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.

What if GW did not have aggressively marketed AoS as a replacement for WFB

But instead did something like 30k and used the following approach, would it have worked better ?
- Release AoS after the end times, but don't throw away wfb.
- Bring out a post End times wfb rule book.
- Market it as a premium game in a different time in a similar way as 30k is marketed, with a emphasises with on the premium miniatures, gentlemen play smoother rules.
- Reboxing wfb with both bases instead of just the circle versions.
- Bring out some wfb rules for (some) of the AoS models that would fit the setting.

I feel that this would make much more sense. Most of the AoS models look wonderful and the similarities with 30k seem so obvious.

Well, they did make it all about Space Marines, so it is kind of like 30k...

Honestly? It's highly likely, yes, that there would've been far less backlash.

The Old World doesn't get wrecked, but instead births a new plane of existence where the Sigmarines dwell and all that business. Something along those lines.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Most of the AoS models look wonderful

We can agree to disagree on that. :p

It's pretty obvious that GW's motive in introducing AoS was to get rid of and replace WHFB, rather than to integrate a third game into the WH multiverse.

Integration would have been far more welcome to customers, but it would not have satisfied GW's financial needs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
but it would not have satisfied GW's financial needs.

Not to mention their lawyers...

Yeah I was under the same impression when they released AoS. I was expecting a lot of WFB stuff to be phased out and lots of AoS releases. This is not what is happening. Their AoS Lizardmen release was just re basing and renaming it all.

The other thing is that AoS is clearly not priced low entry. It is priced FW/30k premium style.

I feel like they could have released exactly the same things with a much more positive result if they did not emphasise the destruction of WFB but instead added something that they could market as a premium addition rather then a horrible expensive start to a alternative for wfb.

They could still rename everything in wfb and slowly phase out the obscure non selling wfb models, without making so much fuss about it.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Yeah I was under the same impression when they released AoS. I was expecting a lot of WFB stuff to be phased out and lots of AoS releases. This is not what is happening. Their AoS Lizardmen release was just re basing and renaming it all.

The other thing is that AoS is clearly not priced low entry. It is priced FW/30k premium style.
...

That has quickly become obvious, thanks to the high price of new units. However this was to be expected, since a game intended to make £X M a year from a smaller number of unit sales, necessarily must price those units higher than the game it replaces. The rules are free, but the campaign books are very expensive.

It may surprise people to learn this, but one afternoon, months ago, boredom inspired me to develop a plan for a pre-Empire WFB game, and I ended up emailing it to GW.

Needless to say it got no reply...

The basic premise was a Mordheim style skirmish game, but with room to expand for bigger battles - much in the same manner as war of the ring expanded upon the LOTR skirmish game.

Being pre-Empire, it was set just at the time of Sigmar's birth and had the various tribes having their own character and abilities. For example, the tribes that worshipped Ulric would have beserker abilities, and the tribes that had contact with the Dwarves would have better weapons, the dwarves passing on their smithing skills.

Orcs were more 'feral' than before. Dwarves were there, Elf players would have been happy, undead players would have had a more unified structure being under Nagash's control, Skaven would have been there, Beastmen, and Chaos Warriors, led by Krell, would have been proper looking barbarians corrupted by Chaos.

Hell, even the Bretonnians could have been squeezed in, and Ogres and Chaos Dwarves!!!

It would have had a unique look to it IMO and existing players could have used their armies.

Naturally, of course, GW spurned this golden opportunity.

I think almost any other approach would have been better at giving AoS a chance.

One reason the Lizard Men are only being rebadged as Seraphon for AoS, is that most of the range is relatively new, plastic, and rather good, and it has got everything you could want for AoS, light and heavy troops, elites, cavalry, several heroes, wizards, and a selection of monsters. There's no need to rework any of it apart from changing the Finecast items to plastic. (Which probably won't happen for a long time.)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It may surprise people to learn this, but one afternoon, months ago, boredom inspired me to develop a plan for a pre-Empire WFB game, and I ended up emailing it to GW.

Needless to say it got no reply...

The basic premise was a Mordheim style skirmish game, but with room to expand for bigger battles - much in the same manner as war of the ring expanded upon the LOTR skirmish game.

