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.

Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Again, what does it have to do with this discussion?

We had been talking about the contrast between End Times and AoS. If there is a setting spectrum from finite to infinite possibility, you would have WM/H toward the former and 40k toward the latter. From End Times to AoS, Warhammer Fantasy made a tremendous leap from the WM/H part of the spectrum to the 40k part. Some folks, like yourself, clearly see this as a flaw but many others see it as a feature. It is definitely a feature of 40k and one the company has been keen to sell over the decades. GW has been less committed to the idea of plot progression, with a few notable exceptions such as (most recently) End Times.

The thing is, 40k can play it quite well as a feature, whereas AoS cannot, because it's focusing too much on the "infinite" parts of it all - the faceless resources for war, the immensity of the realms, the epic combats, etc - and not giving the players a reason to care. Amazingly enough, I do care about my Dark Angels!

GW could very well have learned something from the ET about applying plot progression, but they chose the learn the wrong thing. There's nothing to be gained from plot progression if this is done just for its own sake.

(Be back on this discussion in a few hours, driving back home :p )

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Amazingly enough, I do care about my Dark Angels!

And I care about my Bloodbound! I mean, I care about them in the context of a campaign. Being so new, they don't have nearly the iconic resonance of a Space Marine legion. But with the characters that bring some of that relevance with them from the Old World, like Valkia, I have the same feeling.

Just thinking about my last few posts... Manchu, I give up. It's exhausting trying to keep up as you flit from one non-sequitur to another.

"Points are a myth!"
"AoS only seems to be unpopular because 40K players!"
"I assume they're making assumptions!"
"Mikhaila couldn't make AoS sell because he doesn't understand it!"

The problem - part of the problem - seems to be that you're trying to view it in a super-serious scientific way, a way that few others are claiming. Trying to identify every little factor that might skew and invalidate the experiment or survey. (I took zoology at uni, too long ago. I have an inkling of what it's like.) Trouble is you, along with every other pro-AoS and anti-AoS person here, as you've said, can't do that. We all know we have to wait and see solid numbers in January, and the next few reports after that. I'm on the edge of me seat, myself.
But 40K or no, points bias or no, the few solid facts we can grasp about the reaction to AoS go beyond what I personally expected, as moany about the game as I am. The last time I saw anything approaching this was the reaction to 8th ed. (And there were plenty still saying "8th ed is the best ever! Everyone I know plays it!" back then, too.) And I can't believe it's only happening in isolation, here on Dakka. This is not to say "I want it to fail!" or "I knew it'd fail!", but "Blimey! That bad?"

Anyway. G'luck to you.

Id say "according to on-line reception, AOS isn't doing as well as expected. "

 Vermis wrote:
as you flit from one non-sequitur to another

Add non sequitur to the words you are misusing ITT.

 Vermis wrote:
you're trying to view it in a super-serious scientific way, a way that few others are claiming

To quote my old friend HBMC:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You know I'm the last person to defend GW on anything, but I can't just go off what people feel. Reelz before feelz people; let's see some fething proof.

Lots of "feelz" ITT, of course. And the sentiment is negative, just as you would expect it to be from this crowd. After all, people come to Dakka Dakka primarily to discuss games where point valuation and relatively intricate list building are taken for granted.

Bearing in mind, of course, that numbers and reports given by gaming store managers don't count as proof because, um, reasons.

 Elemental wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that numbers and reports given by gaming store managers don't count as proof because, um, reasons.

As the poster who is a statistician explained, because there are only two or three of them. I would add it is fairly easy to explain their lack of success, as well. Finally, there is also broadly equivalent opposing anecdotal evidence.

Believe what you want to believe. Just keep those words short and sweet as you may just have to eat them in January.

I may have to "eat" the proposition that we do not currently know whether AoS is successful or not?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Again, what does it have to do with this discussion?

We had been talking about the contrast between End Times and AoS. If there is a setting spectrum from finite to infinite possibility, you would have WM/H toward the former and 40k toward the latter. From End Times to AoS, Warhammer Fantasy made a tremendous leap from the WM/H part of the spectrum to the 40k part. Some folks, like yourself, clearly see this as a flaw but many others see it as a feature. It is definitely a feature of 40k and one the company has been keen to sell over the decades. GW has been less committed to the idea of plot progression, with a few notable exceptions such as (most recently) End Times.

The thing is, 40k can play it quite well as a feature, whereas AoS cannot, because it's focusing too much on the "infinite" parts of it all - the faceless resources for war, the immensity of the realms, the epic combats, etc - and not giving the players a reason to care. Amazingly enough, I do care about my Dark Angels!

GW could very well have learned something from the ET about applying plot progression, but they chose the learn the wrong thing. There's nothing to be gained from plot progression if this is done just for its own sake.

...and it doesn't help that they consider "rocks fall, everyone dies" to be epic story telling.

