no one can fight me, right?
Well, if you go down that road yes, sort of.

If you meet someone with a base like that, have a quick chat and sort it out. All it requires is the application of common sense. I am pretty sure this is why this is not in the rules sheet – the designers could not conceive of anyone seriously trying this loop hole and, to be frank, I agree with them.

They are not writing a set of rules designed to be resilient to all kinds of potential abuse. The assumption is made that both players want to have a good time and will play fairly. Now, you might disagree with that approach, but this is where they are coming from. They are expecting you to play your opponent, not to play the rules.

To put it another way, if someone places a model with a 12” base that makes it impossible to attack, they have clearly done it on purpose for that specific reason, and refuse to budge on any accommodation… walk away. Seriously, life is way too short, and if they have done that, it really will be the least of the issues you will experience while playing them.

I’ll put it yet another way – making a base like that would be like making yourself invulnerable by glitching yourself into a wall in Battlefield or Call of Duty. Yes, the ‘rules’ permit it. But what have you actually gained other than ruining the enjoyment of other people?

(Incidentally, if you think glitching into walls is legitimate, then Games Workshop games overall are probably not for you).

Here's the thing: Sure this stuff can't ever be perfect but a robust ruleset needs to TRY!

Yeah there are always gonna be exploits but when it's something this obvious and easy to do it remains a problem.
I might be with you on this if it was something that required incredibly obscure and obtuse dickery to do but it doesn't.
Same goes for the points thing, sure nobody will say that 20 Bloodthirsters are a match for 50 Goblins. But exactly how many are a match for 50 Goblins? Let's say it's 2 Bloodthirsters (I don't know) but the Chaos player brings 3. He's not trying to be a dick, he just thought that would be a fairly solid matchup and he was wrong because he didn't have an external guideline to tell him otherwise. Now he not only stomps the Goblins player but also has Sudden Death on his side despite having the advantage.
That's the thing with AOS, you don't have to be a powergaming jerk to make the rules collapse in on themselves...

Not to mention that powergamer types can pile on a popular exploit in far greater numbers than can be dismissed with "I won't play with you, you're just being a jerk!", it can be hard to tell what IS an exploit and good rulesets generally try to patch these things up...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
This is not Warhammer 9th edition, we know that, but this is very much a replacement for WHFB and so people simply will compare them and aren't wrong for doing so.

But it doesn't accomplish anything because AoS is not WHFB, wasn't intended to be WHFB, and will never be WHFB. It's like resenting an orange because it isn't an apple... for, like, ever. You may not like oranges, but the anger is completely misplaced and useless. It's like WHFB fans entered the 5 stages of grief and got stuck on anger. Time to move to bargaining, guys.

To go off of your analogy, it's more like someone selling you apples for thirty years. Then one day the shop owner removes all the apples from the store, burns down the orchid, and tells you that you need to start liking oranges. Because that's what they will be selling from now on.
It might be a little silly to resent the oranges, but you can certainly point out that you don't want the oranges, you want the apples back.
And it doesn't feel that silly to resent the person trying to shove those oranges down your throat when you try to convince the shop owner to sell those apples again.
Or most confusingly of all, perhaps both apples and oranges could be sold together?


I feel that if AoS was released as an addition, not a replacement. People would not care quite so much. There would still be people who dislike the game based off of the rules, or the fluff, or the prices, but they would not have the same level of ill feelings towards it for destroying something they loved to make room for it. I mean, it's not like GW doesn't have two timelines going for 30K/40K. They could easily do the same thing with the fantasy version and have the mass battle game in one timeline and the skirmish game in another.

Now, before you say I hate the game, I actually don't. I think it has flaws, I think it needs an unfortunate amount of house ruling which makes it hard for gaming outside of close knit groups, etc.
But I do enjoy it for what it is, a good game for beginners or times when you want to play around a bit more. There are times when a really tight rule set is a wonderful thing, but there are times when a looser rule set allows you to have a little more fun.
I've introduced a few people to AoS who will likely never get into Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, X-wing, or even 40K, but will sit down with me to play a quick game with basic rules and a small amount of figures.

I was hoping AoS would be a skirmish game amongst the later games.

Everyone I've. Talked to had good things to say about Mordheim. Image that released with new models. That would be nice.

Deadawake1347 wrote:

To go off of your analogy, it's more like someone selling you apples for thirty years. Then one day the shop owner removes all the apples from the store, burns down the orchid, and tells you that you need to start liking oranges. Because that's what they will be selling from now on.

