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.

Herzlos wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

I will concede that there is no way to balance by eye out of the box. But once you have a few games under your belt, you know what the relative strengths and weaknesses of unit X are and can do it on the fly. It really isn't that hard.

That's largely my point. Unless you're using pre-set units for a scenario, you're going to have to have a few trial runs to establish some idea of what works. That's potentially a couple of games of stomping/getting stomped by your opponent until you get a feel for how it works. Those few games could be enough to put anyone off wanting to keep playing.

But by that logic, all points values are perfect and accurate. There was always enough consensus that unit X was over/under powered for its' cost to demonstrate that even with points values it took a few games to understand whether it was 'good' or 'bad'. At least with AoS you are forced to think differently from the outset.

You always get the argument of why you'd take a skavenslave over a stormvermin, but that's because people are used to distilling worth from a points value. AoS, there are situations where each has strengths relative to the other, but until you've set up the board and determined scenario etc. etc. you won't know.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Then why are pre-built/pre-painted mini's and painting services so popular?

Notice that GW do neither - the likes of X-Wing target a very different market (albeit with some crossover).
...
...

Maybe GW should do something like that.

I have been arguing for years that GW should use modern plastic moulding technology to make multi-colour miniatures that let people get their armies up to a decent standard almost just by putting the pieces together.

The fact they are going to make Ultramarine blue kits for the new kids starter sets is a step in this direction

coldgaming wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
It's very hard to judge the popularity of AoS as a game (not just sales, which is an important distinction since many players are likely to have WHFB armies already collected). On dakka, it's very unpopular. On Facebook, AoS pages are are extremely active, with people posting new Projects and purchases at a blistering pace. On Youtube, AoS battle reports are very popular (they usually have about half the views of 40k battle reports and around double that of Warmachine battle reports). None of this is obviously evidence of how well the game is doing, but it is clear to me that the AoS Community is growing fast and more people are joining in all the time. There are countless stories through these channels of old, lapsed gamers returning with renewed vigor for AoS. As an AoS fan it's very encouraging and the community is very positive, becoming more close-knit and encouraging due to the amount of negativity the game gets online.

Agree with your last sentence very much. The best thing about the immense backlash the game and its fans received at the start is how much of a positive, encouraging community it created on the flip side, which has almost defined itself to be the opposite of all the negativity, a place where your hobby is encouraged however you like to do it. It's grown a lot on social media as you say. I've been following the AoS player map and Tales of Sigmar, two recent community efforts http://talesofsigmar.blogspot.co.uk.

There's a lot of problems with this kind of statement, not the least being that social media tends to engender a lot confirmation bias amongst those participating in it. On a forum like Dakka, people can express dissenting opinions and not be blocked as long as their ideas are at least well-written and relatively non-offensive. On a close group like a Facebook page, dissenters can be banned and have their content removed relatively easily, with no evidence of their existence in the first place.

There's no reason to assume that the AoS community is quickly growing, when it's much easier to assume that a small population is consolidating in places that allow them to block dissenting opinions that go against what they want to hear.

You've even got it here on Dakka, and other forums, when people try to make "Positive Only!" or "Fans Only!" threads.

MongooseMatt wrote:

However, compared to Fantasy sales pre-AoS (the occasional unit box set selling), it is chalk and cheese. AoS probably accounts for 30-40% of our sales, depending on what is released any given week.

Actually, I'm curious if you have sales numbers, or an idea of sales, when Fantasy went from 7th to 8th? Because GW has always had a big infusion whenever they release a new version of a game's rules.

In fact, how are book sales for AoS compared to the End Times books? Is it possibly not a case of "This game is popular" rather than "This game is new" when you're comparing AoS to a game that GW drove into the ground in its last edition?

Are those sales sustained after initial release? And are those sales coming from a variety of expanding customers, or a solid, smaller core of players that isn't changing?

I think we will see if AoS is rapidly expanding in the annual report in July. Though of course technically it would be possible for AoS to sell like gangbusters and 40K to suffer a significant decline leading to an overall drop in company sales and we would be unable to tell the difference.

RoperPG wrote:

But by that logic, all points values are perfect and accurate. There was always enough consensus that unit X was over/under powered for its' cost to demonstrate that even with points values it took a few games to understand whether it was 'good' or 'bad'. At least with AoS you are forced to think differently from the outset.

You always get the argument of why you'd take a skavenslave over a stormvermin, but that's because people are used to distilling worth from a points value. AoS, there are situations where each has strengths relative to the other, but until you've set up the board and determined scenario etc. etc. you won't know.

I won't claim points are particularly accurate, but they are often close enough.

If you start with an even number of points per side, you're already most of the way there, and you can focus on fine tuning the stuff which you think is miscosted. With no points, you've got a few iterations before you even get close to that stage, as you need to try and assess everything.

I don't quite get this thinking differently; do you mean you're forced to not bother with points, throw some units down, roll some dice and have fun? That's exactly how we play WHFB, 40K & Hail Caesar, and they all have points. The difference being that with points it's much quicker to try something new.

Maybe the distinction comes from your meta; a lot of the pro-AoS posters are saying they've been liberated, so I'm assuming they were in a meta where the majority stuck doggedly to points, and it took AoS to break that mentality (by driving most of them elsewhere). The disconnect for me is that my meta has never been like that; I play whatever I want at home, and arrange pick-up-games at the local clubs.

Some people view it as liberating, some people view it as a lack of choice.

 infinite_array wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
It's very hard to judge the popularity of AoS as a game (not just sales, which is an important distinction since many players are likely to have WHFB armies already collected). On dakka, it's very unpopular. On Facebook, AoS pages are are extremely active, with people posting new Projects and purchases at a blistering pace. On Youtube, AoS battle reports are very popular (they usually have about half the views of 40k battle reports and around double that of Warmachine battle reports). None of this is obviously evidence of how well the game is doing, but it is clear to me that the AoS Community is growing fast and more people are joining in all the time. There are countless stories through these channels of old, lapsed gamers returning with renewed vigor for AoS. As an AoS fan it's very encouraging and the community is very positive, becoming more close-knit and encouraging due to the amount of negativity the game gets online.

