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.
While I don't think the poll should be taken as gospel, it does have around 560 votes on it, which is considerably more than the people who actually *post* about it.
But yeah, we're not going to know for sure until we see GW reducing support for it or shops ceasing to stock it. But at this stage, I'm comfortable saying "signs point to yes, AoS is struggling".
I'm aware of confirmation bias, but it does seem to be there's more gamers and even shop keepers pointing out that it's struggling than those saying it's revitalised the community. When the likes of mikhaila says this, it's not really encouraging.
My sources in GW have people looking for ways to polish a turd and sell models. AOS gave them a small bump in fantasy sales, but they lost hugely with no 40k sales in those months. My sales are down 65% for the last 4 months on GW.
Not enough people actually care about AOS. They play some because they have models, but few people are building armies.
Lizarmen codex with no new models? Pretty much tells the story. My sales rep was ok with me not even ordering it.
I could write a 2 page list of reasons why it's failing, but i don't feel like arguing with the "it's only anectdotal evidence" crowd, and don't feel like beating a dead horse. GW found a way to cost me thousands of dollars in sales each month, and has my older WFB customers selling their armies on ebay. Good job GW.
And it's easy to see the negatives when I walk in to my local GW and no one is playing it, it'll take more convincing to show me that it is doing well than it's struggling based on my observations.
I think the volume of anecdotal evidence certainly supports a non-provable conclusion that AOS is struggling.
Which is a shame because there is a lot of good stuff that can be pulled from it and the alternatives (kings of war and "9th age") are IMO both very bland tournament styled games in a market flooded with those type of games.
coldgaming wrote: I think there were some missteps in the launch window, namely not laying out a way for pickup play and leaving fans of elves/dwarves/orcs/normal humans, the typical fantasy stuff, in the lurch about what was going on with their armies.
That said, GW is putting enormous effort behind this game, and they did not have to do that. Boggles my mind to think this is a lazy money grab. They would not be pouring all these resources into new products and cutting into their 40k display time if that were the case.
I think reviving the dwarf brand next month will help bring more people back, as will getting on with the elves. They're clearly giving it a go here and I think momentum still has time to build. The models are almost too good to fail. As has been said since launch, though, we'll know for sure in a few years.
Models don't make a game.
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
auticus wrote: I think the volume of anecdotal evidence certainly supports a non-provable conclusion that AOS is struggling.
Which is a shame because there is a lot of good stuff that can be pulled from it and the alternatives (kings of war and "9th age") are IMO both very bland tournament styled games in a market flooded with those type of games.
I think there are strong enough signs that, if we were in a position to order the books cracked open, we would want to demand a full investigation.
This comes up again and again. You have to keep in mind that the AoS launch devastated his morale to the point that he logged on to Dakka and confessed to breaking down and crying. He also immediately started offering the starter box at a significant discount on the swap shop here, reflecting his lack of confidence in the product. The guy runs a business with two locations and has a long history of working with GW successfully but by his own account that success has worn pretty thin because GW operates so differently than how it formerly did and this has almost uniformly been at the expense of LGS owners. You need to take his posts with a grain of salt, like you would anything else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 16:51:08
Azreal13 wrote:
I'm suggesting they may have deliberately pursued a dumbed down ruleset as it seems there's a perception nowadays that many younger people don't have long attention spans and are always looking for instant gratification, something a traditional war game doesn't really cater to.
I would say they 'dumbed down' the rules for younger people, period. Inverted commas because, while I don't think modern GW is particularly good at writing rules and these ones are kinda dumb, it's not the same thing as being tailored for children. Same with GW's other core games: theoretically, at least, kids should have few problems soaking up lots of stats and special rules, but have trouble reasoning out and making tactical decisions from the general mechanics. Vice-versa for older gamers. Hence the gravitation away from the heaps of special rules in GW core games. So when one of them turns into a game with four pages of simplified general rules, you're going to get older fans complaining about it. And rightly so.
One big question is whether GW can find enough of a younger audience, in time to save the game.
Torga_DW wrote:To me it sort of feels like they're trying to emulate a video game - the sigmarines respawn, the seraphon are created on the spot from memories, not sure what chaos does (outside the demons) and giving fluff reasons for why it happens that way. Not really my cup of tea, not sure if there's any merit to doing it that way but i presume it's related to their (hopefully they have one) target demographic.