And that happens in the real world. Things change. My favorite restaurant in the world closed one day without notice. We just show up for lunch and it no longer existed. It was eventually replaced by a Wing Zone, for crying out loud (which didn't last long, and it is now a cell phone store). The closest franchise is over two hours away. So yeah. gak happens. The problem with capitalism is that being a fan of something isn't enough to save it. Ask Firefly fans.

It might be a little silly to resent the oranges, but you can certainly point out that you don't want the oranges, you want the apples back.

Is that likely to happen? Do you think Games Workshop is going to go, "Whoops. Our bad. Here's WHFB back."? Because I don't think they'll do that. If AoS fails, you still won't get WHFB back. It's dead. It's shuffled off this mortal coil. It's playing for the choir invisible. It's not sleeping man. It's dead.

And it doesn't feel that silly to resent the person trying to shove those oranges down your throat when you try to convince the shop owner to sell those apples again.
Or most confusingly of all, perhaps both apples and oranges could be sold together?

Because capitalism doesn't work that way. If there's some reason why apples can no longer be sold, then apples will no longer be sold. Period. We do not know the sales data or creative decisions that were involved in killing WHFB, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't just "Let's piss off our fans by killing this wildly successful and profitable game".

Now, before you say I hate the game, I actually don't. I think it has flaws, I think it needs an unfortunate amount of house ruling which makes it hard for gaming outside of close knit groups, etc.
But I do enjoy it for what it is, a good game for beginners or times when you want to play around a bit more. There are times when a really tight rule set is a wonderful thing, but there are times when a looser rule set allows you to have a little more fun.
I've introduced a few people to AoS who will likely never get into Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, X-wing, or even 40K, but will sit down with me to play a quick game with basic rules and a small amount of figures.

I've had similar success. My wife won't touch Warmachine with a ten foot pole, but she enjoyed AoS. And my kids (aged 7 and 10) can play AoS - not well, but they can understand the rules - while I'm not sure I could explain Warmachine's cover/concealment/camouflage to them without their deciding they'd rather watch cartoons. That's not to say that AoS is for non-gamers - the hobby aspect is as complicated as anything else, and between players who know what they are doing, it is a very different experience - but the 4 pages of rules was a brilliant idea and really does have a chance of gaining an audience where WHFB couldn't.

The one place where AoS fails is that the WHFB fans (or GW haters who wanted another excuse to complain) won't forgive it. And that's not AoS's fault. In this forum, every aspect of AoS has been criticized to high heaven, and as it is defended or insulted, eventually people move on. But the one element that remains six months later is that it replaced WHFB. Every other argument has been exhausted and is now ignored, but that feeling of "betrayal" never goes away. And it should. It's time.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Hummm do not know the numbers and really do not care... sorry to be blunt but whats it to me if in the other corner of the world no one plays, and if me and my friends have fun with it? I know I Know its to evaluate the acceptance of AOS and to see if the misconceptions are actually true and a real obstacle to players actually enjoy the game.

Let me just say that its a new game style and it will take time to take off, it may even never do but as long as Im having fun today Im happy with it. I think the different style will cater to different audience but unlike mass battle games your investment on AoS will be a small fraction of what it used to be with WFB.

SO yeah different and much more flexible game that will not cost you an organ, so less investment with equal amounts of fun its all good if you ask me. I can even now have loads of different factions with not much stress and as for my big WFB armies well I fragmented them in small themes and will have loads of options and forces with AOS scrolls.

I think the big misconception here is that this will replace WFB... will never do, its a different thing altogether so enjoy for what it is and stop comparing with a different game, I know I did and its the best thing that happened to my WFB forces.

I really agree with lots you say! AoS has been like an eye opener for me where all of a sudden every single model I've ever admired but was outside of my "army" now has the potential to be bought, painted up and played with straight away. I'm blowing dust of random minis and getting them on the table for the first time ever (my BFSP set for example) and now instead of collecting just 1 army it's now 4 coming on 5.

I love it! :-)

 Bottle wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play fluff. It still exists, though, and the fluff says there is no world, but a collection of magic elemental realms, etc, being attacked by immortal warriors souls bound into gold armour, and so on.

I'm not interested in playing a skirmish with 20 Brettonians against 30 Empires. I think the rules of AoS are very limited and dull.

Lol, love them changing goal posts. What point are you even trying to make?