Agree with your last sentence very much. The best thing about the immense backlash the game and its fans received at the start is how much of a positive, encouraging community it created on the flip side, which has almost defined itself to be the opposite of all the negativity, a place where your hobby is encouraged however you like to do it. It's grown a lot on social media as you say. I've been following the AoS player map and Tales of Sigmar, two recent community efforts http://talesofsigmar.blogspot.co.uk.

There's a lot of problems with this kind of statement, not the least being that social media tends to engender a lot confirmation bias amongst those participating in it. On a forum like Dakka, people can express dissenting opinions and not be blocked as long as their ideas are at least well-written and relatively non-offensive. On a close group like a Facebook page, dissenters can be banned and have their content removed relatively easily.

There's no reason to assume that the AoS community is quickly growing, when it's much easier to assume that a small population is consolidating in places that allow them to block dissenting opinions that go against what they want to hear.

You've even got it here on Dakka, and other forums, when people try to make "Positive Only!" or "Fans Only!" threads.

That's certainly possible, although I would need a reason as to why it's "much easier to assume". Yes, there will obviously be confirmation bias in dedicated communities, but I'm talking about the number of members, frequency of posts etc, not just the general mood. My guess is that it's a bit of both; on one hand, AoS fans are almost being forced out of established communities due to the overwhelming negativity that can be very, very tiresome and sap ones enthusiasm quickly (I'm not necessarily talking about dakka here). On the other hand, these new communities have accumulated quite a number of members in a very short time (already comparable to the biggest Warmachine/Hordes groups on FB), which at least suggests that there is quite a bit of interest in the game.

I would also like to ask you if you think cultivating a positive attitude among fellow enthusiasts is an inherently bad thing? From your word choices, I get the impression that you don't approve of creating groups where like-minded individuals can discuss their passion while simultaneously insulating themselves from negativity. I could see why this would be a bad thing in, say, a political landscape, but this is toy soldiers we're talking about. If you like one wargame and not another, it hurts no one, and there really is no inherent benefit to allowing entirely negative discourse in a community specifically dedicated to people sharing an interest. Especially when, as in the case of AoS, that negative discourse is so prevalent (and often vitriolic and non-constructive) that it is hard to avoid no matter how hard you try.

 Mymearan wrote:
It's very hard to judge the popularity of AoS as a game (not just sales, which is an important distinction since many players are likely to have WHFB armies already collected). On dakka, it's very unpopular. On Facebook, AoS pages are are extremely active, with people posting new Projects and purchases at a blistering pace. On Youtube, AoS battle reports are very popular (they usually have about half the views of 40k battle reports and around double that of Warmachine battle reports). None of this is obviously evidence of how well the game is doing, but it is clear to me that the AoS Community is growing fast and more people are joining in all the time. There are countless stories through these channels of old, lapsed gamers returning with renewed vigor for AoS. As an AoS fan it's very encouraging and the community is very positive, becoming more close-knit and encouraging due to the amount of negativity the game gets online.

I said that would happen when AoS first came out. Due to the hostility in traditional GW online communities (especially Warseer) and in game stores, AoS would end up leaving the traditional ones and creating new communities. Early AoS would largely grow in a bubble away from wargamers' sight, as AoS communities would be more selective about who was let in as an effort to reduce that hostility. That's largely what has happened. And pretty much once a week now, I see some post from someone going, "What? People actually play AoS?"

That's basically the first phase of the early adopter curve (see: Diffusion of innovations). The earliest adopters, the innovators, basically are going to jump into something new because it is something new, and perhaps even because it is not commonplace or wholly accepted. Basically, the risk is one they gladly take on. The next set, the early adopters, are when things start to tick upwards. These guys tend to be financially a little more secure, a little better educated, and though they don't avoid risk, they are also more considered in which risks they take. During this phase is when you start to see community leaders emerge, as the early adopters tend to exhibit "opinion leadership", and it is through their confidence and exposure that you get to the next group, the early majority. And so on...

The point being is that I think AoS is out of the innovator phase and is starting to get into the early adopter phase. People started playing AoS in lieu of social acceptance, but now AoS is becoming more socially accepted, thanks in a large part to the maturation of YouTube channels, AoS websites and tools, and community leaders (like our own MongooseMatt). And say what you will about GW, but they've been providing leadership as well. Maybe not the leadership some people want or need to feel secure in the game, but by continuing to support it through new releases and books, they've shown their own support of the game in a big way, making it a safer investment for the early adopters.

The end result is that AoS will continue to grow, and no doubt be one of the more popular miniature games out there, and the posters on Warseer are still going to be posting "What? People actually play AoS?"

 Mymearan wrote:

That's certainly possible, although I would need a reason as to why it's "much easier to assume". Yes, there will obviously be confirmation bias in dedicated communities, but I'm talking about the number of members, frequency of posts etc, not just the general mood. My guess is that it's a bit of both; on one hand, AoS fans are almost being forced out of established communities due to the overwhelming negativity that can be very, very tiresome and sap ones enthusiasm quickly (I'm not necessarily talking about dakka here). On the other hand, these communities have accumulated quite a number of members in a very short time (comparable to the biggest Warmachine/Hordes groups on FB), which at least suggests that there is quite a bit of interest in the game.

Point of contention - Privateer Press has an official, well-moderated forum that's willing to take a lot of criticism about the game. No wonder WM/H groups on FB are smaller - there's an official place for fans of the game to gather.

If GW had a forum like that of PP, I'd bet you the interest in AoS FB pages would decrease significantly.

I would also like to ask you if you think cultivating a positive attitude among fellow enthusiasts is an inherently bad thing? From your word choices, I get the impression that you don't approve of creating groups where like-minded individuals can discuss their passion while simultaneously insulating themselves from negativity. I could see why this would be a bad thing in, say, a political landscape, but this is toy soldiers we're talking about. If you like one wargame and not another, it hurts no one, and there really is no inherent benefit to allowing entirely negative discourse in a community specifically dedicated to people sharing an interest. Especially when, as in the case of AoS, that negative discourse is so prevalent (and often vitriolic and non-constructive) that it is hard to avoid no matter how hard you try.

