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.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 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"?

Generally applied to the content of your posts, most certainly

 judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 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"?

Generally applied to the content of your posts, most certainly

I think he was saying that instead of axing whfb completely, they should have put forth the effort to find out why it was failing and fix it.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 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"?

Generally applied to the content of your posts, most certainly

Ah you so funny you... Insulting the content of my posts instead of addressing my question. it's clearly pointless to talk to you if you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I think saying the fantasy customer base was the equivalent of a "gangrenous smashed pulp of an appendage" might be going a bit too far, judgedoug . Some of those folks actually adopted AoS, you know!

I do think it's fair to say that it wasn't making GW much money - but if you conclude that, by the exact same metrics, it's also fair to say AoS isn't doing so. You really can't conclude one without the other (although it's fine, for instance, to say AoS doesn't need to be making them much money yet since it's so new... but it's hard to say the old was selling poorly but ignore the same data applied to the new system).

 RiTides wrote:
I do think it's fair to say that it wasn't making GW much money - but if you conclude that, by the exact same metrics, it's also fair to say AoS isn't doing so.

How so? Remember, the only reliable metric we have to judge that GW was unsatisfied with WHFB is that it discontinued WHFB.

Frankly it is orotund to keep mentioning that things are otiose.

Manchu, I didn't say whether or not GW was satisfied with WHFB sales (GW is unsatisfied with lots of things, and claims lots of things, and not all of these are based in fact - such as their IP claims). People reference many things when they say WHFB was "selling poorly", and did so long before GW came out and admitted it

I see, yes I totally agree with those who pointed out earlier that no one knew just how badly WHFB was really doing for GW until we learned, in retrospect, that GW scrapped the game entirely.

 Manchu wrote:

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

That doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinion.

Basically gw wants their customers of Aos to completely change their gaming culture (because it's how thry play in house, which is often quite different to how everyone else does it), as opposed to catering their game to how the gaming population actually plays. There is great value in pugs. By all accounts it's the main vehicle in the states, and as much as playing against a random stranger has little appeal to me, and as much as I will push the idea of communicate, organise and be proactive about making a community, there is great appeal in pick up play and frankly, just being able to get on with it. Making a game without this in mind has a lot of unnecessary hurdles to deal with.

 Manchu wrote:

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

It's how it came across. You did try to dismiss a PoV that you had already decided arbitrarily had no merit. Internet and tone though I'm assuming.

 Manchu wrote:

WTF

Yup. Interesting (conspiracy) theory time Sisters of battle. Basically an all metal army. Gw keeps them around, but never actively does anything with them - bar charge a lot of money for the sculpts. I've seen the argument before, and I think thst there is at least some truth to it, thst gw really doesn't intent on doing anything long term with them, that they're basically there until they're not. And gw is simply uninterested in them or in putting any effort into them either. They're priced in a way to gouge as much as they can, but are set at a price point to make them unwelcome to potential new purchasers because that would mean time/money investment in the product line that gw would rather put elsewhere. Basically turning it into a self fulfilling prophecy that makes it easier to divest them of dead weight when their already low popularity sinks further.

Like I said, interesting theory, and I think there is a grain of truth there. And I think there may be something in it for wfb in that I think gw has been uninterested in it for a while. Like I said. Just a theory.

 Manchu wrote:

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

But the question is did they draw the right conclusions. Or merely the ones they wanted to draw? 8th isn't selling. Take in out and shoot it, versus a long hard look at the reasons why it wasn't selling. Sales are important, but they're not the whole story. They're only scratching the surface of what's going on. Symptom, not cause.

 Manchu wrote:

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).

Uh huh. The problem for many is when it comes at the cost of what it came before, and the fanbase that was there before.

Deadnight wrote:
That doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinion.

Certainly not! It qualifies them, however.

Deadnight wrote:
You did try to dismiss a PoV that you had already decided arbitrarily had no merit.

Actually, I was reasserting a line of argument my interlocutor was ignoring or did not understand.

 Manchu wrote:
Interesting (conspiracy) theory

Think of how this sounds: you're telling me GW sabotages their own products in order to prove to customers that the products are not worth developing?

 Manchu wrote:
But the question is did they draw the right conclusions.

