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.

On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I'd say kids 10+ all the way up to young adults (until 23 I'd say?)... But then you got the hardcore fans that will loose those wallets up for the Archaon models and etc etc...

But that's just me.

It only makes sense that GW actually are trying to sell more boxes.

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

That's a great question - I think it's pretty clearly a younger, as-yet-untapped market. They've always aimed at that demographic, but fantasy in particular attracted an on-average older crowd interested in a more tactical game.

The problem is, I'm not sure if what they're doing will actually tap into that market - but they are definitely attempting to pivot!

Another side effect of the recent changes is the scale has gotten larger, and thus the price per model significantly higher, so that works against the demographic they seem to be going after a bit.

 Talys wrote:
I think that in AoS, GW wasn't trying to please the broadest demographic at all; but rather, tap into non-traditional wargaming demographics, which is why so much angst with certain players.

Yes you are probably a bit closer to the truth there. I used "broadest demographic" to contrast with the vague notion of "everybody" being tossed around, which seems to actually only cover the nichest niche of all, namely "me personally."

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I'd say kids 10+ all the way up to young adults (until 23 I'd say?)... But then you got the hardcore fans that will loose those wallets up for the Archaon models and etc etc...

But that's just me.

This is the thing that confuses me. The rules are clearly aimed at newer or younger gamers, but the game is priced to engage veteran players who are already invested enough to shell out large sums of earned money on new kits for an existing collection.

That 100$ varanguard kit for example is not priced for young or new gamers.

One more interesting note on the untapped market thing - GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it which I think is part of the reason they seem to be spinning their wheels. A lot of their advertising is word of mouth, and by pivoting away from those who would otherwise bring new players into the game, they have to rely mostly on their retail outlets to recruit new players.

I started wargaming because a friend invited me to, and while I'm sure there are folks who walked into a store and were convinced without any referral, it certainly makes generating momentum for the new line more difficult than otherwise (at least, without a marketing push to make up for the loss of word-of-mouth referrals).

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

You know very well I'm talking about the Fantasy brand, not as a whole. Drop that.

Okay, in that case there is no way anyone can save Fantasy and there is no reason for GW to even make Fantasy products.

Related - when it comes to games that emphasize learning/developing tactics and honing skill, GW is facing more competition than ever before. Gone are the days, for example, when historicals mini games are all musty saddle-stapled pamphlets of the lowest production qualities with nothing in the way of a supporting miniatures line absent stumbling through a bewildering array of garage-based companies.

 Manchu wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I think that in AoS, GW wasn't trying to please the broadest demographic at all; but rather, tap into non-traditional wargaming demographics, which is why so much angst with certain players.

Yes you are probably a bit closer to the truth there. I used "broadest demographic" to contrast with the vague notion of "everybody" being tossed around, which seems to actually only cover the nichest niche of all, namely "me personally."

Care to elaborate where that little stunt you're saying happened? I am curious now. Do try not to twist other people's words while at it, though.

 RiTides wrote:
GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it

I would say the licensing ramp up is a form of marketing but licensed Fantasy products without exception seem to be set in the Old World.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Care to elaborate where that little stunt you're saying happened?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
if GW had any idea of what to do (aka was not run by witless clowns) they would make the change an inclusive experience for all customers

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it

I would say the licensing ramp up is a form of marketing but licensed Fantasy products without exception seem to be set in the Old World.

Exactly, it's like their left hand doesn't know what their right is doing - you've got a huge video game in Total War coming out in 2016 which would have been the perfect bridge for a younger / video-game focused demographic to make the jump to miniatures, but the setting they would have jumped to has been completely altered from what the video game will represent.

Additionally, as someone (I think judgedoug?) noted earlier in the thread, in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS, so even if one of these potential new recruits did make it into a shop, there's a pretty good chance they could be deterred from purchasing.

It is just interesting to watch, probably too interesting but as someone else mentioned, it's like a slow-motion trainwreck and you can't unglue your eyes...!

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path.

Half? If fully one half of GW's potential customers are alienated Eighth Edition players then there is nothing anyone can do to save the company and actually there is no way the company is actually still in business.

You know very well I'm talking about the Fantasy brand, not as a whole. Drop that.

Okay, in that case there is no way anyone can save Fantasy and there is no reason for GW to even make Fantasy products.

Related - when it comes to games that emphasize learning/developing tactics and honing skill, GW is facing more competition than ever before. Gone are the days, for example, when historicals mini games are all musty saddle-stapled pamphlets of the lowest production qualities with nothing in the way of a supporting miniatures line absent stumbling through a bewildering array of garage-based companies.