The idea of Tomb Kings being slaves to Nagash put me off the new setting pretty quick.

Manchu wrote:
I may have to "eat" the proposition that we do not currently know whether AoS is successful or not?

Yes, that's how making statements then having something come along to categorically disprove them works.

Exactly the same can be said for those of us saying AoS is a failure.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes, that's how making statements then having something come along to categorically disprove them works.

Think about what you are saying. How would figures coming out in January disprove that we can't know right now in December whether AoS is a success or failure?

I don't know why everyone keeps looking forward to the January statement. They're not going to say anything in there that'll change anyone's mind, guarantee it.

Didn't mikhaila have a brief period of enthusiasm for AoS? I think I remember that, back after the initial shock of what GW had done.

Also, I find it interesting how WHFB has suddenly become a massive money drain since 6th edition to some people (rather than the 'less popular in 8th edition, no making the money 40k does' take that used to crop up a lot); strikes me as very similar to the way points suddenly became the bane of all hobby creativity after AoS axed them.

You want to know why it's failing at these stores. Because most hobby store owners with a few exceptions aren't businessmen. They don't have the professional selling skills to sell water to a man stranded in the Sahara. If all you do is come on the internet and bash a game, I bet that's all you do in your store too. That's a surefire recipe for success. I mean promotion and qualifying customers, whoever heard of that. In reality it's no coincidence that AoS did spectacular at my store, I've sold more copies of that then the store did of Dark Vengeance in it's entire existence. Simply because when I took over as sales manager (right around the time AoS came out) I instituted a no trash talk policy, used promotion, and identified the customers who AoS would be the best fit for. Now my competition down the street sold less than 20, but they constantly bad mouth the game.

No the reason any of the stores is even still in business is because they started in a vacuum and never had real competition. Well guess what, the legion of Grognard loyalists is shrinking and these musty old brick and mortars will eventually be run out by stores like Miniature Market.

Meanwhile I'll keep selling games that I don't like or don't play, because there is a customer out there that wants it.

 Spinner wrote:
Didn't mikhaila have a brief period of enthusiasm for AoS? I think I remember that, back after the initial shock of what GW had done.

Yes, you remember correctly. He recovered himself and set about to trying to sell the product, including setting up his own balancing rules for organized play, but pretty quickly (or so it seemed to me, I did not go back and look for how much time lapsed) he reported lack of success.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
because there is a customer out there that wants it

Exactly. Even if the customer doesn't know it yet and a salesman has to explain it to him.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
Because most hobby store owners with a few exceptions aren't businessmen. They don't have the professional selling skills to sell water to a man stranded in the Sahara. If all you do is come on the internet and bash a game, I bet that's all you do in your store too.

This would indeed be my anecdotal evidence of every game store I've ever stepped into in the last twenty three years I've been visiting game stores along the length of the east coast - except, interestingly, for yours, which is why I game there.
Most FLGS owners are content to sit behind a dusty counter playing some online game and grunting dissatisfaction when someone wants to purchase something; or, hang out in the store bashing someone/something instead of replacing the Glade Plug-ins that expired three months ago.

 DrNo172000 wrote:


No the reason any of the stores is even still in business is because they started in a vacuum and never had real competition. .

...you're talking about GW, right?

Yes, you remember correctly. He recovered himself and set about to trying to sell the product, including setting up his own balancing rules for organized play, but pretty quickly (or so it seemed to me, I did not go back and look for how much time lapsed) he reported lack of success.

Seemed to me he reported a lack of interest in people buying it about the time other people reported it. There was general enthusiasm (mixed in with all the other emotions generated by Age of Sigmar) for the starter set - not that I can really understand why, to be fair - and then a whole lot of 'meh' and 'really? They're called boltstormers'?

 Spinner wrote:
Seemed to me he reported a lack of interest in people buying it about the time other people reported it. There was general enthusiasm (mixed in with all the other emotions generated by Age of Sigmar) for the starter set - not that I can really understand why, to be fair - and then a whole lot of 'meh' and 'really? They're called boltstormers'?

If I walked into my FLGS and drno172000 was badmouthing a miniatures game and literally crying about how awful it was and it was going to ruin my business, I would certainly not have any enthusiasm to purchase the product (and would have burst out laughing). and then if the same person a few weeks later was like "no trust me it's actually not bad!" I would immediately recall the hysterics and decline (and then burst out laughing again)

Honestly that's a huge factor in why GW is on top right now Spinner. They are clearly trying to shift their ways, but that sort of thing is not easy for a business that size.

Manchu wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that numbers and reports given by gaming store managers don't count as proof because, um, reasons.

As the poster who is a statistician explained, because there are only two or three of them. I would add it is fairly easy to explain their lack of success, as well. Finally, there is also broadly equivalent opposing anecdotal evidence.

