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.

The sole reason for AoS existing is that GW decided that WFB needed a shake up on multiple fronts, and part of GW's approach to that was to erase WFB & the old world.
Running both together negates the logic of that.
WFB would have stayed with the Army Book model, the higher initial buy-in, the ranked units, etc. because AoS was the 'clean break' where GW were able to drop that.
If the fluff differed between the two games, any new releases for either would have to be shoe-horned into one or the other, otherwise you'd have incompatible model lines that had cross overs depending on what it was.
If it didn't, then rather than the shake-up they wanted, GW have effectively an appendix/starter version of WFB, which raises the question of why bother at all?

The example of LOTR and WFB being 'competing' isn't what I meant - these were two distinct IPs with their own miniatures line that as far as GW were concerned, never crossed over.

The point I was trying to make was, GW continuing to support WFB after AoS would have rendered the original reasons for releasing AoS in the first place void.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:1. GW naively thought they could play the pied piper and have everyone follow along with AoS instead of just dropping GW's fantasy completely.

Definitely A reason, but not the only one.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:2. They want to shrink the WHFB range and shift to a business model of even less models in a box for even higher prices and even GW realised that customers don't want to assemble a regiment of 40 models when they cost around $10 each.

This is definitely a possibility, but not likely considering what their business model has already established as not doing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:3. They figured WHFB sales were so small that no one cared about WHFB any more so killing it wouldn't have any affect either positive or negative.

Like 1, a contributing factor, but not the specific reason on its own. It really is a similar concept and reason.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:4. (maybe) they want to completely change the WHFB range and so killing the game was the best way to do it. I tend to think that's not the case otherwise they wouldn't have ported Lizardmen straight across.

This is the same as 2, effectively. They are changing the range a little by converting a lot of the Unique Characters in to just powerful Characters on their own. In addition most of the Seraphon/Lizardmen line is fairly unique so easily transferred.

What does put 2 & 4 in to view, though, is what they have done with the Tomb Kings line. They may resurrect them later under new names, but for now, the Khemri are being written out of Warhammer.

RoperPG wrote:The sole reason for AoS existing is that GW decided that WFB needed a shake up on multiple fronts, and part of GW's approach to that was to erase WFB & the old world.
Running both together negates the logic of that.
WFB would have stayed with the Army Book model, the higher initial buy-in, the ranked units, etc. because AoS was the 'clean break' where GW were able to drop that.
If the fluff differed between the two games, any new releases for either would have to be shoe-horned into one or the other, otherwise you'd have incompatible model lines that had cross overs depending on what it was.
If it didn't, then rather than the shake-up they wanted, GW have effectively an appendix/starter version of WFB, which raises the question of why bother at all?

The example of LOTR and WFB being 'competing' isn't what I meant - these were two distinct IPs with their own miniatures line that as far as GW were concerned, never crossed over.

The point I was trying to make was, GW continuing to support WFB after AoS would have rendered the original reasons for releasing AoS in the first place void.

As opposed to just using AoS as an intro model to bring people in to the universe and hobby?

Or for people who may not want a new army, but still have a few models to add to their collection? That is one reason for the Allies rules in 40K, to encourage collection expansion.

Charistoph wrote:

As opposed to just using AoS as an intro model to bring people in to the universe and hobby?

Or for people who may not want a new army, but still have a few models to add to their collection? That is one reason for the Allies rules in 40K, to encourage collection expansion.

Why support AoS as a discrete system if the intent is for people to move on to something else?
Like I said, AoS wasn't just about changing a few rules which could be tacked on the end of the WFB BRB as a 'now try this!'.
It was about overhauling everything about WFB.
To go through all that and still support WFB - and by support I mean properly, not just 'products still available' - would have rendered any financial/planning decisions related to AoS pointless, because they would still have to maintain WFB as it was.

RoperPG wrote:

 The_Grey_Knight wrote:
What would have happened if GW had released the AoS specific rules/armies AND kept fantasy- those who love AoS would have played AoS, and those who hate it would have kept playing fantasy (and keep buying models, from GW's point of view) ?

GW would effectively have been in competition with itself by doing that.
There's no sense in developing and releasing for two separate fantasy systems; if they had done this, people would still expect WFB 9th to turn up, they'd still expect new army books, new minis... meanwhile, any developments in AoS that introduce new factions/minis would require severe mangling to fit in with WFB, or they'd have to stay separate.