Because of the attitude that GW tries to instill in people playing its game. Some posters on here treat AoS like its some kind of revolutionary second coming in wargaming, when to people outside the GW sphere it seems neither new nor particularly innovative. Now put that into a group that can silence dissenting opinions, and see how they try to get on with the hobby at large.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

That's certainly possible, although I would need a reason as to why it's "much easier to assume". Yes, there will obviously be confirmation bias in dedicated communities, but I'm talking about the number of members, frequency of posts etc, not just the general mood. My guess is that it's a bit of both; on one hand, AoS fans are almost being forced out of established communities due to the overwhelming negativity that can be very, very tiresome and sap ones enthusiasm quickly (I'm not necessarily talking about dakka here). On the other hand, these communities have accumulated quite a number of members in a very short time (comparable to the biggest Warmachine/Hordes groups on FB), which at least suggests that there is quite a bit of interest in the game.

Point of contention - Privateer Press has an official, well-moderated forum that's willing to take a lot of criticism about the game. No wonder WM/H groups on FB are smaller - there's an official place for fans of the game to gather.

If GW had a forum like that of PP, I'd bet you the interest in AoS FB pages would decrease significantly.

I would also like to ask you if you think cultivating a positive attitude among fellow enthusiasts is an inherently bad thing? From your word choices, I get the impression that you don't approve of creating groups where like-minded individuals can discuss their passion while simultaneously insulating themselves from negativity. I could see why this would be a bad thing in, say, a political landscape, but this is toy soldiers we're talking about. If you like one wargame and not another, it hurts no one, and there really is no inherent benefit to allowing entirely negative discourse in a community specifically dedicated to people sharing an interest. Especially when, as in the case of AoS, that negative discourse is so prevalent (and often vitriolic and non-constructive) that it is hard to avoid no matter how hard you try.

Because of the attitude that GW tries to instill in people playing its game. Some posters on here treat AoS like its some kind of revolutionary second coming in wargaming, when its seems to people outside the GW sphere that it's neither new nor particularly innovative. Now put that into a group that can silence dissenting opinions, and see how they try to get on with the hobby at large.

1. That's fair enough, although even if you ignore the WMH comparison the AoS groups are quite big. Like Sqorgar said, AoS fans have had to create their own communities, and they are active and growing.

2. So what? How does that hurt anyone? Let people play "the GW way" if they want to (personally I don't, I buy and enjoy lots of different games). There is no mandate that anyone must engage with "the hobby at large" if they don't want to (although I must say have never seen the kind of attitude you are talking about against other games in an AoS group). Dissenting opinions have a time and place, and that time and place is not "always" and "everywhere". Most enthusiast groups on FB function the exact same way.

 Mymearan wrote:

1. That's fair enough, although even if you ignore the WMH comparison the AoS groups are quite big. Like Sqorgar said, AoS fans have had to create their own communities, and they are active and growing.

2. So what? How does that hurt anyone? Let people play "the GW way" if they want to (personally I don't, I buy and enjoy lots of different games). There is no mandate that anyone must engage with "the hobby at large" if they don't want to (although I must say have never seen the kind of attitude you are talking about against other games among AoS fans). Dissenting opinions have a time and place, and that time and place is not "always" and "everywhere".

1. The problem with claiming that FB's communities are a good barometer of a game's status is, again, we don't know if they're "growing" so much as consolidating from fans moving out of other sites/forums, as you yourself are admitting. And since there is no single place for them to gather, how many of these fans are joining 2+ groups? If we have 2 groups of 2,000 members, and they share 1,000 members between them, then that's 3,000 people, not 4,000 - a serious decrease in the amount of people supposedly interested in the game.

2. Again, it's not who it's hurting, but I'm pointing out that you can't say "the community is very positive" when it can also be said that "the community is allowed to be only very positive." It's both a feature and a flaw of Facebook groups and social media in general.

1. I did say that it's very hard to judge and that we don't have evidence either way, but in this case the "community" that I see growing is just that, the community, ie the people who are joining together to share their interest in AoS. That does not necessarily mean that the actual player base is growing at the same rate, although I would suspect it is indeed growing. The game was received with an incredible amount of hostility, which would have certainly scared off a lot of people in the beginning. Some of those people are just now getting into the game. New people are also discovering the game all the time. With these two factors in mind I would be very surprised if the AoS community is not growing, although it's true that I couldn't say how fast.

2. Your premise there is faulty. The Community is not allowed to be only very positive. Criticism is not automatically removed. Baseless negativity is. It's no different from many other FB Groups in that respect. What is different from other FB groups is, like I said in my first post, is that the surrounding negativity is fostering a close-knit and encouraging community to a larger degree than I have seen in other such groups. This is only natural if you think about it.

Herzlos wrote:

That's what empirical determination is; getting values from something by measuring it. You can only achieve some semblance of balance by trial and error. You have to spend a lot of time working (and potentially not enjoying) to get to the baseline that most games start with.

You call it ‘working’, I call it ‘playing games’ and ‘having fun’. Trial and error is fine; I can live with it. as to getting to the baseline where other games start, I will disagree. You play warmachine as well, right? Well, is it any different to buying a new warcaster and trialling a bunch of different 50pt lists to go with him? I mean, you spent a lot of time working this out, and trying different variations and combinations too and putting them into different opponents running different factions. You might even call it ‘trial and error’ and declare the endeavour ‘not fun’.

Herzlos wrote:

Especially when the results are largely fixed (2 flobbits is almost always equivalent to 4 thingies, for instance).

Are they? No, they’re not. At a recent WMH tourney I was at I was talking to one of the girls that was playing, and we were discussing ‘non-standard’ ways of playing, and what I’d like to do is ‘hulk-machine’. Play a game of warmachine, but using the free downloadable space hulk templates. You know, tight corridors and compact rooms. Think of the consequences. Sprays become glorious. And jacks, when they’re put in those compact rooms act as tremendously nasty bulwarks, since you cant get off more than one or two charges at a time. Think about ghostly and how ludicrous it becomes.how do you value units with sprays now? How does the value of warjacks improve? Another example. Hunter. How useful is hunter on a board covered by terrain, and how useful is it on a board devoid of terrain. Units are priced with hunter in mind.