Heh. Good point.
Dr. Delorean wrote:
I don't get the 'they were too lazy to give points' argument, since surely if they were lazy they would've just done nothing.
They'd just sort of let Fantasy die without bringing out anything new or changing the rules at all, just let it slowly peter out over the next few years, a bit like Specialist Games or SoB.
One thing, though: Tom Kirby loves the monies.
Instead, they wrote up brand new rules for every single model they make, spent months on releasing new battleplans, scenarios, and models for the new system, and continue to do so. That takes at least a modicum of effort
From what I've seen of them, 'modicum' is just the word.
Manchu, I actually agree with most of what you say (in your response to my post anyway) especially this:
Manchu wrote:The reason you have to write the word this way, 'competitive,' is because it has been somehow confused for a slur.
Yup. Seems to be one of the catch-all terms used to defend AoS. You don't like AoS - you play to win and hate fun. But while being a gracious player, not deliberately abusing poor rules and not getting hung up about winning are good things, who plays to lose?
This, though...
Now again the idea that points actually contribute to any kind of actual balance (in the sense of controlling for the rest of the game as described above) is really a matter of religious-like faith rather than anything objective. But the association is there all the same, even considering it is mostly a superstition. Gamers feel better about the fairness of a game if they can add up to a rather arbitrary number that happens to be the same as the number someone else summed. The really important role of points, however, is nothing to do with balance; it actually facilitates the list-building "mini game" that so many people enjoy.
This is getting bizarre, and veering towards strawman territory. (If not jumping into it with both feet.) The points about, er, points being arbitrary, nothing to do with balance, and about listbuilding, are understandable if you concentrate on GW's core 2 - particularly 40K. Games where units etc. are regularly imbalanced compared to their points cost; where playtesting anecdotally consists of "eh, it kinda sorta feels like that many points"; and where - as mentioned - it's more about which particular little polystyrene nodules of stats and special rules you take, than about the tactical options made available to you in the general rules.
But other games have more tactical depth, balancing out listbuilding strategy with skill and decisions on the tabletop. Other games are playtested more, or at least they seem to be, going by the openness of some authors of smaller, indy rulesets and companies. Other games have points, and turn out reasonably balanced, and allow gamers to combine that into reasonably balanced points-based lists.
Or at least, I haven't seen so much dissatisfaction about unbalanced points, or this strange view of 'points = poison', in other points-based games. To be honest I've only seen that latter attitude come roaring to the fore since AoS came about. Not even Black Powder's debut triggered such a wave of anti-points sentiment, unless I was especially unobservant. I have to imagine that there's something else behind it.
There may be other ways to balance a game, and all well and good if you have a tight-knit gaming group who love scenarios or piling stuff on a table. But points are the quickest and most convenient method for gamers. The majority of gamers, I'd guess. I don't think they're incompatible with or anathema to scenario gaming, either.
Manchu wrote:I think we can safely ignore a trend in self-selected anecdotes regarding AoS posted on a site focused on 40k. Perhaps this becomes apparent when one considers that the trend in question is perfectly predictable.
Oh come on.
AoS doesn't seem to be selling well because this is just a 40K forum, after all? Hey, was that goalpost always there...?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 16:32:26
My sources in GW have people looking for ways to polish a turd and sell models. AOS gave them a small bump in fantasy sales, but they lost hugely with no 40k sales in those months. My sales are down 65% for the last 4 months on GW.
Not enough people actually care about AOS. They play some because they have models, but few people are building armies.
Lizarmen codex with no new models? Pretty much tells the story. My sales rep was ok with me not even ordering it.
I could write a 2 page list of reasons why it's failing, but i don't feel like arguing with the "it's only anectdotal evidence" crowd, and don't feel like beating a dead horse. GW found a way to cost me thousands of dollars in sales each month, and has my older WFB customers selling their armies on ebay. Good job GW.
Sergeant Horse:
Spoiler:
Sergeant Horse wrote: We tried at our store, ran some events, tried to promote it, but it's pretty dead. I have 2 people playing (new players that have never done minis before). Everybody else plays KoW, or if they want skirmish fantasy, they do Frostgrave or Mordheim.