I agree that is the correct question in this thread. The trouble is we cannot answer it and attempts so far betray more about the poster's opinion of the product's quality than its performance.

 Manchu wrote:
I see, yes I totally agree with those who pointed out earlier that no one knew just how badly WHFB was really doing for GW until we learned, in retrospect, that GW scrapped the game entirely.

You are actually the only person I have seen, anywhere, make that claim. For those who played it or were paying attention to all other sources of data leading up to that event, it was clear for years. There have been several posts from judgedoug in this thread referencing just such external data as to why it was doing so poorly for years!

If you are only willing to consider what GW officially tells you, then of course, you can actually know nothing about any game's performance - in fact, you'll never know how AoS is doing, because they don't itemize their sales numbers anymore. If that is the case, perhaps you'll retire from the thread and let those who actually are willing to consider external data have a discussion

So yes, in your case you actually can't discuss how any non-OOP game of GW's (or any company that doesn't itemize their sales numbers) is doing, because you literally won't know anything until the day GW tells you it sucked and they're scrapping it for something new . First party information in this situation is actually even more suspect, because of course they want you to discard the old system and adopt the new, their bottom line depends on it!

Rumors went around on Dakka Dakka and similar sources that SM alone outsold all of WHFB even before Eighth Edition. It was not, however, apparent that WHFB was a failure from those rumors or the many, many anecdotes in sync with them. This is one reason why the drastic changes in AoS were such a huge surprise, despite rumors about these changes preceding them. It made sense that WHFB sold less than 40k, even far far less, and it even made sense that sales might be declining, although this was purely speculative, but it was shocking that GW decided to go with something so totally different even despite many rumors claiming exactly that. The common view (again speculative) is that this shows just how poorly WHFB was doing. What is weird is, if you assume that then it should be easy to also see that something drastic needed doing and the reaction against it from existing WHFB players/customers is basically irrelevant. What none of this gives us is a way to gauge whether AoS is a failure.

Frankly, I think the largest problem with Age of Sigmar is Games Workshop itself. I don't care what all the white knights say, it's GW's toxic relations with their consumers which is tanking this game. I think the GW of the early 2000's could have pulled it off better.

For years they have cultivated a situation where they seem to portray how we somehow 'owe' them for what they give us, and if it doesn't do well, it's our fault as consumers. AoS had the potential to revitalize a shrinking brand, and a company with 30 years of experience is quite likely making it do worse than the game it was to replace.

OTOH, someone (maybe reds8n?) reported that Nottingham employees were rather puzzled as to the reactions against AoS on message boards because they thought they were providing an exciting product of good quality. And TBH it is an exciting product of good quality. I don't know of any Fantasy plastics out there as nice as the AoS starter figures. The artwork is really cool and the rules are IMO fun if very, very casual even by comparison to 40k. I understand their viewpoint entirely. I also understand how frustrating it feels to be one of their customers, given I am one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Why was the customer base of WHFB bleeding away?

Bad balance, ultra high entry point with basic games starting at 2250pts and long time between updates. The killing stroke was when they made demons so OP, that armies went in to three groups. Can't deal with demons, can deal with demons if very lucky and demons.

The principle behind AOS was sound. A simplier, smaller game aimed at people who dont want a serious game.

Have you ever in your life seen any game of any form that doesn't have a scoring system or rules who can take part in it?

I don't know of any Fantasy plastics out there as nice as the AoS starter figures. The artwork is really cool and the rules are IMO fun if very, very casual even by comparison to 40k. I understand their viewpoint entirely

How many people who want to play a game scale looks higher, then actual game play? Who cares how the models looks like or how the art work for it looks, if the game is a pain to play.

 Manchu wrote:
Think of how this sounds: you're telling me GW sabotages their own products in order to prove to customers that the products are not worth developing?

I wouldn't phrase it that way, but when you've got an extremely old line, in a medium you don't support and it isn't a huge seller, and would require a large potential investment to bring it up to date (and said investment would come at the cost of resources in other areas. Meaning less space marines for example) then you do the equivelant of putting it on life support, bare minimum maintenance, and increase prices to gouge what you can from the current consumers (might as well get something out of it, and gw is nothing if not cynical) whilst also acting as a barrier to new consumers (because you'd rather they bought the new overpriced over modelled space marines instead) meaning that there is less resistance when it comes to canning that line, and less resistance from sales to push for a new codex. Meaning you can focus on things you'd rather do instead.