Your idea would have made perfect sense if all the WFB players had moved to AoS. Clearly they didn't. Some went to KoW, some quit entirely, some stuck with oldhammer.

GW would have kept all their customers had they brought out AoS alongside WFB. Yes, they've brought a few new AoS players in but probably lost more WFB players.

On topic: If AoS had come along when original WFB did I'm sure it would have done well. It's probably on par with 1st and 2nd edition for rules and style. I guess it would all depend if the 80s crowd wanted Tolkienesk fantasy or He-man and the Masters of the Universe. Both popular at that time but one was considered adult, one for kids.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

GW would have kept all their customers had they brought out AoS alongside WFB.

GW would have kept all their customers if they communicated with us, gave people what they wanted, and supported their own games. GW would have kept their customers if they had a good fun rule system. Since a lot of people left at 8th edition that tells me a lot of people were not having fun with their system. All GW needed to do was have a clear, concise BALANCED rules and codices/warscrolls/what ever they were called in Fantasy and people would have stayed. Then once this was done, AoS could be along side of WFB.

Instead GW threw out the baby with the bath water and are keeping the same mistakes.

Now it seems GW might be changing now. Since the beginning of 2016 we are getting discount boxes, cheaper books, so maybe just maybe GW is turning around now.

*edit*

A reason why I never started up Fantasy was because of the high cost to get into. Add in the lack of support and imbalance in the game and seeing how 40K is treated, I don't find worth in GW products. If Age of Sigmar ran along with Fantasy as was suggested it would be a good starting point for people to get into and slowly build up to Fantasy. But alas, no support, poor editing, poor rules, too much arguing with people how something should work, and no communication from GW, is why GW is selling less and less each year. What is it 15% less sales last year over all?

Amazing what a good clear concise balanced rule set and army books will do.

RoperPG wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

As opposed to just using AoS as an intro model to bring people in to the universe and hobby?

Or for people who may not want a new army, but still have a few models to add to their collection? That is one reason for the Allies rules in 40K, to encourage collection expansion.

Why support AoS as a discrete system if the intent is for people to move on to something else?
Like I said, AoS wasn't just about changing a few rules which could be tacked on the end of the WFB BRB as a 'now try this!'.
It was about overhauling everything about WFB.
To go through all that and still support WFB - and by support I mean properly, not just 'products still available' - would have rendered any financial/planning decisions related to AoS pointless, because they would still have to maintain WFB as it was.

AoS could have been the starter game, then people move onto the bigger and more profitable game.

AoS didn't have to be made completely different to WHFB. GW could had dumped the magic phase, psychology, formations and tactical bonuses and kept the same stats and revised the special rules. The surprising thing about AoS is how little changed the statline actually is. I would have changed it a lot more.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AoS could have been the starter game, then people move onto the bigger and more profitable game.

The whole point of AoS is that WFB wasn't 'more profitable' in GW's opinion.
I'm not making any relative/qualitative assessments of either system here, but the sole reason for AoS in the first place is that GW decided something needed to be done with WFB.
AoS was intended from day one to replace WFB. to run both alongside each other would have made the idea behind AoS pointless, and wouldn't have fixed the issues that the company believed WFB had.

Come on, I'm normally accused of being a GW white knight, but when I try to explain why running both makes no sense from a business point of view everyone's suddenly prepared to believe GW aren't motivated solely by money?!

RoperPG wrote:
Come on, I'm normally accused of being a GW white knight, but when I try to explain why running both makes no sense from a business point of view everyone's suddenly prepared to believe GW aren't motivated solely by money?!

Of course GW killed WHFB because it wasn't doing well financially. I think one of GW's fatal flaws was not spending enough time thinking why it wasn't doing well. One of the big reasons is that fantasy had a stupidly expensive and time consuming buy in which had gotten worse not better over the years.

An AoS-like game could have breathed new life in to WHFB itself if it was introduced as a compliment to it and WHFB itself could have used a few changes to encourage smaller battles.

What bothers me about this topic title is how it disregard the possibility that AoS is popular and was a good move.