Now, if you change the variables of the game, you change the value of things, ergo your 2 flobbits wont always be equivelant to 4 thingies. Now, think about these things within the context of a game whose design ethos is 'let the players be creative, and build the games they want to build', thrn you can't necessarily define, or plan the variables - then you are going to get all manner of weird, wonderful and wacky scenarios that assigning universal values won't necessarily work, whether thst is 'hulk of sigmar' or whatever else.

Herzlos wrote:

But why should I have to start from nothing, and take baby steps, when instead I could use a mature ruleset and hit the ground running?
I don't want to put effort in to re-invent a wheel. If I'm putting effort into a game above and beyond what the author does, I want to spend my limited time enhancing the experience rather than just trying to keep up. For example; 3 hours work in AoS might get me to a playable game. 3 hours work in Frostgrave might give me a pretty cool fully functioning expansion that lets me add in Dragons, or moving terrain, or whatever.

Because starting from nothing is not necessarily a bad thing.

Because maybe it’s the point; youd rather do your own thing than use a ‘mature rules set’, because the process of creation is itself the goal.

because you have to learn how to navigate those ‘mature’ rules sets just as much as you do here. Because those baby steps are just what I describe when you start a ‘new’ game. In warmachine, its start small, stick to the battleboxes etc. you don’t just jump right in to 50pt steamroller without risks. You’re not reinventing the wheel. This is not rocket surgery. Its not strange or weird. This is old school wargaming like they did in the sixties and seventies. Its just being creative, and being in the driving seat of your own hobby.

You say you want to put your limited time into enhancing the experience instead of just keeping up. Well, in my mind, what I am doing with my DIY games is precisely that – ‘enhancing the experience’. Its doing interesting things beyond the scope ‘just’ covered by the rules. 3 hours work in AOS might get you a playable game (if you spend all the time arguing, instead of, you know, just getting on with it), and it might get you three, and a bloody good evening, as well as ideas for the next six, and a campaign. just as 3 hours work with those 50pt lists for your new caster in warmachine will get you a headache and a realisation that it didn’t come together for you.

Why should you have to spend the time putting all that effort in? for the same reason that you put all that effort into cooking your own dinner when you can just get a take away all the time. Because you get out what you are willing to put in, and the reward can often be more than worth the effort.

Herzlos wrote:

Fair enough, the stroke was too broad. I too enjoyed playing with my built lego, just as I enjoy painting miniatures.

Good. Thank you.

Herzlos wrote:

I don't agree; you can be exactly as creative with Lego just by not opening the instruction book. You don't need the license to be creative, it's implicit and already encouraged (that's what master builders are). You gain exactly nothing by taking the instructions out, other than enforced freedom, and some wonky constructions if you can't figure it out.

I don’t disagree at all. As ive mentioned repeatedly, I do this for games like infinity and flames of war. There is great value in ‘organised play’, pick up games and tournaments. I just see value in DIY gaming alongside this too.

The issue with the instructions is they get seen as the ‘proper’ way to do it, and that can stagnate the whole creative side of things. And I think that’s a shame, because people end up missing out on a huge chunk of creative wargaming, and so much of that is what makes wargaming so awesome as a hobby.

Herzlos wrote:

It's a direct replacement for a well respected game, it's only natural that it's going to be compared to it's predecessor. It's definitely not the game I want it to be (though it could be with a bit of effort, all they need to do is fill in the blanks and tidy up some of the rules). I'm also pretty sure that outside of a few pockets of success, AoS really isn't doing well; all of the evidence points that way.

Does it? I mean, going by dakka, it certainly isn’t. going by some LGSs it isn’t (others say the opposite). Going by AOS facebook groups, its picking up steam. Remember, a lot of the people that this is aimed at are not necessarily visible online. And its certainly doing better than wfb was doing recently. As far as gw cares, that’s all that matters.

Herzlos wrote:

I've not seen anything from GW indicating what the vision is, other than a few reps indicating that people are "playing it wrong". You've got an interpretation of what the vision is, but there's never been any sort of statement, and that's caused a lot of problems with the fanbase that would never have happened if GW had essentially said "WHFB is no more, and we're introducing a new way of doing things that focuses more on narrative and co-operative gaming than the old obsession with points" and tried to justify it. Instead all we got was WHFB disappearing and empty statements about how aweome AoS is.

Oh come on man. It’s the same vision gw have been suggesting for decades now, even down to their 'golden rule'. It's not hard to see how they play their games and read between the lines here.

Herzlos wrote:

That's largely my point. Unless you're using pre-set units for a scenario, you're going to have to have a few trial runs to establish some idea of what works. That's potentially a couple of games of stomping/getting stomped by your opponent until you get a feel for how it works. Those few games could be enough to put anyone off wanting to keep playing.

As you say - 'potentially'. It might not even happen. If it does, be a grown up, show some maturity and cop-on, chalk it down to a learning experience and factor it in for the next time. Or change the narrative- change what the gsme is about. We've done it. We played a game that became obviously skewed towards one side. We could have reset right there. What we did was agree we would rerun the scenario later, with some changes noted, but for the game that was in play, we played it through, and it became less about an equal duel, and more about the downfall of an arrogant Saxon Lord who underestimated his opponents and charged in heedless of any advice and ultimately paid the price. Ended up being quite enjoyable when he went down fighting, surrounded by those he deemed his lessers.

Trial runs are not a bad thing. How is that any different for any other game, and ‘getting a feel for how it works’? ive been playing WMH since mk1 and I still found myself on the receiving end of a turn1 assassination the other day (which was hilarious and unexpected in equal measure) and still regard myself as trying to establish some idea of what works. and at the end of the day, its ‘a couple of games’. Its hardly soul destroying. Trial runs are fine. They can be fun in and of themselves, and seriously, if you’re concerned by them, then just start small and build up. And like I said, you get better at it, and you learn to judge what's a good 'fit'. It's something you're not used to, and probably something you have no experience in, so it's hard to grasp maybe, but it does actually work, and it is quite enjoyable.