...
The point I am trying to make is that AoS is a high fantasy concept game -- which apparently you now accept -- and the rules are rubbish for low fantasy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't play fluff. It still exists, though, and the fluff says there is no world, but a collection of magic elemental realms, etc, being attacked by immortal warriors souls bound into gold armour, and so on.

I'm not interested in playing a skirmish with 20 Brettonians against 30 Empires. I think the rules of AoS are very limited and dull.

Lol, love them changing goal posts. What point are you even trying to make?

...
The point I am trying to make is that AoS is a high fantasy concept game -- which apparently you now accept -- and the rules are rubbish for low fantasy.

Lol, when did I say it wasn't high fantasy? I said the rules of Warhammer and AoS have no impact on if the setting is High or Low fantasy. And they don't.

That's enough of the high / low fantasy tangent, that's been fully fleshed out now... thanks.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Because capitalism doesn't work that way.

No, capitalism works because companies find things people want and then sell that product to those people. Prior to AoS being announced I don't think I ever saw anyone on these forums saying that they would like a game with no points system and no restrictions like 40k's unbound.
As well, us people in this threat and the others like it 'hating' on AoS are part of the capitalist system too, we are expressing our displeasure with the product on offer. In the real world companies take notice of that because they want to please people in order to get their money. You can forgive us then if we make the mistake of thinking a company as backwards as GW might take notice and, dare I say, change too.

[redacted high/low fantasy comment]

For those who want "classic" WFB, isn't that what Ninth Age is doing?

Isn't this why KoW is gaining players (ie market share... Capitalism)?

This was a well written post of "why I like AoS," that now has 8 pages of ire.

Here's what it boils down to IMO The cost of producing the model, packaging and shipping is minute compared to the cost of content generation. It costs sooooooo much more to write good rules, with great illustrations and generate new models, than it does to physically produce them. IMO, despite Jervis Johnson's preamble in the defense of AoS this is a corporate cost cutting tool... Alone. This company cares about 1 thing MAKING MONEY. They've done the math, and weighed the costs. They aren't stupid they just don't give two gaks about what you do with their product after you buy it. They realized they could sell more models, and cut content costs. They did it. It's just shrewd business. However, they will find in my opinion again, that as KoW cuts into their market share, GW will realize that some model lines that have not crossed over to KoW are not selling and must be cut. It is only In this feedback loop, will y'all get your game back.

 doktor_g wrote:

This was a well written post of "why I like AoS," that now has 8 pages of ire. .

Well, no. This was a post of 'Why your reasons for disliking AoS are wrong... ' which some people agreed with, and some didn't.

Bottle wrote:

I really agree with lots you say! AoS has been like an eye opener for me where all of a sudden every single model I've ever admired but was outside of my "army" now has the potential to be bought, painted up and played with straight away. I'm blowing dust of random minis and getting them on the table for the first time ever (my BFSP set for example) and now instead of collecting just 1 army it's now 4 coming on 5.

I love it! :-)

Indeed, and because now numbers are low you can actually have lots of small forces that are totally viable... also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle. The game downsized and got more flexible & simple which means this is both a great entry point for new people and a quick thrill for the vets.
I may add that If you own a vast force fear not because when you start splitting those regiments in themed forces you will actually be adding more little things and extending you hobby experience... FOr example on my wfb force I had a respectable 25 block of black orcs but I divided them in 3 10 man regiments for AoS which means I need to get 5 more and convert 6 to standart,musician... so yep depends how you take the changes.

doktor_g wrote:Isn't this why KoW is gaining players (ie market share... Capitalism)?

This was a well written post of "why I like AoS," that now has 8 pages of ire.

Here's what it boils down to IMO The cost of producing the model, packaging and shipping is minute compared to the cost of content generation. It costs sooooooo much more to write good rules, with great illustrations and generate new models, than it does to physically produce them. IMO, despite Jervis Johnson's preamble in the defense of AoS this is a corporate cost cutting tool... Alone. This company cares about 1 thing MAKING MONEY. They've done the math, and weighed the costs. They aren't stupid they just don't give two gaks about what you do with their product after you buy it. They realized they could sell more models, and cut content costs. They did it. It's just shrewd business. However, they will find in my opinion again, that as KoW cuts into their market share, GW will realize that some model lines that have not crossed over to KoW are not selling and must be cut. It is only In this feedback loop, will y'all get your game back.