I used to be a HUUUGE Fantasy playing store, with tournaments hitting over 30 and regular play nights with every table full, AoS killed it and every single player moved to Kings of War or quit altogether. In the last few months I've slashed my Fantasy wall by 2/3 and don't even reorder unless it's a special order. That broke my heart personally, I own 8 Fantasy armies.
Personally, I tried AoS, it's ok for what it is, but I played Fantasy for the rule set and world, both are gone. You can say I can just play 8th, but that's not realistic since most gamers move to supported game systems, and KoW has taken over.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That being said, if GW brought out a 9th edition......MONEY.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As to reasons it's failing imo.
It's not as good a mass fantasy game as Kings of War
It's not as good a skirmish game as Mordheim, Frostgrave or any other skirmish game
The Stormcasts are boring. Great models, but boring fluff and with being effectively immortal, there's no fear or connection when they die.
Khorne is also the most BORING of Chaos gods.. Blood blood skulls skulls blah blah blah. Nurgle or Tzeentch would have been way more interesting.
A lack of info on other races is a killer too. I've read the books, listened to the audio books and I'm not impressed with the world at all, it lacks flavor.
Cost doesn't really come into it I find, people who want to will buy the products, people who can't afford to or don't find the value in it, won't.
Reecius:
Spoiler:
Reecius wrote: Yeah, AoS just isn't selling that well for us, we're liquidating our inventory for the time being.
Poll from the AoS section on Dakka about adoption rate:
That's the rub, Vermis! In the AoS section, there was a poll which had these results:
AoS going strong or dying out in your area?
A. Picking up steam. - 24% (135)
B. Definitely less interest as time goes on. 76% (423)
That's over 550 responses. It's people who check an online forum, of course - those are the only people who you can poll without it being a local (or "anecdotal") result!
---
It could be doing well in parts of the UK, or in certain stores in the US... but on the whole, you've got a 3 to 1 ratio of people saying there is a lagging interest in AoS. This close to the launch of such a "flagship" product, that would be why people are saying it's failing. The way GW has positioned it is not to be a small Specialist game type of theirs, but a major line - and indications are people are not adopting it, and even people who considered it are often no longer doing so. GW experienced this recently with The Hobbit, too (seriously - did anyone actually play that?) so they are not unused to the idea - but they blamed that on not owning the IP, hence relegating it to "specialist game" status to focus on their own (new, in this case) IP.
It's interesting to see Reecius mention a lot of interest (and sales) at the beginning, but not continuing on... although mikhaila says it has failed, this seems to match what he experienced a bit at the beginning, too. I know I was certainly interested at the beginning - and am no longer, with everyone I know embracing KoW or moving on to other games.
You can only work with the evidence presented, and there is certainly some evidence to the contrary as posted by several folks in this thread... but at least in the above quotes you have it "straight from the horses mouth" regarding several stores and a rather large poll. Obviously, this is all online, but that's the medium we are using and if you discount anything posted online as suspect then you aren't going to be able to draw anything from this thread, regardless!
Manchu wrote: GW operates so differently than how it formerly did and this has almost uniformly been at the expense of LGS owners.
I disagree with this aspect of your post. GW is exceptional to FLGS. Based on my brother's management of a FLGS, GW has done at least the following: given six-packs of new paints and spray paints to the store for free to help motivate sales of a particular line; given thousands of dollars in "credit" to be used by the store to purchase prize support and store-use terrain and store-use books; given 60 and 90 day terms for new releases; send free replacements when a box type changes; or given credit when a unit box/blister/etc is discontinued; given free promotional items for the store to give away with every GW purchase.
If anything, GW is the best friend of FLGS. Other companies such as Wizkids and FFG offer Organized Play kits but charge for them. GW just gives FLGS free stuff.
"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke
those are three store owners though, not really worth much. and like I and others have said that polls have several big problems outlined on the previous page.
You won't see as much dissatisfaction about any game not produced by GW on this site or other GW-centric sites because less people are talking about them. But if you go to a cite where X product line is the focus, you're going to find bitching about X product line. Check out WLG's forum if you want to see how dissatisfied certain people are with their games.