I've been gaming with GW for 15 years now and while I had many goes and tries at WHFB, I could never get into it. My reason was simple: I disliked the flow and lack of intuitivity and immersion. Square bases, tight formations, complex "wheel" manoeuvres for movement, and "geometrical" battles always set me off when all I was dreaming of were savage armies of orcs and knights rushing at each other.

I naturally turned towards 40k where I found the tables filled with minis more like what I expected fierce battles to be.

Then after leaving the hobby for a while I come back and discover AoS. And what a treat that was. Not only did I get large scale "messy" fantasy battles with a fast pace and immersive movements and formations, but also beautiful round bases for minis and armies I've always wanted to collect.

To me, AoS is a great success, not without flaws, especially the fluff (damn I wish they kept the pre end times one), and definitely a great move from GW.

 Haechi wrote:
What bothers me about this topic title is how it disregard the possibility that AoS is popular and was a good move.

I've been gaming with GW for 15 years now and while I had many goes and tries at WHFB, I could never get into it. My reason was simple: I disliked the flow and lack of intuitivity and immersion. Square bases, tight formations, complex "wheel" manoeuvres for movement, and "geometrical" battles always set me off when all I was dreaming of were savage armies of orcs and knights rushing at each other.

I naturally turned towards 40k where I found the tables filled with minis more like what I expected fierce battles to be.

Then after leaving the hobby for a while I come back and discover AoS. And what a treat that was. Not only did I get large scale "messy" fantasy battles with a fast pace and immersive movements and formations, but also beautiful round bases for minis and armies I've always wanted to collect.

To me, AoS is a great success, not without flaws, especially the fluff (damn I wish they kept the pre end times one), and definitely a great move from GW.

It will be a while before we know how popular AoS is or isn't.

It's great that you like AoS (and you kind of anecdotally demonstrated what I said earlier about AoS competing more with 40k than WHFB ) but there's a whole bunch of people who like regiment based wargames, and got in to WHFB exactly for that rather than in spite of it. Almost a year after AoS came out many people are still hating it and still bad mouthing it in local clubs and stores because AoS is the thing that killed they game they liked. And there were a LOT of people who liked WHFB, they just weren't spending much money any more and 8th ed turned WHFB in to a game that was thoroughly unappealing to a newbie.

From the very moment I started wargaming about 20 years ago now I always preferred WHFB to 40k from a rules perspective and that has never changed. I even find a ranked up army in WHFB more visually inspiring than a dispersed formation of 40k troops. People who liked WHFB's ranked combat were probably picturing something like this when they were playing games...




I do also find my Tyranid horde visually inspiring when it's all laid out on a table.... though it takes me 1 movement phase to remind myself why my Tyranids rarely ever get off the shelf and see a gaming table

Different strokes for different folks.... which is why I think it was a mistake to kill WHFB. WHFB and 40k were different enough games to appeal to different people, I could be wrong but I reckon most people who like AoS are probably also the sort of people who would have always been more inclined to play 40k over WHFB. That's why WHFB and 40k complimented each other and why having an AoS-like game alongside WHFB would have also complimented WHFB.

Funnily enough AoS has gotten a lot of WHFB who hadn't played in years playing KoW because AoS reminded a lot of people how much they used to like WHFB and still like regimental based combat.

The Total War games have always been my favorites and in them too my problem were tight formations. At least in this one the orcs will be more spread out and less ranked up than they are in WHFB.

I totally understand the disappointment for WHFB fans, and I'm not saying I'm happy you guys have lost your game (although nothing stops you from continuing playing it), but I've always wanted to play with fantasy and I couldn't enjoy it before AoS.

Also I'm really not trying to say one is better than the other. Just voicing against the topic title which is kind of saying AoS is not popular. Well it is to me and others, but the satisfied will always be less vocal than the disappointed!

Well you may like AoS but you can't deny its had a negative impact on the community driving far more people than its brought in.

Financial reports don't lie GW has lost 15% in model sales over the last couple of years and profits continue to shrink AoS flopped and flopped hard.

Wfb sold less than 40k but it outsold AoS.

Only positive thing about AoS is it drove people outside the walled garden into a wider world.

 Haechi wrote:
What bothers me about this topic title is how it disregard the possibility that AoS is popular and was a good move.