Alienating half of your brand's customer base and creating negative word of mouth at the same time surely isn't the way to save your brand, I can tell you that.

The increasing competition is also showing a light on GW's frailties - mainly its attitude towards customers as reflected in their actions on the more recent years. The fact that they refuse to reach out for customer feedback and pretty much rely on the power of their brand stinks of condescendence - at best they are witless clowns when it comes to running a business while at most they are arrogant @rses that think they know better than their customers... even after seeing their sales decline year after year.

 RiTides wrote:
in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS

Yes, this is something store staff need to get under wraps. All too often, staff themselves are talking down products. I saw this constantly with D&D 4E.

In addition to the Old World itself being gone, you're also missing many of the heroes that will play a pivotal role in the Total War game - so that connection for new gamers is also lost.

 Manchu wrote:

This is the perfect summary of what I have been talking about, the problem with trying to figure out how AoS is doing or will fare by reading Dakka Dakka.]

You’re assuming that reading dakka is the sum total of people’s perception of the hobby. It’s a useful metric for sure, but its not peoples only source if information. Confirmation bias on your part form what I can see, as it basically just seems to reinforce your own predetermined conclusions.

 Manchu wrote:

Just think about it from a completely generic angle.]

Replacing coke with new coke.

Aka the generic angle here is ignore the input, perceptions and points of view of people here that you’d rather not deal with and would prefer to dismiss out of hands – in this case a bunch of people who 'post on dakka' that you have pre-defined as having no value.

 Manchu wrote:

An existing customer base is by definition shrinking. If new customers are "mythical" then no product line could ever survive. Brands survive precisely because they are refreshed and reinvented. Whenever this happens, it tends to alienate some existing customers. There is a positive correlation between the risk of alienating existing customers and the size/profitability of the existing customer base. Rather than assume GW is run by witless clowns, I think it is more reasonable to guess that the drastic change AoS represents tells us a lot about just how poorly Eighth (and likely Seventh) were doing.

Do they show how poorly eighth was doing? Or do they show GW not understanding their game, their player base / customers, the consequences of their own decisions that have played a huge role in bringing them to this point in the first place, along with poor analysis skills in terms of asking ‘why’ and ‘what’ and treating the symptoms with amputation, rather than seeking out the underlying causes and addressing them instead?

If the customer base is shrinking, then surely asking ‘why’ is the order of the day, rather than taking it out for a walk in the field and shooting it in the back of the head. WFB was not unsalvageable. But GW don’t communicate. You know that whole thing about ‘market research’ etc that they dismiss. In a lot of ways, fantasy was being run down by the company themselves – I would argue deliberately, but that’s just me – and people walked away for a lot of reasons. A change of rules to eighth, the maintenance of huge levels of imbalance within the game, a new focus on lots of troops, whilst in and of itself fine, but when coupled to boxes of dudes whose price tags were skyrocketing, and whose contents was shrinking in equal measure makes a game both unfriendly to the current playerbase, but equally unappealing to new patrons. For me, there was also a lack of discipline in the ‘structure’ of the game – too many army lists to support, basically. There are a lot of reasons that brought WFB to this place, that for GW to simply say ‘axe it’ and ‘lets sell stuff to other people instead’ rather than address those causes suggests a fundamental disconnect in their understanding of their own product and the people that buy it, or would buy it.

Brands survive because they are refreshed and reinvented, which is all fair enough. The thing is, you need that continuity as well – there are huge risks in simply axing a product, realigning its replacement for an entirely ‘new’ market with something that’s completely different and expect people to just ‘get it’ out of hand (double meaning is deliberate) – new coke for example. Brands maintain something that makes them what they are. New converse for example. AOS is neither something refreshed or reinvented. Its something new, that came at the expense of something else. such a radical departure, coupled to a very unappealing message to the current fans. Recipe for trouble.

 Manchu wrote:

I disagree that an "all inclusive experience" is a desirable or even possible game design goal. The best you can do is try to appeal to the broadest demographic likely to actually purchase (rather than merely discuss) your product. As always, I'm not ruling out that GW failed there regarding AoS. What I am arguing is, (a) this is most likely why AoS is how it is and (b) it is therefore no surprise that AoS is unappealing to the posters on a 40k-centric message board.

No. Your casual dismissal of those that were invested in WFB, or could be again as not being ‘desirable’ is frankly misplaced and rather snide, and belittles any and all contributions they make, or could make. Dismissing an already existing customer base whilst claiming to be aiming for the ‘broadest demographic likely to purchase’ does not make sense- it is both foolish and shortsighted, especially when you are deliberately not aiming to grab the attention of as many folks as you can – that comment about not being interested in being inclusive is a doozy. Business suicide, especially in a social hobby. Hardcore war gamers can often be toxic, and their own worst enemies, but trying to completely alienate them and ignore them as well is foolish - especially since they're probably likely to get more people into it. You are narrowing your target down for no gain.