Yes, that goal post has always been there (although it has been consistently ignored) given the sample has always been self-selected.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/04 16:49:21
Manchu wrote: You have to keep in mind that the AoS launch devastated his morale to the point that he logged on to Dakka and confessed to breaking down and crying. He also immediately started offering the starter box at a significant discount on the swap shop here, reflecting his lack of confidence in the product.
That gets my vote for the Best of Dakka 2015. It was very hilarious and very, very sad. I lost count of how many people I told about that.
"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke
Judgedoug - Mikhaila would actually often say the same thing, that GW was great to FLGS (although I believe he has said this was much more true in the past, and unfortunately isn't as much currently, regarding freebies / support).
Manchu - I posted the accounts of 3 fairly active store owners who posted in this thread above, and there were at least 2 more who also posted in this thread but aren't as prolific of posters so I can't find them at the moment. I think focusing on any one "anecdote" is a mistake - but the topic of this thread was really to try to discuss if there was a trend of any kind forming. If you discount all evidence shown online, you really aren't going to be able to have a discussion here... online about it.
The metric is also fluid since "failing" could mean all sorts of different things, and as you say, maybe compared to WHFB sales it isn't doing so bad! We'll see... but I think, as I copied in my post above, the weight of evidence that we have available is certainly indicating that it is not selling as well as might be hoped for such a new flagship line. We'll see if the fire dwarfs can turn that around, though - the models at least certainly have my interest
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 16:41:14
Please keep the original context in mind, I was not comparing GW to other companies in the current timeframe but rather GW 15 or 10 years ago to GW today (because the subject was mikhalia's long relationship with GW).
Manchu, did you see my posts? This isn't just about Mikhaila, and it's actually a little frustrating for you to continue to focus on his account when he posted his genuine feelings... Reecius is mostly an online seller and he is liquidating his stock and certainly hasn't made any negative AoS posts.
I am really glad it's doing well at your and judgedoug's local scene, but I think you might have blinders on a bit if you think you can discount the evidence of the many store owners and others who have posted that it is not doing well for them in their local scenes...
Anyway, I think I've made my point so will bow out for a bit. But if you're not going to at least consider the volume of evidence posted as indicative of a trend, it's really hard to have any kind of online discussion about the possibility of a trend! I bet we could have a good one in-person, at least - maybe if I'm down that way sometime we can do so and I can see the sweet AoS forces you guys have built up
RiTides wrote: If you discount all evidence shown online, you really aren't going to be able to have a discussion here... online about it.
And that is a legitimate conclusion. The question could be (and likely actually is) not answerable by anyone present or, if someone present actually could answer, they would be risking their livelihood to do so. What we have instead is people who, for various reasons, don't like the game piling on about it being a failure and people who do like it opposing that declaration. And given the demographics here, it is likely there are many more folks who will not like AoS (espcially regarding the points issue) than those who do.
Manchu wrote:... when certain backers portray the project creator as infallible up until another backer complains about something in which case they excuse the creator...
Imagine that.
Zywus wrote:
Can you honestly say that you'd say the same thing if it was reversed? If the polls results showed the majority of those answering them were satisfied and known store owners reported that sales was through the roof. Would you still claim that, nah... we can't know if AoS is doing good.
I know that if it seemed like it was doing well, I'd be a lot quieter.
Despairing, but quietly.
auticus wrote:Which is a shame because there is a lot of good stuff that can be pulled from it and the alternatives (kings of war and "9th age") are IMO both very bland tournament styled games in a market flooded with those type of games.
The market is flooded with fantasy mass-combat games?
And, like I've been saying, in KoW's case at least: bland if you like a heap of special rules. Deeper if you like tactical manoeuvre.
Mymearan wrote: those are three store owners though, not really worth much. and like I and others have said that polls have several big problems outlined on the previous page.
If it all so pointless why bother to point it out. If what said online has no base in the really world, why argue about it at all. Instead of just letting the thread die, because why worry about it if all the hater are wrong and just what until the GW report come out. So you can argue "we can't know anything from that".
Peter: As we all know, Christmas is that mystical time of year when the ghost of Jesus rises from the grave to feast on the flesh of the living! So we all sing Christmas Carols to lull him back to sleep.