I've been gaming with GW for 15 years now and while I had many goes and tries at WHFB, I could never get into it. My reason was simple: I disliked the flow and lack of intuitivity and immersion. Square bases, tight formations, complex "wheel" manoeuvres for movement, and "geometrical" battles always set me off when all I was dreaming of were savage armies of orcs and knights rushing at each other.

I naturally turned towards 40k where I found the tables filled with minis more like what I expected fierce battles to be.

Then after leaving the hobby for a while I come back and discover AoS. And what a treat that was. Not only did I get large scale "messy" fantasy battles with a fast pace and immersive movements and formations, but also beautiful round bases for minis and armies I've always wanted to collect.

To me, AoS is a great success, not without flaws, especially the fluff (damn I wish they kept the pre end times one), and definitely a great move from GW.

I didn't make the title with that in mind- I realize now that it is poorly worded. I simply wanted to know what differences would there have been if there was no WHFB before it- and however popular it is in your area you cannot deny that WHFB had an impact on it, positively or negatively. However, it is my understanding that there is a lot of rage against AoS, for whatever reason, so I wouldn't call it popular compared to 40k or even fantasy, though this opinion may be wrong.
Sorry for any offense caused.

As for my second point, you are a perfect example of why, IMHO, it would have worked to have both games along side each other. You looked at WHFB, and didn't see what you wanted-AoS, however, was what you had in mind. But now days, where there isn't any WHFB-at least for new comers-the reverse of your situation could happen which wouldn't if both systems existed side by side.

I think it will baffle us all for many years as to why GW chose to run Age of Sigmar alone and didn't run it to compliment the WFB system; or some form of it.

Heck Age of Sigmar would have worked if they'd also tried to keep the childish rules out. Sure the whole "ifyou've a beard you get +1 attack etc...." is ok; but when that's the total form of your rules that you expect people to pay large amounts of money for and to spend hours assembling and painting - yeah - you've missed the boat.

You've also missed the fact that gamers don't need those kind of rules. Look at Dungeons and Dragons; you can have insane fun in that based on a solid serious rules system; because players make the silly stuff up on their own and it fits into their meta-game. Trying to enforce silly into a serious game is generally a bit like when adults try to be "cool kids" with a really fake attitude - everyone including the 5 year old spots the problem.



Sigmar is a mess and even more so because it not only messed up the rules; but the lore as well. It's fine for an intro game for new people to GW; totally works. But its got nothing for them to build upon. The rules are weak and army building is so casual that it will only appeal to "that guy" who will quickly become the only player left. Sure Armageddon showed that gamers like silly games where they can put down hundreds of models and lots of huge stuff - but it complimented regular 40K.


That was the key in a complimentary rules system.

I think some, ,like myself, are holding onto the dream that GW will release a "serious" Age of Sigmar - maybe not rank and file; but at least something semi-serious. That said it seems that they really thought Sigmar would work on its own and the longer it goes without any thing more to itself the more damage it does.

We've already seen Tomb Kings removed from the lore and sale and it won't surprise me if we see more armies removed as time goes on and as more and more models are left unbought because of diminishing popularity.

It's a horrible shame considering that Warhammer has been around for decades and still has one of the best lines of miniatures for fantasy gaming. (say what you like about other lines; most don't touch on GW for quality - the few that do are often very small ranges or focused on a single army or two for alternate sculpts more than anything).



There's lots of doom in the air because I think most, even those who are enjoying Sigmar; can see that unless something big changes GW has basically killed its own game (((a morbid side of me wonders if they didn't do it deliberately and that instead of writing it off they just consolidated the lines and will keep consolidating and cutting them down whilst making a handful of new models because new nearly always sells until we've nothing left of the original game and then kill it off formally because of total lack of sales and popularity*)


*which isn't too far fetched if "no one plays" there won't be the huge backlash when the end comes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The_Grey_Knight wrote:

As for my second point, you are a perfect example of why, IMHO, it would have worked to have both games along side each other. You looked at WHFB, and didn't see what you wanted-AoS, however, was what you had in mind. But now days, where there isn't any WHFB-at least for new comers-the reverse of your situation could happen which wouldn't if both systems existed side by side.

It's exactly what should have happened. Sigmar should have been there to entice people into the game with a solid fun skirmish game. Get them in, get them buying a variety of models and then when they've got a large collection they've got Fantasy there to take them up and make them keep buying. Shift fantasy to what Armageddon or Warmachine Unbound do.