Being pre-Empire, it was set just at the time of Sigmar's birth and had the various tribes having their own character and abilities. For example, the tribes that worshipped Ulric would have beserker abilities, and the tribes that had contact with the Dwarves would have better weapons, the dwarves passing on their smithing skills.

Orcs were more 'feral' than before. Dwarves were there, Elf players would have been happy, undead players would have had a more unified structure being under Nagash's control, Skaven would have been there, Beastmen, and Chaos Warriors, led by Krell, would have been proper looking barbarians corrupted by Chaos.

Hell, even the Bretonnians could have been squeezed in, and Ogres and Chaos Dwarves!!!

It would have had a unique look to it IMO and existing players could have used their armies.

Naturally, of course, GW spurned this golden opportunity.

When I first heard about AoS I imagined something along the lines of Saga but with Orcs. How wrong I was......

Agree with the OP that his suggested alternative approach would have earned less outright hate, overall. Of course, fans would still have bitched that now their army was being neglected because AoS existed to detract resources. I know this because it happened when LOTR came on the scene and WFBers bitched (and I was one of 'em).

Thing is, AoS---despite its oddness on measuring to model parts versus bases and not having points --- is actually a pretty solid game. It has some very cool mechanics like battleshock and there actually is a difference stat-wise between a goblin spearman and Nagash---though folks who haven't played will argue it ain't so.

Yes, oldzoggy, that would have made a LOT of sense.

That's doubtless why GW avoided doing it like the plague: it made too much sense. That's against GW's corporate culture.

privateer4hire wrote:
Thing is, AoS---despite its oddness on measuring to model parts versus bases and not having points --- is actually a pretty solid game. It has some very cool mechanics like battleshock and there actually is a difference stat-wise between a goblin spearman and Nagash---though folks who haven't played will argue it ain't so.

No, people would argue that there is no mechanism in place to prevent you from fielding Nagash against a goblin spearman.

That there is nothing in place to prevent horribly one sided battles. (As for a difference in stats... Nagash vs. a unit of twelve goblins still would not go well for the gobbos.)

I do agree with the OP that running AoS in parallel with WHFB would have made more sense.

The Auld Grump

Didn't we cover this when it was released?

But yeah it sucks, roll on 9th age.

privateer4hire wrote:
Agree with the OP that his suggested alternative approach would have earned less outright hate, overall. Of course, fans would still have bitched that now their army was being neglected because AoS existed to detract resources. I know this because it happened when LOTR came on the scene and WFBers bitched (and I was one of 'em).

Thing is, AoS---despite its oddness on measuring to model parts versus bases and not having points --- is actually a pretty solid game. It has some very cool mechanics like battleshock and there actually is a difference stat-wise between a goblin spearman and Nagash---though folks who haven't played will argue it ain't so.

I am surprised that a company the size of GW would have trouble supporting four games.

@ OP, I agree with what your saying, but most of the people that I have spoken to about AoS ae most upset about the change in the fluff.


The destruction on the old world had a bigger impact on player's desire to play WHFB or even paint anything more than the radical change to rules or round bases from what I've seen.

Generally, I like the fast play style of AoS, but being a new world upsets me.

As an older gamer, it's hard enough finding time for a game let alone read all the new fluff to a point where I want to engage with this product.

If they'd released it as the opposite of 30k (far future rather than distant past) and sold it as a separate game that could live or die on its own (like 30k), leaving the WHFB setting in relative apocalypse stasis (like 40k's been in since at least 3rd edition), it'd have been much safer. Even if their plan was to ultimately phase out WHFB anyway like they did, they'd have been able to judge interest without axing one of their major games instantly.

Yes, I think it probably would have been a better move than killing the setting and rules.

Yea I think it would have. Problem was people had a game and its world they like whiped out and replaced with something very different. Even if Age of Sigmar is a fantastic game (Havent tried it myself but what I have heard doesn't sound amazing) its still a very different one from WHFB and what WHFB fans enjoyed about the game might not be present in age of Sigmar. Handling it as a separate game would have been a better option for many fans. If possibly very expensive for GW.

Sure... GW could have done a better job introducing AoS, but it's my point of view that the player community is to blame for AoS's "failure to launch". Too few people were willing to try something new, to try the game rules as designed; instead rushing to develop a point system to apply to a game specifically designed not to need it. Where did this leave us... A fragmented player community who can't agree upon how to play the game and thusly avoids playing it altogether.