I believe what was really popular and taking a big chunk of market share was skirmish games and GW went that route... I think its a risk but I collected lots of other skirmish games... guess what I can now do that with GW main game too. Its good for everyone except for those that really want to get stuck with new stuff for their classic WFB ranges. Like you say either they move to Mantic ( good for mantic and massbattle fans) or they convert their forces to Aos, because unprecedentedly GW did supplied all rules for Free. That was a huge thing in GW history and a clear sign they know that they are taking a huge risk by changing all back to skirmish levels.

As a wfb fan I lost my big chunky armies, I could either grief that, as I did for a week or two, but I must confess that my decision of going AoS refreshed my love for my factions and opened so many new opportunities with other factions that it has been a very positive outcome for my GW forces.

You can now play and enjoy all of the GW hobby with such a small money and time investment with the free rules/low model count that its a great chance to get your friends on board and even your young kids.
Has your Regiment game been obliterated? yes. Your fluff took a bad turn? in some places yes. Is the game for noobs? errr... not a fan of that comment because if I was to listen what other grumpy people with a weird baggage say I would not even be in this hobby in the first place. Is this game broken for competition levels? I believe so and that would be interesting if GW cooked up a AoSv2 with comp rules.

All in all AoS is Gw jab at a growing skirmish marked and for that to prevail they had to cut WFB... sucks in some parts but if you are willing to adapt its a HUGE refresh for your long dead projects.

Well they didn't have to cut anything. A new set of rules to co exist with Warhammer would have been more popular than a replacement.

I kind of a don't get the logic between bad things won't happen, because people don't want to be dicks to others, and the 99% people will use points, if points exist. If people can be dicks and there is no way to limit how dick they can be, then they will be max dicks.

also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.

are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc

Makumba wrote:

also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.

are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc

Are you talking from personal experience here? Because my last game was a 4 player and it took a minute to decide the power level.

The games was fast and fun!

 Bottle wrote:
Are you talking from personal experience here? Because my last game was a 4 player and it took a minute to decide the power level.

How?!
Because people keep saying this with no explanation and it makes no sense, really need an explanation of this.

There were 4 people who wanted to play. We asked each player what collection they had brought to the store, one player only had a handful of Ogor models so we used that as a benchmark for everyone else. We counted up the Ogor wounds and used that as a ready reckoner for everyone else.

The game was incredibly close and came down to single Beastman Bray Shaman fighting an Ogor Tyrant. If the shaman had successfully scored 3 mortal wounds from the final arcane bolt they would have won (the tyrant had 3 wounds remaining), instead they only scored one and was then beaten to a bloody pulp by the tyrant

Very fun game and very quick to organise.

So, by Wounds then?

Yep. But that's not the case for every battle. The main thing to remember with Age of Sigmar is that each game is bespoke. If one player had been goblins for example we would have allowed them a few more units to balance.

Next time I play a 4 player I plan to use the Convergence of Fate Battleplan which has no model or wound limit but allows the player with the strongest force each battle-round to be ganged up upon by the other three.

 doktor_g wrote:

Here's what it boils down to IMO The cost of producing the model, packaging and shipping is minute compared to the cost of content generation. It costs sooooooo much more to write good rules, with great illustrations and generate new models, than it does to physically produce them. IMO, despite Jervis Johnson's preamble in the defense of AoS this is a corporate cost cutting tool... Alone. This company cares about 1 thing MAKING MONEY. They've done the math, and weighed the costs. They aren't stupid they just don't give two gaks about what you do with their product after you buy it. They realized they could sell more models, and cut content costs. They did it. It's just shrewd business. However, they will find in my opinion again, that as KoW cuts into their market share, GW will realize that some model lines that have not crossed over to KoW are not selling and must be cut. It is only In this feedback loop, will y'all get your game back.

I'm really sick of this cynical "GW doesn't care about you, only your wallet" argument. GW is a publicly traded company and by law, they are beholden to their shareholders - not their fans. I haven't been a GW fan for very long but I think they do care about their fans - I think it shows in a lot of the decisions they make, like the painting tutorials they put up on Warhammer TV, or their painting line with the myriad of colors broken into base/layer/highlight shades, or the high quality of sculpt and plastic they use in their - let's face it - jaw dropping models. GW wants you to have the premium tabletop experience and every decision I've seen indicates that they are willing to go to great lengths to deliver it, even to the most novice gamer.