And in the case of AOS, they dismissed the idea of trying to appeal to, or recapture the attention of those older fans in favour of a theoretical new demographic. Not only that, but they made that pre-existing playerbase actively hostile to the new game in the process. This is a word of mouth based hobby, and that is a massive knife wound in the gut that is has to deal with from day 1. Had they kept the current playerbase on side to some degree, you wouldn’t be dealing with anything like the level of hostility that’s there now. That current playerbase that isn’t buying for reasons. Maybe addressing those reasons would have worked as well? After all, they have shown a willingness in the past to actually purchase – and a proven record is definitely a positive feature here.

Funnily enough, I think AOS has game. I think it has value. And a niche. As talys puts it - non-traditional war gamers. But did it have to be done at the expense of the current war gamers?

I like games like warmachine and infinity. Massively complex games with immense amounts of moving parts. These same things that appeal to me drive others away. There is a niche out there for people who want to have a basic framework, whether that is just ‘simple’ rules that they can use as a framework to build on themselves, or just use as a simple set of rules. Board games are getting hugely popular, so there is that to tap into as well. If I had kids for example, I would use AOS, not Infinity or WMH. Its not a hardcore wargamers wargame. But it is a hardcore wargamers non-wargaming friends, and family kind of game. Or for folks just wanting to dip their toes into the game. As a lead in for new specialist games, I think it would have been solid. As a replacement for a main line, it has huge shoes to fill, and im not sure that it can.

 RiTides wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
GW is attempting to reach a new market without actually marketing to it

I would say the licensing ramp up is a form of marketing but licensed Fantasy products without exception seem to be set in the Old World.

Exactly, it's like their left hand doesn't know what their right is doing - you've got a huge video game in Total War coming out in 2016 which would have been the perfect bridge for a younger / video-game focused demographic to make the jump to miniatures, but the setting they would have jumped to has been completely altered from what the video game will represent.

Additionally, as someone (I think judgedoug?) noted earlier in the thread, in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS, so even if one of these potential new recruits did make it into a shop, there's a pretty good chance they could be deterred from purchasing.

It is just interesting to watch, probably too interesting but as someone else mentioned, it's like a slow-motion trainwreck and you can't unglue your eyes...!

The total war game completely baffles me. It looks awesome and as someone who was always interested in fantasy might've been the thing that got me to pick up a box. Might've been a great gateway to the game for all types. Not to say the game could've "saved" fantasy by any means, or that fantasy didn't need a fairly radical shake up but it certainly couldn't have hurt the TT.

As an aside, I think people often underestimate just how many people got into 40k by way of the DoW franchise.

Deadnight wrote:
You’re assuming that reading dakka is the sum total of people’s perception of the hobby

No; rather, my assumption is Dakka posters in general value the kind of pick-up play and points system exemplified by 40k.

Deadnight wrote:
Aka the generic angle here is ignore the input, perceptions and points of view of people here that you’d rather not deal with and would prefer to dismiss out of hands

LOL wat. Not even close. Generic meaning not tied to a specific product.

Deadnight wrote:
In a lot of ways, fantasy was being run down by the company themselves – I would argue deliberately

WTF

Deadnight wrote:
there are huge risks in simply axing a product

Agreed. I think you can use present sales to measure that risk, hence why I theorize that GW taking said risk tells us something about how Eighth was doing for them.

Deadnight wrote:
Or for folks just wanting to dip their toes into the game. As a lead in for new specialist games, I think it would have been solid. As a replacement for a main line, it has huge shoes to fill, and im not sure that it can.

Reframe your perspective. Perhaps AoS is basically a new specialist game, using parts left over from a line that has been abandoned (i.e., AoS is not WHFB Ninth).

 Las wrote:
The total war game completely baffles me.

Same here. The only thing I can think is, the game was made under a license sold long ago when neither party suspected AoS would be a thing.

 Las wrote:
As an aside, I think people often underestimate just how many people got into 40k by way of the DoW franchise.

I don't know if this is widely underestimated but it is hard to overestimate DoW's contribution, at least when it comes to mainstreaming the brand into pop culture parlance.

I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

coldgaming wrote:
I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

Excellent point, I find myself in the same boat.

 Manchu wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

Excellent point, I find myself in the same boat.

Same here. Not only that I managed to drag my young kid into it too.