I don't think you should blame the "community." The community fragmented over how to fix the game, but the community was in agreement that it needed to be fixed. GW left a big hole in the rules; it doesn't matter if it was intentional and "not needed" because it was contrary to what players wanted. The attitude you're proposing is "GW knows best" -they don't. It's ultimately GW's failure to convince people to try something new, the way it was designed, by not offering training to demo the game or enough early copies to allow the game to be properly demoed. Simultaneously GW was selling this new game as direct replacement for WHFB, so you can't blame them community when they expect something as interchangeable.

If everyone doesn't like AoS, that's all there is to it.

How can everyone be required to like and support any game, and why?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If everyone doesn't like AoS, that's all there is to it.

How can everyone be required to like and support any game, and why?

Happiness is Mandatory, Citizen.

The Auld Grump

Considering that any other approach would still have to try and sell AoS, no, I don't think it would do much better. It would still have ridiculous fluff, simplistic rules that lack a balancing mechanic, and sky-high pricing on new units. Running AoS in parallel to WHFB wouldn't solve any of those problems

 oni wrote:
Sure... GW could have done a better job introducing AoS, but it's my point of view that the player community is to blame for AoS's "failure to launch". Too few people were willing to try something new, to try the game rules as designed; instead rushing to develop a point system to apply to a game specifically designed not to need it. Where did this leave us... A fragmented player community who can't agree upon how to play the game and thusly avoids playing it altogether.

Wait... Seriously?!?!? It's the players' fault that AoS "failed to launch"?!?!

There is exactly one entity that bears the full blame for AoS. Full stop.

Playing the "rules as designed" doesn't matter. In the opinion of a large fragment of the former WHFB community, AoS is a bad set of rules. But beyond that, it shows GW's hubris. It lacks several key "pieces" of what gamers seem to want. At GW's fiat. It ham-fistedly attempts to shore up the hopeless case for GW IP. At GW's fiat. As others have pointed out, having a viable balancing mechanic only helps everyone who plays: both those who want to use them and those who don't. The opposite is most certainly not true.

GW has thrown away years of background, rules, and game play at their whim, not at player demand.

But, absolutely, it is the players fault for not recognizing this jewel-like object of magic and wonder...

Valete,

JohnS

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One reason the Lizard Men are only being rebadged as Seraphon for AoS, is that most of the range is relatively new, plastic, and rather good, and it has got everything you could want for AoS, light and heavy troops, elites, cavalry, several heroes, wizards, and a selection of monsters. There's no need to rework any of it apart from changing the Finecast items to plastic. (Which probably won't happen for a long time.)

Like many WHFB armies a lot of the elite and unique models are relatively new but the core infantry (Saurus and Skinks) are quite old and showing their age.

 oni wrote:
Sure... GW could have done a better job introducing AoS, but it's my point of view that the player community is to blame for AoS's "failure to launch". Too few people were willing to try something new, to try the game rules as designed; instead rushing to develop a point system to apply to a game specifically designed not to need it. Where did this leave us... A fragmented player community who can't agree upon how to play the game and thusly avoids playing it altogether.

I thought Dakkas 'blame the victim' posters stuck to off topic?

 oni wrote:
Sure... GW could have done a better job introducing AoS, but it's my point of view that the player community is to blame for AoS's "failure to launch". Too few people were willing to try something new, to try the game rules as designed; instead rushing to develop a point system to apply to a game specifically designed not to need it. Where did this leave us... A fragmented player community who can't agree upon how to play the game and thusly avoids playing it altogether.

Ikr! How dare the players not follow the GW Piper blindly like the good little rats they are supposed to be!

Do no market research
Don't inform customers of whats planned until the very last moment
Price a new untested product at a premium rate
Supersede existing background for new, unknown, setting.
Discontinue existing ruleset that customers have invested in



...................blame the player community for failure to launch.



AoS will make a great case study in a few years time.

Pretty much the reaction I anticipated... A warranted one no doubt. I have come to find that my views and opinions on AoS tend to contradict most of those here on Dakka - that's OK, it is what it is.

I base my point of view on the few local communities I can directly observe and while my scope is limited and may differ from the rest of you, it holds true (in my opinion) for the player bases I can directly observe.