And to be honest, If 'a fewgames' is all it takes to put someone off 'wanting to keep playing', then I will question their spirit as much as anything else. Worst case scenario, I mightn't take them seriously if that's 'all' they're willing to put in. It might suggest they were never serious in the first place. Let's turn the conversation around. I mean - what is it we say with warmachine when someone wants to get started - it's usually along the lines of 'expect to lose your first dozen games. It's a right of passage we all go through'. And both you and I speak this with a sort of pride. Earn your wins. Learn wvis the school of hard knocks. You'll be better for it in the long run. And if someone came to you and said 'warmachine is a load of rubbish herzlos, I played 3 games, lost them all, and never want to play it again', there is a very good chance you would not take them seriously, would you?

Exalted, Herzlos.

Herzlos wrote:
I don't want to put effort in to re-invent a wheel. If I'm putting effort into a game above and beyond what the author does, I want to spend my limited time enhancing the experience rather than just trying to keep up. For example; 3 hours work in AoS might get me to a playable game. 3 hours work in Frostgrave might give me a pretty cool fully functioning expansion that lets me add in Dragons, or moving terrain, or whatever.

Making great games greater, not making mediocre games less mediocre.

VeteranNoob wrote:IMO, I personally do not believe these larger wargame forums to be an accurate representation of a gaming community worldwide.

Sorry to be antagonistic during your first few posts here, but I've seen that kind of declaration before, and I've yet to figure out any reasoning or evidence for it. This kind of place is arguably the best representation of worldwide gaming, as far as it pertains to GW games anyway. Hundreds of gamers from all over the world, reporting on the situations in their local gaming scenes and businesses (and with little heavy-handed moderation of criticism) vs. one gamer, and their experience of their local gaming scene.
It's like what Infinite Array has been saying about echo chambers: local groups and clubs, if they've latched onto one set of rules, are arguably almost as much like that as small, enforced-happiness online groups. And while it doesn't make Dakka pinpoint accurate, aggregating all those little echo chambers that it can, probably gives a better view of the overall picture than one, or two or three, by themselves.

infinite_array wrote:Because of the attitude that GW tries to instill in people playing its game. Some posters on here treat AoS like its some kind of revolutionary second coming in wargaming, when to people outside the GW sphere it seems neither new nor particularly innovative. Now put that into a group that can silence dissenting opinions, and see how they try to get on with the hobby at large.

This. Very much so. If folk think AoS is revolutionary and innovative because of lack of points and (ostensibly) army lists, I can only guess it's because of the narrow expectation of the usual GW game culture of 'listbuilding over all'. Unfortunately, with extremely bland core rules, dependence on unit special rules, and the introduction of formations, it's still all about listbuilding.* But that's all but lost in the new narrow view of AoS as the new one, true fantasy wargame, the bringer of the strange new ways of 'chillaxed, laid-back' gaming.

But games without an overreliance on fiddling your army roster, with more freedom in what you take, with a more relaxed attitude: they've been done. And in more innovative, interesting and structured ways than AoS.

*Case in point:

Herzlos wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

I will concede that there is no way to balance by eye out of the box. But once you have a few games under your belt, you know what the relative strengths and weaknesses of unit X are and can do it on the fly. It really isn't that hard.

That's largely my point. Unless you're using pre-set units for a scenario, you're going to have to have a few trial runs to establish some idea of what works. That's potentially a couple of games of stomping/getting stomped by your opponent until you get a feel for how it works. Those few games could be enough to put anyone off wanting to keep playing.

It's subtle (or glaring, YMMV) but this kind of thing is still about listbuilding too. Whether or not you get stomped in AoS is down to what you take. You're dropping units and taking (buying?) others in order to keep up with the arms race, just like the old meta of WFB and 40K. (And lest I be accused of being a meany GW hater who won't be invited into any AoS facebook groups, like certain combo-based games too)
Not to say that what you take in some other games doesn't matter - a peasant vs. a knight is going to end quickly. But they might still have balancing mechanisms in that archaic, passé use of points systems and unit resrictions. (and usually with a better grasp of them than WFB and 40K did) Yup, that's all about listbuilding too; but there's a third balancing factor that I think has been overlooked by the GW core games and their afficionados - tactical game mechanics. Fancy tricks in the core rules that don't rely on the unique rules on a particular model's card or warscroll. Subtle moves that might let that stomped unit survive a bit longer, and even do some stomping of it's own.

Needless to say, AoS's own core rules don't exactly cater to that kind of balance.

dakka is a good representation of the people who are most likely to frequent dakka, and the types of groups they are most likely to be a part of. It is reasonable to assume that this will skew the picture and that all types of gamers will not be equally represented. If we also assume that different communities attract different types of gamers, and these different communities in turn are attracted to different types of games, we can draw the conclusion that some games will likely be underrepresented. Even if we assume that those things are not true, the fact that the most vocal members are more likely to post on any topic than the less vocal members means that the general impression one might get from reading dakka may not even accurately represent the dakka membership at large.

 Mymearan wrote:
dakka is a good representation of the people who are most likely to frequent dakka, and the types of groups they are most likely to be a part of. It is reasonable to assume that this will skew the picture and that all types of gamers will not be equally represented. If we also assume that different communities attract different types of gamers, and these different communities in turn are attracted to different types of games, we can draw the conclusion that some games will likely be underrepresented. Even if we assume that those things are not true, the fact that the most vocal members are more likely to post on any topic than the less vocal members means that the general impression one might get from reading dakka may not even accurately represent the dakka membership at large.

A statement like that is relatively worthless, as I can change a few things, like so:

Age of Sigmar Facebook Groups are a good representation of the people who are most likely to frequent Age of Sigmar Facebook Groups, and the types of groups they are most likely to be a part of. It is reasonable to assume that this will skew the picture and that all types of gamers will not be equally represented. If we also assume that different communities attract different types of gamers, and these different communities in turn are attracted to different types of games, we can draw the conclusion that some games will likely be underrepresented. Even if we assume that those things are not true, the fact that the most vocal members are more likely to post on any topic than the less vocal members means that the general impression one might get from reading Age of Sigmar Facebook Groups may not even accurately represent the Age of Sigmar Facebook Groups membership at large.