Ok, that begs another question then. AoS fans, how invested would you have got in the game if it had been released alongside WHFB? For my part I probably wouldn't have given it too much of a chance, I'd have considered another little side game that will most likely stop seeing support in the not too distant future. I may have looked over the warscrolls and rules, possibly (but not definitely) got in a game or two. This wouldn't have been because I was playing WHFB (my last game of that was in 1996, though I always loved the fluff and kept up with it). It would have been because not being one of GW's flagship games I'd have realised that it would be hard to find opponents as well as the aforementioned likelihood of it being shut down soon.

I'd never have learned just how fun the game can be, looking over the rules alone does not do that.

Frankly I think it would have been a waste of time for GW to do this.

Is this largely there own fault given how they have treated specialist games or things like Warhammer Skirmish in the past? Almost certainly and I don't think many are absolving GW of much blame concerning the cynicism of their customers towards them or the decline of WHFB. Nevertheless, they found themselves in that situation and had to do something. I'd prefer it if both games could run alongside eachother with some success, of course I would. I just question how feasible it would be.

Running AoS alongside WFB would have been extremely confusing. Two worlds, two sets of rules for everything, two sets of bases in the box, army books for one side and battle tomes for the same army for another, a new army appearing in AoS and not WFB? That would have been a mess. I don't think it's baffling at all as to why GW wanted just one main fantasy game.

I think they wanted to refresh the game and the culture around it, and you can't do that dipping your toe in the water.

coldgaming wrote:
Running AoS alongside WFB would have been extremely confusing. Two worlds, two sets of rules for everything, two sets of bases in the box, army books for one side and battle tomes for the same army for another, a new army appearing in AoS and not WFB? That would have been a mess. I don't think it's baffling at all as to why GW wanted just one main fantasy game.

I think they wanted to refresh the game and the culture around it, and you can't do that dipping your toe in the water.

The key is having a light and serious set of rules running alongside each other.

Age of Sigmar as a rules concept could have run with the original Fantasy Lore without changing anything to Fantasy at all.

OR

They could have changed all of fantasy and run Sigmar in two formats - a light and large version if you will.


Either approach would have worked and would have let them run both at the same time without confusing the market at all; since the only real difference would have been the rule book you used and some supporting material. In exactly the same way 40K has Armageddon which doesn't cause any confusion to the market at all.

The key difference is that instead of the "Combat Patrol" being a part of the orignal rules watered down as an intro; instead it would have been its own game. This opens it up a lot more and meant that they could even have had different stats for models or just used a shorthaned version of stats for the light game.



They could have done it and refreshing warhammer isn't a bad move. But its the choice to dump all the serious and thus throw away nearly all of the existing body of fans that is a shocking move. To throw that away in a game that requires 2 or more players is a bold move because it means you're instantly dividing your playerbase. Even more so because with no serious rules replacement all those oldguard are only going to encourage recycling of material - thus the secondhand market of rules editions (or just straight up photocopies) rather than promoting your new game.


They should have kept the oldguard - they would have adapted easily to a light version of the game as - to them - an intro to the franchise whilst those new could have stuck with Sigmar or advanced on if they wished (and many who got enticed in with a fun skirmish game would get more and more models- look at how Warmachine now has many people with collections as large as a fantasy army and athow there are calls for larger scale games)

As an AoS fan, I genuinely can't separate what make up my interest in the game is split between rules, IP and my regular group of opponents. IP was obviously the initial hook and keeps me interested.

When people are talking about running both AoS and WFB side by side, are they meaning both systems exactly as they are/were?

Or do they mean AoS as a skirmish/WFB-lite with none of the post-end times fluff?

 The_Grey_Knight wrote:


I didn't make the title with that in mind- I realize now that it is poorly worded. I simply wanted to know what differences would there have been if there was no WHFB before it- and however popular it is in your area you cannot deny that WHFB had an impact on it, positively or negatively. However, it is my understanding that there is a lot of rage against AoS, for whatever reason, so I wouldn't call it popular compared to 40k or even fantasy, though this opinion may be wrong.
Sorry for any offense caused.