Bob: Outrageous, How dare he say such blasphemy. I've got to do something.
Man #1: Bob, there's nothing you can do.
Bob: Well, I guess I'll just have to develop a sense of humor.
RiTides wrote: If you discount all evidence shown online, you really aren't going to be able to have a discussion here... online about it.
And that is a legitimate conclusion. The question could be (and likely actually is) not answerable by anyone present or, if someone present actually could answer, they would be risking their livelihood to do so. What we have instead is people who, for various reasons, don't like the game piling on about it being a failure and people who do like it opposing that declaration. And given the demographics here, it is likely there are many more folks who will not like AoS (espcially regarding the points issue) than those who do.
That's a fair viewpoint to take - but it just means you'll not be able to get anything out of this thread (and can't really consider anything discussed therein) other than to say "None of this is valid". Again, that's fair... but it would be nice to at least be able to consider the evidence available for those who do want to try to see if any trend is discernable! And as far as evidence goes, your and judgedoug's local scene is definitely one pointing to the success and adoption of AoS in some areas (especially since yours is an independent scene and not an official GW one).
Mymearan wrote: those are three store owners though, not really worth much. and like I and others have said that polls have several big problems outlined on the previous page.
If it all so pointless why bother to point it out. If what said online has no base in the really world, why argue about it at all. Instead of just letting the thread die, because why worry about it if all the hater are wrong and just what until the GW report come out. So you can argue "we can't know anything from that".
Sorry mate, I work with evidence daily and can't stop myself, I guess you could call it a work-related injury
Please keep the original context in mind, I was not comparing GW to other companies in the current timeframe but rather GW 15 or 10 years ago to GW today (because the subject was mikhalia's long relationship with GW).
Ah, true. I was just contrasting what I *thought* was true about GW for years and years with what I only recently learned about how exceptionally well they treat FLGS.
"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke
Honestly, at this point it is all well and good to say that we who think that AoS is failing can't prove it. We can't. But by that same metric no one is able to prove AoS is doing well. In fact you would be even less able to say AoS is doing well given what little information we have. So we can agree we won't know in the short term, which I think we all already have, but if we are talking about the information we have then most of it is pointing to AoS being a sinking ship.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
RiTides wrote: And as far as evidence goes, your and judgedoug's local scene is definitely one pointing to the success and adoption of AoS in some areas (especially since yours is an independent scene and not an official GW one).
I almost wish it wasn't true, because I just bought a Nurgle AoS army to go with my Stormcast Eternals and I really really shouldn't be spending that money. But a new league starts in January and I wanna get these guys 100% painted before then... along with my early war Bolt Action German army... and my Gates of Antares Algoryn army... argh
"...and special thanks to Judgedoug!" - Alessio Cavatore "Now you've gone too far Doug! ... Too far... " - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke
Yes, that's the point jono - you can only work with the information you have if you want to have an online discussion. That's why the poll was interesting, and the store owner accounts (I copied 3 above, but there were several more who also posted and I'll see if I can find) since they are at least looking at it from a "dollars and cents" point of view. We'll see how things play out, but indications so far are not very good - from the poll, it's a 3 to 1 ratio of people saying it has less interest as time goes on.
I certainly think the dwarf release has a chance to change that - I'll be paying close attention to it and hopefully it's awesome even if I'm only possibly after the models and not the rules.
RiTides wrote: And as far as evidence goes, your and judgedoug's local scene is definitely one pointing to the success and adoption of AoS in some areas (especially since yours is an independent scene and not an official GW one).
I almost wish it wasn't true, because I just bought a Nurgle AoS army to go with my Stormcast Eternals and I really really shouldn't be spending that money. But a new league starts in January and I wanna get these guys 100% painted before then... along with my early war Bolt Action German army... and my Gates of Antares Algoryn army... argh
Haha, yes I can relate to that . Our local scene thankfully has caught the Guildball bug at the moment, so it's a lot cheaper than some of the other things we've all dived into together!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 16:55:09
jonolikespie wrote: Honestly, at this point it is all well and good to say that we who think that AoS is failing can't prove it. We can't. But by that same metric no one is able to prove AoS is doing well. In fact you would be even less able to say AoS is doing well given what little information we have. So we can agree we won't know in the short term, which I think we all already have, but if we are talking about the information we have then most of it is pointing to AoS being a sinking ship.