So, do large groups of people, with smaller populations of more vocal members, posting their opinions on the Internet represent a larger community, or not? If we can't count Dakka as a meaningful source of information, than neither can we include the sources you've been citing.

The difference is that I never claimed that the Age of Sigmar groups on FB are a good representation of the larger gamer community, or even the larger Age of Sigmar community (as I specifically admitted in my last post) so that comparison really doesn't make sense.

You've been hinting it though (AoS groups are growing, apparently) and you're not the only one.

Would I guess correctly that you're primarily including the anti-AoS posters in the 'too vocal' camp that's allegedly skewing Dakka? Do you think it would be fairer if only AoS fans were vocal?

As Vermis said. You've been implying that the FB pages are representative of AoS's popularity in the larger wargaming community. And the only thing you "admitted" was that the larger AoS community isn't (but probably is) growing as fast as the FB groups are, which is something that has been pointed out to be unreliable at best.

VeteranNoob wrote:IMO, I personally do not believe these larger wargame forums to be an accurate representation of a gaming community worldwide.

Sorry to be antagonistic during your first few posts here, but I've seen that kind of declaration before, and I've yet to figure out any reasoning or evidence for it. This kind of place is arguably the best representation of worldwide gaming, as far as it pertains to GW games anyway. Hundreds of gamers from all over the world, reporting on the situations in their local gaming scenes and businesses (and with little heavy-handed moderation of criticism) vs. one gamer, and their experience of their local gaming scene.
It's like what Infinite Array has been saying about echo chambers: local groups and clubs, if they've latched onto one set of rules, are arguably almost as much like that as small, enforced-happiness online groups. And while it doesn't make Dakka pinpoint accurate, aggregating all those little echo chambers that it can, probably gives a better view of the overall picture than one, or two or three, by themselves.

I appreciate that, but no offense taken (or intended)
I'll just give you the best explanation I can of my opinion and hopefully not offend anyone as I do not intend to. First, I agree on the mixed international community and what I've reported to listeners during this forum participation is pretty positive w/Dakka. I love the flags as a nice touch and visual reminder to the reader of the wider community, and even if posters want to nit-pick in a heated discussion I've never seen anyone on Dakka be petty with non-native English speakers if there is a typo or a point gets clouded by the language barrier. Furthermore, the hyper-text (?) abbreviations are extremely helpful for guys like me who aren't accustomed to forum speak yet. And of course, Ork emoticons

As to why I believe any of these forums don't represent the wider global gaming community (and I really do mean no offense) has to do with who posts, how often and what the content/mood of those posts are. I don't think any posters on any forums are bad people. Again, only drawing from my personal experience and those gamers I've interacted with over the years, I'd say only a small minority are on forums and from that, even a smaller slice actually post. However, twitter as a tool for the hobby was quite surprising and it only continues to grow as a pleasant and helpful resource, as podcast forums used to be before most of those moved to FB groups or closed down. I believe based on my own experience that forums produce more negativity than positive messages. While these forums have threads celebrating some game, book, modeling technique, etc. and some threads contain a positive post here and there the overwhelming negativity suggests to me that the vocal group of posters are those who have a complaint or maybe only post their criticisms when they don't post their positive thoughts at the same frequency. Why that is, I don't know. Of the hundreds of miniwargamers I know and interact with, even those on forums, we agree. Yeah, there's good tips and resources if you ask for help (partly why I'm sticking it out still for a while and see how things develop) and there are celebration threads out there but we just don't see it nearly as much.

So, say a group of 100 miniwargamers from the Midwest U.S. are very active in attending events and keeping in touch with each other. Yeah, some will have complaints about GW or rules (prices just are what they are, we know that) but of these 100, two, or even four may make a post here or there venting about GW but the rest just do not, even if they feel a fraction of that grievance, it's just not our best use of energy Or my group in Madison. Say of 20 warhammer players, one is on forums and bashes AoS then one could see that and say, "OK, Madison is having trouble and AoS is dead there" when the other 19 guys who do not share that same opinion are not considered. This is way more long-winded than I intended so I apologize and will wrap it up Personally, I don't see the point in arguing with someone about perceptions of a game's "success" when we could be talking about models we'd like to buy, hobby ideas, lists and conversions, fluff we enjoy or games we'd like to have, and so on.

[last part ] As for the AoS friendly request threads or FB group the best way I can put why I assume those happens comes down to preference of how these posters want to enjoy their hobby. That's for why they exist, not their representation on a global scale. I am not in a position to accurately say that nor will I try Say you are at a weekend gaming con and playing in an AoS event. After the event you and your buddies grab some food and go to one of the tables to talk about how your games were so far, what you like about AoS or what potential you see, all the cool new conversions and lists you could do. Then another player plops down and interjects "AoS sucks." Ok, he has the basic right of free speech but that's still rude the second, third time this guy does this. You politely tell him, we're having a good time here, please let us enjoy ourselves. You could move, and he follows, determined to get his opinion in there. You move again? I absolutely see the need on a forum, let's say Warseer in this case, because you know the overwhelming majority of posts you see attack this game in some fashion. But you hope that when you specifically create a thread to celebrate AoS you hope that those who do not have anything "nice to say" will respect that and be content with the other 95% of threads were it's a mix or mostly negative. And they do, the rest of the users respect that and don't violate the intention of a pro-AoS thread. There's also the extreme of the FB group, which I admit was a surprise that all negativity is banned, but it seems to be working from what I can see. So in sum: While I have no issue with the amount or mood of the posts I see on forums I don't think they match on the same ratio as how I would judge the wider gaming community based on my experience. And sorry that in trying to avoid the toxicity or misinterpretations possible in forums I have typed way too much here

 infinite_array wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
It's very hard to judge the popularity of AoS as a game (not just sales, which is an important distinction since many players are likely to have WHFB armies already collected). On dakka, it's very unpopular. On Facebook, AoS pages are are extremely active, with people posting new Projects and purchases at a blistering pace. On Youtube, AoS battle reports are very popular (they usually have about half the views of 40k battle reports and around double that of Warmachine battle reports). None of this is obviously evidence of how well the game is doing, but it is clear to me that the AoS Community is growing fast and more people are joining in all the time. There are countless stories through these channels of old, lapsed gamers returning with renewed vigor for AoS. As an AoS fan it's very encouraging and the community is very positive, becoming more close-knit and encouraging due to the amount of negativity the game gets online.