As for my second point, you are a perfect example of why, IMHO, it would have worked to have both games along side each other. You looked at WHFB, and didn't see what you wanted-AoS, however, was what you had in mind. But now days, where there isn't any WHFB-at least for new comers-the reverse of your situation could happen which wouldn't if both systems existed side by side.

Fair enough!

Then let me answer your topic question with my AoS fan point of view and 15 years gamer: I don't think I would have like AoS better if WHFB didn't existed because it's the fact I've wanted an "in" to WHFB that made me like AoS so much in the first place... But then the one thing I very much dislike about AoS is the lore. I wish they had kept the world as it was, seriously. And if WHFB had not existed before AoS, maybe I wouldn't feel that disappointement.

RoperPG wrote:

When people are talking about running both AoS and WFB side by side, are they meaning both systems exactly as they are/were?

Or do they mean AoS as a skirmish/WFB-lite with none of the post-end times fluff?

I mean it purely with regard to rules.

To my mind the fluff is a separate issue. In fact the fluff isn't isn't even connected to the rules. It's the background to the world setting but its not a direct influence on the rules themselves. The rules for Age of Sigmar are not defined by the fluff of Age of Sigmar.

In my mind if they had done the Age of Sigmar fluff change with the existing Fantasy rules it might well have been a change, but at the end of the day won't change the mechanics of the game itself (barring shifts in alliances).

RoperPG wrote:The whole point of AoS is that WFB wasn't 'more profitable' in GW's opinion.

Problem is, instead of asking why WFB wasn't more profitable and fix it, GW just threw out the baby with the bathwater and are still doing what they want instead of giving us what we want. To me this leads to this quote.

coldgaming wrote:Running AoS alongside WFB would have been extremely confusing. Two worlds, two sets of rules for everything, two sets of bases in the box, army books for one side and battle tomes for the same army for another, a new army appearing in AoS and not WFB? That would have been a mess. I don't think it's baffling at all as to why GW wanted just one main fantasy game.

I think they wanted to refresh the game and the culture around it, and you can't do that dipping your toe in the water.

This would have been perfect. Have Age of Sigmar the starter set, and WFB the advanced set. There is nothing confusing about it. GW has already done this. With Lords of the Ring, you had your skirmish games and then with War of the Ring, you had your Apocalypse or bigger games. AoS is what got me into the GW Fantasy setting (not including LotR). I didn't start Fantasy since it was too much to start, to big to start. But with an AoS intro starting, would have been a great starting point to get into the great history that WFB was. Sadly, I started AoS but I see it as an empty universe. It would have been great to start AoS knowing that I would get into the WFB universe but sadly that is not the case, and not enjoying the empty feeling I have of the fluff.

Start small and work your way up to bigger and at your won pace instead of Bang huge games in WFB or smaller games with AoS. We could have had both. This way, when you want a big game you play WFB when you want a small game you play AoS. It can be done, it was done.

Here is hoping that GW is finally changing and will be giving people what they want now. Hopefully GW isn't not arrogant anymore with the new Leadership and can change AoS into the starter set and make WFB into the bigger advanced games. The world blew up, the world can be put back together.

RoperPG wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AoS could have been the starter game, then people move onto the bigger and more profitable game.

The whole point of AoS is that WFB wasn't 'more profitable' in GW's opinion.
I'm not making any relative/qualitative assessments of either system here, but the sole reason for AoS in the first place is that GW decided something needed to be done with WFB.
AoS was intended from day one to replace WFB. to run both alongside each other would have made the idea behind AoS pointless, and wouldn't have fixed the issues that the company believed WFB had.

Come on, I'm normally accused of being a GW white knight, but when I try to explain why running both makes no sense from a business point of view everyone's suddenly prepared to believe GW aren't motivated solely by money?!

I'm not making a White Knight comparisons either.

Remember the topic in this thread is speculation about the status of the games.

From that angle your argument is circular. You are saying that GW designed AoS to knock WHFB on the head because AoS was used to knock WHFB on the head. They didn't have to do that, though.

WHFB was popular for nearly 30 years. If GW hadn't inflated it into a monstrous bloated system that had no appeal to newcomers, it probably would be popular still. Whether it was nor not, GW could have designed AoS as a feeder game to attract new players. They could also have modified WFHB into 9th edition, and removed some of the bloat and things that made it unpopular (like £30 army books.)