Like axing fantasy instead of asking the questions as to why fantasy was failing and can the ship be turned around.

This is entirely anecdotal, but I can say that Warhammer 8th wasn't doing great in the two areas I play in prior to AoS, and I haven't seen AoS improve the situation. I bought the AoS box and I enjoyed the AoS ruleset (its like Chronopia). But, the snails pace of rules releases coupled with the lack of point values/missions made my playgroup loose interest pretty quick.

While I can say a lot of good things about AoS (stunning minis, easy to play, much easier on the wallet if you're starting out), what turned me off was the lack of points/missions and lack of information about what was coming down the pipe. If I had some idea about GW's game plan for AoS (e.g., is it new edition of Fantasy? Are points/missions coming soon?), our group might have stuck with it. Instead, we moved on to other games and sold our WFB collections.

Another (weird) anecdote, but I had two LGS owners tell their GW sales rep asked them for AoS pre-orders without telling them any other details about AoS (e.g., is it 9th?). Weird corporate within GW.

Manchu, I think you're fundamentally viewing things differently than most people in this thread. The drastic changes in AoS were a surprise because of the in-game nature of them, but almost everyone was expecting the basic changes (lower model count, more of a skirmish game, etc). These expectations are well documented on Dakka, and are precisely because of external data showing that the large model count was hindering new players from starting.

Also, you mention WHFB's declining sales being "purely speculative", but that is also not true - there were ICV2 results, for example, as a rather concrete measure, and other strong indicators such as declining tournament attendance. So, when most people say WHFB was "failing" in this thread, they're referring to that - not the fact that GW scrapped it. In fact, there are many real world examples of companies scrapping profitable products - Ford changed its best-selling Taurus line to the "Five Hundred", and by their own later admission, stranded millions of Taurus owners who might have upgraded (but didn't realize it was the same car) and lost massive sales as a result.

Most of us in this thread discussing WHFB's performance, therefore, are not going off what GW is telling us, but rather what we saw with our own eyes, along with what was widely reported online through sales results, tournament attendance, reports from game store owners and clubs, etc. Similarly, AoS performance, for most people, is not going to be determined by whether GW is "satisfied" with it, but rather adoption rate in stores and clubs, overall sales, etc. We'll know more about these soon when things like the ICV2 report comes out, but in the interim, are going off of the same metrics that were used to determine WHFB's performance long before GW made a change.

The reason I wanted to make a point of this, is let's say the ICV2 numbers come out - that will be a real, hard data point. If you are not willing to consider this data for WHFB past performance (which is the kind of thing most people think of when they talk about it), then obviously you won't do so for AoS, and thus the discussion will be unable to advance with you unless GW were to release their official numbers (which they will not do). So, I just want to ask plainly - will you consider data such as ICV2 when it is released as an indicator of AoS performance, or not? Or to put it another way, is all external data to you insufficient to draw any conclusions about AoS peformance, and if so, why participate in a discussion in a thread where the OP specifically asked that we consider and discuss the available data? Simply saying "the data is not sufficient" is of course a valid view, but if that is your view it would still make sense to allow others who want to draw what they can from the available data to discuss it, just like we did for years with WHFB before its ultimate demise.

My understanding is that IVC2 samples independent retailers. Assuming their methodology is above board, those results would therefore be reflective of how games are doing at independent retailers -- unlike what is possible here, where self-selection creates confirmation bias. But keep in mind, IVC2 only rates the top five games against one another. All we can know from their polling therefore is whether AoS is one of those top five games and how retailers say it sells relative to the others. If it isn't in the top five, that certainly doesn't mean it is a failure. Infinity, for example, has never been one of those top five IIRC. We also have no idea what the margin is between any two ranks on their list or between the fifth game and the sixth or any lower games. Similarly, if AoS shows up on the next IVC2 results, whether at number five or at number 2, I would not be convinced that it is a success (for example, D&D Attack Wing was number 4 for the Fall/Holiday 2014 results). If AoS starts to appear in IVC2's results regularly, then we have a better basis for saying the game is doing well (although even that is questionable; consider if miniatures gaming generally is slowing in growth as seems to be the case according to IVC2). I think pointing this kind of stuff out is pretty valuable way to participate in this thread. Not that I think you have any business trying to get me to defend my participation.