Agree with your last sentence very much. The best thing about the immense backlash the game and its fans received at the start is how much of a positive, encouraging community it created on the flip side, which has almost defined itself to be the opposite of all the negativity, a place where your hobby is encouraged however you like to do it. It's grown a lot on social media as you say. I've been following the AoS player map and Tales of Sigmar, two recent community efforts http://talesofsigmar.blogspot.co.uk.

There's a lot of problems with this kind of statement, not the least being that social media tends to engender a lot confirmation bias amongst those participating in it. On a forum like Dakka, people can express dissenting opinions and not be blocked as long as their ideas are at least well-written and relatively non-offensive. On a close group like a Facebook page, dissenters can be banned and have their content removed relatively easily, with no evidence of their existence in the first place.

There's no reason to assume that the AoS community is quickly growing, when it's much easier to assume that a small population is consolidating in places that allow them to block dissenting opinions that go against what they want to hear.

You've even got it here on Dakka, and other forums, when people try to make "Positive Only!" or "Fans Only!" threads.

I don't participate in a hobby to have to constantly debate whether the hobby sucks or not. I don't go to skiing forums to have to argue why snowboarding isn't better in every thread. I go to places where I can enjoy my hobby with likeminded people. This isn't politics or religion. It's fine people like to treat this stuff like it is, but that's not for me, and I think it's not for a lot of people. It's not so serious. I'm happy for whatever game you want to play, and I'm not going into forums for games I don't play and trying to argue why everyone's wasting their time. I find that a bit cringeworthy to be honest. Forums are also places where very negative, trolling type people have an easier time surviving behind the mask of anonymity, whereas on Facebook and other venues you have to more behave like a normal person.

The AOS starter is still going for ~40% off on eBay. That's not exactly a sign that demand is high.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The AOS starter is still going for ~40% off on eBay. That's not exactly a sign that demand is high.

The starter is an army box for Khorne or Stormcast players, there are no rules you need unlike in 40k or Fantasy. So unless you play those factions there's no reason to buy it. I'm sure it underperformed because of this.

coldgaming wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
It's very hard to judge the popularity of AoS as a game (not just sales, which is an important distinction since many players are likely to have WHFB armies already collected). On dakka, it's very unpopular. On Facebook, AoS pages are are extremely active, with people posting new Projects and purchases at a blistering pace. On Youtube, AoS battle reports are very popular (they usually have about half the views of 40k battle reports and around double that of Warmachine battle reports). None of this is obviously evidence of how well the game is doing, but it is clear to me that the AoS Community is growing fast and more people are joining in all the time. There are countless stories through these channels of old, lapsed gamers returning with renewed vigor for AoS. As an AoS fan it's very encouraging and the community is very positive, becoming more close-knit and encouraging due to the amount of negativity the game gets online.

Agree with your last sentence very much. The best thing about the immense backlash the game and its fans received at the start is how much of a positive, encouraging community it created on the flip side, which has almost defined itself to be the opposite of all the negativity, a place where your hobby is encouraged however you like to do it. It's grown a lot on social media as you say. I've been following the AoS player map and Tales of Sigmar, two recent community efforts http://talesofsigmar.blogspot.co.uk.

There's a lot of problems with this kind of statement, not the least being that social media tends to engender a lot confirmation bias amongst those participating in it. On a forum like Dakka, people can express dissenting opinions and not be blocked as long as their ideas are at least well-written and relatively non-offensive. On a close group like a Facebook page, dissenters can be banned and have their content removed relatively easily, with no evidence of their existence in the first place.

There's no reason to assume that the AoS community is quickly growing, when it's much easier to assume that a small population is consolidating in places that allow them to block dissenting opinions that go against what they want to hear.

You've even got it here on Dakka, and other forums, when people try to make "Positive Only!" or "Fans Only!" threads.

I don't participate in a hobby to have to constantly debate whether the hobby sucks or not. I don't go to skiing forums to have to argue why snowboarding isn't better in every thread. I go to places where I can enjoy my hobby with likeminded people. This isn't politics or religion. It's fine people like to treat this stuff like it is, but that's not for me, and I think it's not for a lot of people. It's not so serious. I'm happy for whatever game you want to play, and I'm not going into forums for games I don't play and trying to argue why everyone's wasting their time. I find that a bit cringeworthy to be honest. Forums are also places where very negative, trolling type people have an easier time surviving behind the mask of anonymity, whereas on Facebook and other venues you have to more behave like a normal person.

Also, very much what Coldgaming wrote. There should be a very high enjoyment rate of a hobby, IMO, and we just done have the time or energy to battle...that's what our armies of toy soldiers are for

 VeteranNoob wrote:

I don't participate in a hobby to have to constantly debate whether the hobby sucks or not. I don't go to skiing forums to have to argue why snowboarding isn't better in every thread. I go to places where I can enjoy my hobby with likeminded people. This isn't politics or religion. It's fine people like to treat this stuff like it is, but that's not for me, and I think it's not for a lot of people. It's not so serious. I'm happy for whatever game you want to play, and I'm not going into forums for games I don't play and trying to argue why everyone's wasting their time. I find that a bit cringeworthy to be honest. Forums are also places where very negative, trolling type people have an easier time surviving behind the mask of anonymity, whereas on Facebook and other venues you have to more behave like a normal person.

Also, very much what Coldgaming wrote. There should be a very high enjoyment rate of a hobby, IMO, and we just done have the time or energy to battle...that's what our armies of toy soldiers are for

I think both your comments are a bit off base in regards to what I'm arguing with Mymerean.

At no point in my posts do I say that AoS is a bad game, and people should stop playing it. Some people like the game; others don't. We're far along enough in the game's life cycle to have settled into our opinions. That's fine.

Our conversation is now about how well the game is doing. Some stores say it sells well. All four of the stores near me either don't support GW, have GW stock but don't do anything with it, or have actively removed their Fantasy/AoS stuff from the shelves to make room for items that do sell.