 RiTides wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:
To be honest, watching the pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing of the last six months does kind of remind me of how I personally felt when Games Workshop actually really did kill Warhammer in 2010 after using it for three years as a punching bag.

However, even though you apply the terms to yourself, I really think terms like "pouring of nerd tears, gnashing of teeth, and high pitched wailing" is the kind of thing that polarizes the argument so much. You (and I) had already said our goodbyes, and so were fine - but for others who felt gut-punched (and had, say, bought everything in End Times leading up to AoS, and suddenly no longer had a group that wanted to play) of course they had a strong reaction (again, just like how you felt in 2010). So no need to use belittling language like that towards those who had not yet "said goodbye" to fantasy, just because you / I / some others had!

Oh, come on. We're talking about a bunch of toys and games. We're all nerds here. There's definitely nerd tears and teeth gnashing and high pitched wailing, and they applied to me as equally back then as it applies to a bunch of the posters ITT currently. There's tempers a-flarin' because we're a bunch of nerds who are/were invested in a bunch of purely fictional toys. If you're not already belittling yourself when you get upset over something this irrelevant to reality then someone else should.

coldgaming wrote:
I don't think rules complexity has anything to do with target age. When I was a kid I had all the time in the world to figure out the complexities of my favourite games and master them. As an adult I prefer something more streamlined and easier to jump in and out of.

You are right in a sense. Many kids find it super fun to dig into a weird and complicated game. What isn't fun however is trying to encourage parents to read a 200 page manual. We have to realize that 4 page manual is not just a thing they slapped together the last moment. (Well they might have, but thats another thing) The new rules are a huge selling point for their target demographic, which is kids and their parents, and you can be 100% sure that it was a very conscious decision.

I think alot of us feel like we are worth more to GW than we actually are because we have spend (at least I have) 20000 dollars on their products in our time. But last years revenue is worth nothing to a corporation like GW. We are not the future revenue - The new generation is, and they too are worth another potential 20000. So how does GW make sure to get those money rather than Fantasy Flight Games or other growing companies. Simple - Rebrand yourself and reach out with a less complicated alternative. Make the stores less nerdy and basementy. Make a product that parents want to buy and kids want to buy more of. WFB is not that product. We honestly all know that as it was barely comprehensible for seasoned players. AoS will take some time to get a foothold, but GW is big enough to think a few years ahead.

Think ahead a few years. This is the company that started rebranding their stores Warhammer, then drop the namesake game they rebranded the stores after, right?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I find it really hard to understand how some one can actually consciously defend practices that effectively alienate half of one's customer base as the correct path. But hey...

I think what you either continue to fail to realize, or choose to not understand, is that it is probably because that "customer base" was the smallest it has ever been and was bleeding money for GW, and the decision was made to ax it. The same decision that any company would make in that situation. The same decision that someone with a gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage would make to cut it off, instead of continually applying band-aids and balms to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

I'd say kids 10+ all the way up to young adults (until 23 I'd say?)... But then you got the hardcore fans that will loose those wallets up for the Archaon models and etc etc...

But that's just me.

Since we all love anecdotal evidence in this thread, out of my personal core group of friends that come to my house to play games, there are six that like Age of Sigmar, and they (and myself) are all in their thirties. In this group of six, it includes five people who played Warhammer 6 and then dumped 8. It includes no Warhammer 8 players. It includes four Kings of War players. Out of these six, none actively play 40k either. Again, of those six, one purchased occasional GW kits. Two (including myself)'s main GW purchases over the last few years have been LOTR models. Of these six, three have purchased a fairly large amount of Age of Sigmar models (myself included), and an additional one is buying more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:

 Las wrote:
On the subject of demographics, can someone take a shot at exactly who the target demographic for AoS was/is? Because for the life of me I can't figure it out.

That's a great question - I think it's pretty clearly a younger, as-yet-untapped market. They've always aimed at that demographic, but fantasy in particular attracted an on-average older crowd interested in a more tactical game.

I would argue they consciously abandoned that market roughly 2007/2008 when 4th edition style Herohammer appeared in 7th edition army books and then stripped all remaining tactics out of the system in Warhammer 8 and fully embraced it as the brain-free version of Warhammer 4th edition. Anyone interested in tactics fled then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
in many stores you've got gamers actively steering new folks away from AoS

Yes, this is something store staff need to get under wraps. All too often, staff themselves are talking down products. I saw this constantly with D&D 4E.