However, this doesn't extend to how much it costs to have that experience. GW is expensive - often too expensive - but they have quality products. You have to pay for the experience, but you can tell that a lot of attention went into creating it. GW does make decisions that favor their shareholders, which they have to, but within that constraint, GW still produces the best models on the market (or some of the best models, depending on your aesthetic preferences and/or hatred of GW) and still remains the industry leader in the field.

And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GW HQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.

 Sqorgar wrote:

And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GW HQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.

Sometimes I think that they may also regret growing to be such a big (relatively) public company. All the requirements that come with that - need for mass production and large sales, restrictions on what and when to release etc - may be felt as a burden from some of the current staff (the old guys have stated this enough times already). Certainly someone dreams of the times when they were a smaller, tidier firm, when they could just release a model without having to bear the scrutiny of the ENTIRETY of the Geek Kingdom. The times when they could worry less about meeting a given quota, certain demands, working with a vast network of retailers etc...You know, the good old times

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well they didn't have to cut anything. A new set of rules to co exist with Warhammer would have been more popular than a replacement.

That is your understanding and to an extent mine too but its neither you or me who calls the shots here. GW over the years seems inclined to kill any game they consider its cannibalizing their main 2 games. Happened to specialists and now WFB in favour of AoS... I can see same thing happening to 40k if sales get to the point WFB did.
So yes the transition could have been done differently and smoother for all parties involved but at the end of the day they decided not to.
Personally speaking if wfb was still around I would delay my entry into Aos just because I was already too involved with Wfb. So that and the fact they seem to want a full reboot and fresh start of a license may be some of the reasons for this blunt cut.

The entry cost is quite harsh and castrating if you need to buy all dexes or rulebooks I mean I refuse to go that route and thats why I stick to just a few armies. With Aos now I have access to all past armies scrolls and that will probably change in the future with the new factions coming, but for now Im quite content and would embrace 40k more if they supplied rules for free too. The bloated rules and dexes will strangulate any game regardless of how good the game is.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I'm really sick of this cynical "GW doesn't care about you, only your wallet" argument. GW is a publicly traded company and by law, they are beholden to their shareholders - not their fans. I haven't been a GW fan for very long but I think they do care about their fans - I think it shows in a lot of the decisions they make, like the painting tutorials they put up on Warhammer TV, or their painting line with the myriad of colors broken into base/layer/highlight shades, or the high quality of sculpt and plastic they use in their - let's face it - jaw dropping models. GW wants you to have the premium tabletop experience and every decision I've seen indicates that they are willing to go to great lengths to deliver it, even to the most novice gamer.

However, this doesn't extend to how much it costs to have that experience. GW is expensive - often too expensive - but they have quality products. You have to pay for the experience, but you can tell that a lot of attention went into creating it. GW does make decisions that favor their shareholders, which they have to, but within that constraint, GW still produces the best models on the market (or some of the best models, depending on your aesthetic preferences and/or hatred of GW) and still remains the industry leader in the field.

And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GW HQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.

I'm sorry but perhaps the reason you think GW cares about their fans is exactly because you haven't been a GW fan for long. We all started out loving the company once, just like you. But you know what, there is only so much that we as fans can put up with.
"Gamesday is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the GW hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
A somewhat infamous quote now, but that is what GW's head of IP told a courtroom while on a stand. How about "We sell toys to kids." Kirby's own words, also not very encouraging. How about the fact that as an Aussie I have to pay the same stupidly higher prices even though the vale of the Aussie dollar shot up a few years back and was almost on par with the US dollar? How about the blatantly anti consumer practices of enforcing embragos so I can't buy from America, pay the shipping myself and get something cheaper? There are plenty of reasons to believe GW don't think highly of their customers.

As for the claim that GW still produces the best models on the market as some kind of justification for the price... that's highly subjective. I think Infinity's models make GW's look like toys, but I know some people argue that because GW's are multi pose they are better. If you are talking models as a whole though, and not tabletop wargaming models Tamya kits blow GWs away in every category for half the price (a third if you are using Oz prices). I'd argue that these days GW are nothing special in the modeling department, they just have a large catalog.

I also saw the Warhammer TV thing too, and I saw the jokes about 'marketing 101' and 'market research' made in the thread. You know why people make those jokes at GW's expense? Because they are frustrated with GW and want them to change for the better. Seriously, wouldn't you like to know what is coming more than a week in advance? Wouldn't you prefer GW asked you what kinds of things you wanted so they could make those?