This is what's frustrating about this conversation - any evidence is deemed insufficient. There are many more than three (I copied three into my post as a quote for ease of reference only). If it would matter to you, I can find the quotes from the others... but I'm guessing it would not matter.

As for "broadly equivalent opposing anecdotal evidence", what do you mean by "broadly equivalent"? I am genuinely curious. I copied a poll showing 3-to-1 saying it's faring poorly, and in this thread the ratio is at least that for individual posters... if you simply consider this to be a self-selecting group, I still don't know how you could say you have seen "broadly equivalent" evidence here. Or really, anywhere online (since obviously you can't just count your local scene). How can you say they are equivalent... or again, do the numbers / ratios just not matter because you view this as a group not representative enough of?

Spinner, yeah I was modding most of those early threads re AoS and there was a ton of very fierce negativity about the game on here from Day 1 (including by mikhaila). Those opinions have hardened into "facts" by now, as you can see ITT. The current AoS N&R thread (and the previous one) are IMO and IME pretty par for the course in terms of hate/interest ratio for around here, keeping in mind Dakka posters generally never have been and will likely never be as interested in Fantasy as 40k.

RiTides, what frustrates me is that anecdotal is deemed sufficient to support the preexisting conclusion (which is exactly the problem with anecdotal evidence). By "broadly equivalent" I mean of similar statistical irrelevance.

 RiTides wrote:

Manchu wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
Bearing in mind, of course, that numbers and reports given by gaming store managers don't count as proof because, um, reasons.

As the poster who is a statistician explained, because there are only two or three of them. I would add it is fairly easy to explain their lack of success, as well. Finally, there is also broadly equivalent opposing anecdotal evidence.

This is what's frustrating about this conversation - any evidence is deemed insufficient. There are many more than three (I copied three into my post as a quote for ease of reference only). If it would matter to you, I can find the quotes from the others... but I'm guessing it would not matter.

As for "broadly equivalent opposing anecdotal evidence", what do you mean by "broadly equivalent"? I am genuinely curious. I copied a poll showing 3-to-1 saying it's faring poorly, and in this thread the ratio is at least that for individual posters... if you simply consider this to be a self-selecting group, I still don't know how you could say you have seen "broadly equivalent" evidence here. Or really, anywhere online (since obviously you can't just count your local scene). How can you say they are equivalent... or again, do the numbers / ratios just not matter because you view this as a group not representative enough of?

How many stores do you imagine there are that sell AoS? How much of that chunk responded to the poll? Do you really imagine that statistics gathered on a forum no matter how popular can even come close to reflecting total sales across all stores worldwide. I'm sorry not even precious Dakka is that popular.

Manchu wrote:
The current AoS N&R thread (and the previous one) are IMO and IME pretty par for the course in terms of hate/interest ratio for around here, keeping in mind Dakka posters generally never have been and will likely never be as interested in Fantasy as 40k.

I have trouble with that, too... in the previous sentence, you mention how negative folks were about AoS on Dakka, and here you say that hate/interest ratio is par for the course!

I've presented as much data as we have available:

- Quotes from 3 regular Dakka store owners (and no wonder others won't post, you and judgedoug pick mikhaila's account half to death when he was just being honest!)
- Results from a poll of 550 people
- We could count up the posts in this thread about stores where it is succeeding or failing to increase the dataset by a lot...?

But in the end, I think you are discounting the numbers because you think Dakka is a self-selecting group that is biased against AoS. That is fine, but it is not fine to pretend the numbers here are "broadly equivalent", or really anywhere online... the backlash against AoS online is intense and the data that we have available, while not sufficient, is definitely not "equivalent" as far as adoption vs rejection goes!

 RiTides wrote:

Manchu wrote:
The current AoS N&R thread (and the previous one) are IMO and IME pretty par for the course in terms of hate/interest ratio for around here, keeping in mind Dakka posters generally never have been and will likely never be as interested in Fantasy as 40k.

I have trouble with that, too... in the previous sentence, you mention how negative folks were about AoS on Dakka, and here you say that hate/interest ratio is par for the course!

I've presented as much data as we have available:

- Quotes from 3 regular Dakka store owners (and no wonder others won't post, you and judgedoug pick mikhaila's account half to death when he was just being honest!)
- Results from a poll of 550 people
- We could count up the posts in this thread about stores where it is succeeding or failing to increase the dataset by a lot...?

But in the end, I think you are discounting the numbers because you think Dakka is a self-selecting group that is biased against AoS. That is fine, but it is not fine to pretend the numbers here are "broadly equivalent", or really anywhere online... the backlash against AoS online is intense and the data that we have available, while not sufficient, is definitely not "equivalent" as far as adoption vs rejection goes!

550 is tiny sliver of the overall consumer base in hobby games. If all you have is bad statistics then no conclusion should be drawn. There shouldn't be a conclusion of it's successful or not successful. You do not draw conclusions on a small data sample.