Mymerean claims that the amount of people playing AoS is constantly growing, but I'm pointing out that the places he's talking about have a certain amount of confirmation bias and can be dubious methods of measurement.

 Mymearan wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The AOS starter is still going for ~40% off on eBay. That's not exactly a sign that demand is high.

The starter is an army box for Khorne or Stormcast players, there are no rules you need unlike in 40k or Fantasy. So unless you play those factions there's no reason to buy it. I'm sure it underperformed because of this.

And there's absolutely no correlation between an underperforming product being the flagship of a new line? OK.

I'm not saying that it is underperforming, I'm just saying that your opinion is a bit misplaced. Underperforming products tend to get the axe pretty quickly by most companies and wasn't underperformance part of the reason most people attributed to GW burning WHFB to the ground and salting the soil?

 infinite_array wrote:
I think both your comments are a bit off base in regards to what I'm arguing with Mymerean.

I have a question. Why are you arguing? Why can't you have a discussion/friendly debate?

I don't see this as an argument. I am curious as to why you are.

infinite_array wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

I don't participate in a hobby to have to constantly debate whether the hobby sucks or not. I don't go to skiing forums to have to argue why snowboarding isn't better in every thread. I go to places where I can enjoy my hobby with likeminded people. This isn't politics or religion. It's fine people like to treat this stuff like it is, but that's not for me, and I think it's not for a lot of people. It's not so serious. I'm happy for whatever game you want to play, and I'm not going into forums for games I don't play and trying to argue why everyone's wasting their time. I find that a bit cringeworthy to be honest. Forums are also places where very negative, trolling type people have an easier time surviving behind the mask of anonymity, whereas on Facebook and other venues you have to more behave like a normal person.

Also, very much what Coldgaming wrote. There should be a very high enjoyment rate of a hobby, IMO, and we just done have the time or energy to battle...that's what our armies of toy soldiers are for

I think both your comments are a bit off base in regards to what I'm arguing with Mymerean.

At no point in my posts do I say that AoS is a bad game, and people should stop playing it. Some people like the game; others don't. We're far along enough in the game's life cycle to have settled into our opinions. That's fine.

Our conversation is now about how well the game is doing. Some stores say it sells well. All four of the stores near me either don't support GW, have GW stock but don't do anything with it, or have actively removed their Fantasy/AoS stuff from the shelves to make room for items that do sell.

Mymerean claims that the amount of people playing AoS is constantly growing, but I'm pointing out that the places he's talking about have a certain amount of confirmation bias and can be dubious methods of measurement.

And I admitted you were right! This is what I wrote:

"in this case the "community" that I see growing is just that, the community, ie the people who are joining together to share their interest in AoS. That does not necessarily mean that the actual player base is growing at the same rate, although I would suspect it is indeed growing. The game was received with an incredible amount of hostility, which would have certainly scared off a lot of people in the beginning. Some of those people are just now getting into the game. New people are also discovering the game all the time. With these two factors in mind I would be very surprised if the AoS community is not growing, although it's true that I couldn't say how fast."

In case I wasn't being clear, that's the online community I'm talking about in the first sentence, and then I go on to say that while you're right, I still think that the actual player base is growing.

agnosto wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
The AOS starter is still going for ~40% off on eBay. That's not exactly a sign that demand is high.

The starter is an army box for Khorne or Stormcast players, there are no rules you need unlike in 40k or Fantasy. So unless you play those factions there's no reason to buy it. I'm sure it underperformed because of this.

And there's absolutely no correlation between an underperforming product being the flagship of a new line? OK.

I'm not saying that it is underperforming, I'm just saying that your opinion is a bit misplaced. Underperforming products tend to get the axe pretty quickly by most companies and wasn't underperformance part of the reason most people attributed to GW burning WHFB to the ground and salting the soil?

I didn't adress the correlation, but I'd agree that there definitely is one. It might not be as strongly correlated to sales of the rest of the product line as it would normally be though, since there is no need to buy it if you play any of the other factions.

Overall the success or failure of AoS is quite complicated, so I'll go on a tangent because I find it interesting. There are two factors you could use to judge success: sales and player base. Usually these are strongly correlated.

But lets look at WHFB. Since that game had such an incredibly long history, many players had several armies, didn't need to buy anything, but were still actively playing. There was by all accounts a very active tournament community and the game had a strong following. But it wasn't selling.

How about AoS? Unfortunately, the same problem that plagued WHFB has been transferred to AoS. By allowing all old armies to be played, those very same players STILL don't need to buy anything, and on top of that, the rules are free! So from the outset, GW has created a game that needs next to no investment from a large portion of the potential player base. When you realize this is GW we are talking about, that seems quite unlike them, doesn't it... The point is, AoS could have a huge player base, but terrible sales. It might not, but we can at least be certain that the player base is bigger than the sales figures suggest simply by observing that people are playing AoS with their old WHFB armies. Obviously, just like WHFB, GW would have to drop the game if this situation continues. So what can they do? Well, they need to convince the old players to buy new units, or even new armies. They also need to bring in a lot of new players, who don't have any old armies to play with. The new "START COLLECTING" boxes are clearly a part of this strategy. They work on veterans, who can never resist a good bargain, and on beginners, who will be able to easily buy a pre-selected army and start playing, with a discount to boot. They also need to get people to buy books. This will be harder... But the new super cheap Chaos Alliance boom certainly is a step in the right direction.

Infinite _array I'll use this since the quotes are mucking things up you are correct, they are two completely separate conversations and I'm not meaning to comment on yours. I'm just going from a previous post. There's quite a bit going on in this thread. But yes, I'm not in your current discussion so apologies if we crossed the streams somewhere along the line. Don't cross the streams!

Oh no, now everything's getting mixed up:

@Mymerean - Sorry! I was just trying to say I'm past the point where I feel there's any need to state my opinion on the game's quality, and our posts were more meta than that.

@VeteranNoob - Sorry! I just nabbed your post along with coldgaming's. Quotes can get mucky sometimes.

@Davor - Don't be a pedant.

Wow, in the time it took to post new messages are just a jumble and I don't know who is responding to what so I'm already out of this and I'll sit back and watch. We can start a new thread if there is another topic