Yes, we see it with Mikhaila, who owns two game stores, talked down the game and cried that it was going to ruin him, and then still sold all eighty of his copies. Again, contrast with DRNo172000's game store, which has two game demo displays - Age of Sigmar and Gates of Antares. And as he mentioned, Age of Sigmar starter has sold more since release than the last three years sales of Dark Vengeance. But that is a store that actively promotes it, runs games, and has, as he mentioned, a community of gamers more interested in casual/narrative/not-tournament style gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Or for folks just wanting to dip their toes into the game. As a lead in for new specialist games, I think it would have been solid. As a replacement for a main line, it has huge shoes to fill, and im not sure that it can.

Reframe your perspective. Perhaps AoS is basically a new specialist game, using parts left over from a line that has been abandoned (i.e., AoS is not WHFB Ninth).

I think this is 100% the correct perspective.

Warhammer Fantasy Battles is gone - unsupported. Continue playing 8th edition, or 6th edition Goodhammer, or 3rd edition Oldhammer, or Kings of War, or whatever. Warhammer 9 would almost assuredly have been even worse, so just be thankful the last published Warhammer 8 was not as bad as Warhammer 9 would inevitably have been.

Age of Sigmar is just a new game that shares a small portion of the models from Warhammer. Much like Mordheim shared models from Warhammer, but was a completely different game - whose setting was in the past, and was a skirmish game. Age of Sigmar's setting is in the future, and is a skirmish game.

(again, my argument is that GW did more harm than good by having backwards-compatible warscrolls to Warhammer armies, almost certainly amplifying this confusion that somehow Age of Sigmar is a direct sequel or replacement, mechanically, for Warhammer Fantasy)

One thing that's worth noting is, for an independent store, they actually have no reason to push AoS (or any game system). Smart store owners adapt to what their players want and bring in those games. In our store, for instance, Guilldball is white-hot, along with Malifaux and Infinity doing very well (people seem to be on a skirmish-scale-game kick).

The players here (central Maryland) haven't adopted AoS, so they're carrying the KoW rulebook and seeing what might pick up next.

I've seen your local store also has demos (as you mention) for Gates of Antares. That's awesome and I wish more stores did that. However, there's no reason for an independent store to choose GoA over another SciFi skirmish game if that's what they think their playerbase will be most likely to be interested in. Same goes for AoS - maybe a store wants to continue on the skirmish game kick and start demo'ing Frostgrave.

It's a great time to be a gamer with all the choices available, for sure but one store carrying more of a certain line doesn't really make them right or wrong, just smart if they're carrying what their players want / what they think they might be able to get them the most interested in next. Sometimes the players will drive this, other times the store might introduce a new system, but it is very much a fluid thing and shouldn't be the same at any independent store (obviously this is different for official GW stores, of course).

 RiTides wrote:
I've seen your local store also has demos (as you mention) for Gates of Antares.

The headline there is, having someone who is willing to really put in the effort (in this case, Doug) is just critical. The store (and WLG) has supported his efforts over the last year but the key ingredient is Doug's own enthusiasm. It's like someone posted ITT earlier, you need that alpha gamer. The store has really made an effort with AoS, as well, which helps explain why it is doing well for them. But there wouldn't be a BA community at our store without Doug and I reckon the same is true of Antares.

Yep that makes total sense! It's the same here with Infinity, one guy was obsessed with it, making terrain and the like, and then everyone got onboard . I actually think it usually starts with the players, but a smart store takes that ball and runs with it (there are several stores in this area, and a few of them did just that!).

I think the same is needed with AoS, and it is cool to see that you guys have such a strong group playing it there

 judgedoug wrote:
I think what you either continue to fail to realize, or choose to not understand, is that it is probably because that "customer base" was the smallest it has ever been and was bleeding money for GW, and the decision was made to ax it. The same decision that any company would make in that situation. The same decision that someone with a gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage would make to cut it off, instead of continually applying band-aids and balms to it.

Do you know the word "otiose"?

Why was the customer base of WHFB bleeding away?

 RiTides wrote:
Yep that makes total sense! It's the same here with Infinity, one guy was obsessed with it, making terrain and the like, and then everyone got onboard . I actually think it usually starts with the players, but a smart store takes that ball and runs with it (there are several stores in this area, and a few of them did just that!).

I think the same is needed with AoS, and it is cool to see that you guys have such a strong group playing it there

Agreed. It does start with the players. Which is why alienating so many players the way GW did was a big mistake. They rely on word of mouth but seemed to have done everything to ensure those words are bad ones.
The principle behind AOS was sound. A simplier, smaller game aimed at people who dont want a serious game. It's just the way GW went about it that was awful.

Edit. Just this weekend I convinced a 40k player who was looking at AOS to not dive in