 DrNo172000 wrote:
How many stores do you imagine there are that sell AoS? How much of that chunk responded to the poll? Do you really imagine that statistics gathered on a forum no matter how popular can even come close to reflecting total sales across all stores worldwide.

I hate Quoted For Truth but seriously this is spot on. We have perhaps a dozen people posting the same thing over and over in this thread. a poll created that was basically hate-bait, and the confessions from three FLGS owners that it's not done well and one that says it outsells DV.

 RiTides wrote:
I have trouble with that, too... in the previous sentence, you mention how negative folks were about AoS on Dakka, and here you say that hate/interest ratio is par for the course!

Read carefully. The first comment relates to launch timeframe of AoS. Second comment relates to current timeframe. This was in response to Spinner's observation about how interest in AoS cooled. Hatred of AoS cooled a bit as well.

 RiTides wrote:
(and no wonder others won't post, you and judgedoug pick mikhaila's account half to death when he was just being honest!)

I appreciate his honesty because we can see his example for what it is, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 RiTides wrote:
but it is not fine to pretend the numbers here are "broadly equivalent"

It is not fine to misread my posts and argue against your own misreadings. My comment about the numbers being broadly similar was in regard to the negative store owner response being statistically insignificant as well as thepostive store owner response being statistically insignificant. And I actually explicitly clarified this when you asked (guess you missed it because of automatic add-on posting).

 RiTides wrote:
you and judgedoug pick mikhaila's account half to death when he was just being honest!)

"as if being true to your beliefs is a virtue, even when your beliefs are fething slowed"

 judgedoug wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Seemed to me he reported a lack of interest in people buying it about the time other people reported it. There was general enthusiasm (mixed in with all the other emotions generated by Age of Sigmar) for the starter set - not that I can really understand why, to be fair - and then a whole lot of 'meh' and 'really? They're called boltstormers'?

If I walked into my FLGS and drno172000 was badmouthing a miniatures game and literally crying about how awful it was and it was going to ruin my business, I would certainly not have any enthusiasm to purchase the product (and would have burst out laughing). and then if the same person a few weeks later was like "no trust me it's actually not bad!" I would immediately recall the hysterics and decline (and then burst out laughing again)

I probably would too, but I don't remember mikhaila crying in front of customers about how AoS was going to ruin his business. I remember him being upset on here about the direction GW had chosen to go - and he's hardly alone in that. I remember him being frustrated with the way GW was treating him as a store owner. Hard to fault him for that. And I remember him trying to give it a fair chance when he thought it might sell and prove popular. It didn't. If he was an isolated case, you might be able to say 'well, he wasn't trying hard enough', but he's clearly not.

So either all these store owners are the Comic Book Guy or the game just isn't very popular. I haven't heard store owners getting flak for not being able to sell Dreadfleet...

judgedoug - A "dozen" people? I was going through gathering quotes about specific stores from earlier in the thread and had a dozen just from searching for that one term in a couple of pages!

Manchu - Sorry I got a little fired up . By "equivalent" I thought you were including the anecdotal evidence in this thread, which is definitely not equivalent (i.e. 3 to 1 ratio in the poll, and similarly here).

In the end, I know I'm not going to move the needle with you guys, but I just think we need to be honest - there are tons more people posting about how AoS is struggling in their area on Dakka. This might, or might not mean anything - but it is definitely not "equivalent". As long as we're clear on that, I'm happy to agree to disagree

 Spinner wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Seemed to me he reported a lack of interest in people buying it about the time other people reported it. There was general enthusiasm (mixed in with all the other emotions generated by Age of Sigmar) for the starter set - not that I can really understand why, to be fair - and then a whole lot of 'meh' and 'really? They're called boltstormers'?

If I walked into my FLGS and drno172000 was badmouthing a miniatures game and literally crying about how awful it was and it was going to ruin my business, I would certainly not have any enthusiasm to purchase the product (and would have burst out laughing). and then if the same person a few weeks later was like "no trust me it's actually not bad!" I would immediately recall the hysterics and decline (and then burst out laughing again)

I probably would too, but I don't remember mikhaila crying in front of customers about how AoS was going to ruin his business. I remember him being upset on here about the direction GW had chosen to go - and he's hardly alone in that. I remember him being frustrated with the way GW was treating him as a store owner. Hard to fault him for that. And I remember him trying to give it a fair chance when he thought it might sell and prove popular. It didn't. If he was an isolated case, you might be able to say 'well, he wasn't trying hard enough', but he's clearly not.

So either all these store owners are the Comic Book Guy or the game just isn't very popular. I haven't heard store owners getting flak for not being able to sell Dreadfleet...

Do you imagine not a single one of his customers frequents Dakka? Do you shop there, and have evidence this attitude did not carry into conversations with customers in store?