I'd call it a ship under construction that has suffered some delays... Perspectives and all it all depends on if you view it as a completely new game that hasn't found its footing or a failed WHFB9.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 16:55:21
Mymearan wrote: I'd call it a ship under construction that has suffered some delays... Perspectives and all
That's also fair, Mymearan - will be interesting to see how it goes once the "construction" continues a bit (meaning some releases of something that isn't a darn Stormcast or Khorne model!)
RiTides wrote: you'll not be able to get anything out of this thread (and can't really consider anything discussed therein) other than to say "None of this is valid"
The anecdotes people (including me) are posting are not invalid at all. They are just insufficient to answer the question posed by OP.
Mymearan wrote: I'd call it a ship under construction that has suffered some delays... Perspectives and all
That's also fair, Mymearan - will be interesting to see how it goes once the "construction" continues a bit (meaning some releases of something that isn't a darn Stormcast or Khorne model!)
Indeed.. I guess I could continue the simile by saying that the shipmaster decided it would be a good idea to start building the ship from the wrong end even I, a Stormcast player, am really annoyed by their release strategy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 17:01:21
Please keep the original context in mind, I was not comparing GW to other companies in the current timeframe but rather GW 15 or 10 years ago to GW today (because the subject was mikhalia's long relationship with GW).
Ah, true. I was just contrasting what I *thought* was true about GW for years and years with what I only recently learned about how exceptionally well they treat FLGS.
Sure, imagine the results if we had a Dakka poll about whether GW supports LGS's.
Manchu wrote:... when certain backers portray the project creator as infallible up until another backer complains about something in which case they excuse the creator...
Imagine that.
LOL I included that example precisely to see if someone would un-ironically throw it back in my face.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 17:04:26
This comes up again and again. You have to keep in mind that the AoS launch devastated his morale to the point that he logged on to Dakka and confessed to breaking down and crying. He also immediately started offering the starter box at a significant discount on the swap shop here, reflecting his lack of confidence in the product. The guy runs a business with two locations and has a long history of working with GW successfully but by his own account that success has worn pretty thin because GW operates so differently than how it formerly did and this has almost uniformly been at the expense of LGS owners. You need to take his posts with a grain of salt, like you would anything else.
I don't think he's sandbagged AoS through a dislike for GW. I remember him expressing huge frustration in GW for not telling him anything until about a week before launch, giving him no time to prepare. He bought a large batch of Aos, and was working on a tournament system for the launch and/or following weekend. He did everything in his power to boost AoS sales despite GW, and it completely tanked. It's cost him thousands of dollars a month - it's not down to spite on his part, it's down to GW's handling of AoS.
I personally don't blame him for being pissed off at GW; this whole mess could have cost him his businesses.
He's always come across as pretty candid and honest on here, so I've got no reason to disbelieve him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/04 17:03:43
I'm very keen too to see what the dwarf release is right. It is entirely possible that the game is still just trying to find it's legs and needs a few more releases. If the dwarves come with lots of new models and solid fluff I think it will go a long way to establishing the game. People who are still waiting for their armies to be mentioned will be encouraged by that and wait to see what happens when their race is updated.
The Lizardman release I think turned a lot of people off when they got not a single new model and... fluff that was not what people seemed to be hoping for to word it diplomatically. If the dwarves get a new slayer character, maybe a box of plastic slayers and nothing else it could be taken either way. If it is just the slayer character and the fluff is still vague or changes them drastically it could put off more people. I know I for one and worried about the idea that slayers are now just mercenaries who fight for gold.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
" - Rick Priestley "I've decided that I'd rather not have you as a member of TMP." - Editor, The Miniatures Page "I'd rather put my testicles through a mangle than spend any time gaming with you." - Richard, TooFatLardies "We need a Doug Craig in every store." - Warlord Games "Thank you for being here, Judge Doug!" - Adam Troke 
about it.
it all depends on if you view it as a completely new game that hasn't found its footing or a failed WHFB9.