I was more trying to see if there was any possibility for advancement of the discussion as information comes in (not to "bully" you out of the thread, apologies if it came across that way). It seems to me that in order to further the discussion, external sources of information beyond GW would have to be taken into account, so that's why I wanted to ask about that.

Anyway, I think I understand your position and appreciate your explaining it! Cheers for the spirited debate

 judgedoug wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Replacing a turd with a bigger turd will only attract the applause of Coprophiliacs

Shrug, I thought Age of Sigmar was absolutely utter gak until I saw others playing it, and then played it myself, and realized it's a really goddamn fun little skirmish game. It's the first fun thing GW has made since shedding all of their veteran games designers in the late 2000's.

Not played AOS myself, but amongst my local gaming group the general consensus mirrors yours. I spoke to a few of the local players about it and they al consider AOS to be a breath of fresh air after the bloated mess that WFB had become. These guys are all experienced Warhammer players many of whom have been in the hobby for 20+ years.

I dunno, I think there is plenty of grist for the mill. OP asked for hard data but there is none. Despite this, we do have plenty of anecdotes and some very strong opinions. There is value in critically exploring a point of view. For example, many posting ITT report that they do not see AoS played at their LGS. One explanation is, people aren't playing the game. Another explanation is, people are not playing the game at the LGS. Why might someone come to the former conclusion even if the observation more accurately supports the latter? One possibility is ill will. Another possibility, not mutually exclusive with ill will but IMO more interesting, is that posters are equating play at the LGS with how a game is doing. Why might that be the case? We could do a lot of unpacking right there. For example, I have suggested that it makes sense for people who primarily value pick-up play to make this kind of assumption. Now, all of this is just one example of how we need not dismiss anecdotal evidence and can in fact examine it productively, even if we're not going to be able to answer OP's question. nor is any of this the hard data OP asked for but if that is all that's relevant then the thread was over before it started.

No matter what, I think we can all agree: Northern Virginia is an AoS mecca. You guys should totally try and capitalize on that and start running some larger tournaments. I'd be very curious to see a GT-sized tourney showcasing AoS; see what kind of format would evolve from a system without points. And no, I'm not mocking or being facetious.

We're in central VA. Is AoS doing really well up by DC? But yeah as this discussion progresses, I am thinking -- we should take the results of our private escalation league, all these painted armies and terrain and experience with the ruleset, and bring them to the LGS for an exhibition game. That could really drive interest.

 the_Armyman wrote:
No matter what, I think we can all agree: Central Virginia is an AoS mecca. You guys should totally try and capitalize on that and start running some larger tournaments. I'd be very curious to see a GT-sized tourney showcasing AoS; see what kind of format would evolve from a system without points. And no, I'm not mocking or being facetious.

I laughed at out loud at the first line (just the way you phrased it) but I agree, it is true!

I would love to see pics of something like this:

 Manchu wrote:
I am thinking -- we should take the results of our private escalation league, all these painted armies and terrain and experience with the ruleset, and bring them to the LGS for an exhibition game.

MongooseMatt has been posting his progress, of course, but he's in the UK and so it all seems very far away . It would be neat to see the results of such a league so close to home!

 Manchu wrote:
We're in central VA. Is AoS doing really well up by DC? But yeah as this discussion progresses, I am thinking -- we should take the results of our private escalation league, all these painted armies and terrain and experience with the ruleset, and bring them to the LGS for an exhibition game. That could really drive interest.

My apologies on the northern/central mixup. I'd love to see pics of the escalation armies in progress.

Yeah I need to get some pics of my Blood Warriors posted in the projects thread.

What i noticed at the end of WFB is that they were doing the same as in 40K releasing large centerpiece miniatures that dominated the game, It works in 40K but maybe not in WFB?

Is that maybe the crux of the problem that GW use the same sale strategy towards 40k playes as fantasy players?

Posters ITT say End Times was successful and that was all about centerpiece models.

End Times generated a ton of interest, but I'm not sure how the centerpiece models do for carrying the line, since due to their very nature you're usually going to just want one (whereas in 40K, multiples often make sense). Organic models in general are harder to make attractive duplicates of unless the kit is really clever.