In this scenario GW have three fantasy games, LoTR based on a huge fantasy a film IP, then two games set in the WHFB universe; AoS as a feeder game for beginners, and WHFB as the advanced game.

LotR is short term; with no new films the licences will expire and the range will dwindle. Even if they can renew the licences it will never reach the same sales as before and likely would work best as a boutique collection focusing on high price very high quality miniatures (Foregeworld style).

That's the most likely way LotR will go unless they make a new film in the next 5 years or so.

Davor wrote:

RoperPG wrote:The whole point of AoS is that WFB wasn't 'more profitable' in GW's opinion.

Problem is, instead of asking why WFB wasn't more profitable and fix it, GW just threw out the baby with the bathwater and are still doing what they want instead of giving us what we want. To me this leads to this quote.

coldgaming wrote:Running AoS alongside WFB would have been extremely confusing. Two worlds, two sets of rules for everything, two sets of bases in the box, army books for one side and battle tomes for the same army for another, a new army appearing in AoS and not WFB? That would have been a mess. I don't think it's baffling at all as to why GW wanted just one main fantasy game.

I think they wanted to refresh the game and the culture around it, and you can't do that dipping your toe in the water.

This would have been perfect. Have Age of Sigmar the starter set, and WFB the advanced set. There is nothing confusing about it. GW has already done this. With Lords of the Ring, you had your skirmish games and then with War of the Ring, you had your Apocalypse or bigger games. AoS is what got me into the GW Fantasy setting (not including LotR). I didn't start Fantasy since it was too much to start, to big to start. But with an AoS intro starting, would have been a great starting point to get into the great history that WFB was. Sadly, I started AoS but I see it as an empty universe. It would have been great to start AoS knowing that I would get into the WFB universe but sadly that is not the case, and not enjoying the empty feeling I have of the fluff.

Start small and work your way up to bigger and at your won pace instead of Bang huge games in WFB or smaller games with AoS. We could have had both. This way, when you want a big game you play WFB when you want a small game you play AoS. It can be done, it was done.

Here is hoping that GW is finally changing and will be giving people what they want now. Hopefully GW isn't not arrogant anymore with the new Leadership and can change AoS into the starter set and make WFB into the bigger advanced games. The world blew up, the world can be put back together.

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear on this - the entirety of AoS - rules, fluff, release model, aesthetic style, everything - is part of what GW thought the 'solution' to Fantasy was.
Just to be very clear - I am not saying/arguing any of what follows were the right/correct/sensible response to the problem, but I can see the logic for each of them.
IN GW's opinion, WFB was 'failing', and I'm presuming that binning WFB wasn't the first idea they had on how to fix it, but it's evidently the one they went with.
There were issues with the the IP that needed rectifying to go forward - Malerion anyone? - so the End Times happened to kill off / reset everything to pave way for the AoS fluff.
You may dislike Space Marines, but they sell. Regardless of anything else, creating a fantasy SM faction just seems good sense on the face of it.
The high startup costs, individual factions selling poorly, the army book release model - all these went out GW decided they needed a new business model.
No points/comp means start up costs are whatever you want them to be.
Get round the issue of factions selling poorly by freeing people up to be able to field whatever the hell they want - individual units become the benchmark instead of the army as a whole.
Move away from the rank-and-file model because this leads into higher costs to get a 'decent' unit, and restricted what the sculptors can do as the models have to tesselate in fixed positions.
Simpler rules lowers the entry bar further.
All of these are part and parcel of AoS. remove more than one, and the whole endeavour starts to become pointless if you consider the original mission was to get Fantasy actually generating money. As coldgaming said, you can't just dip your toe in the water when you want to make wholesale changes.


So tl:dr - AoS has been affected both positively and negatively by being the 'successor' to WFB, but AoS would never have happened at all if GW were intending to keep WFB going in any way.
IMO.

Davor wrote:


Start small and work your way up to bigger and at your won pace instead of Bang huge games in WFB or smaller games with AoS. We could have had both. This way, when you want a big game you play WFB when you want a small game you play AoS. It can be done, it was done.

I don't get this recurrent argument. I play huge games in AoS, with easily 100+ minis on each side.

I'll echo what some others here have said and say, no.

AoS has made its mark by piggybacking on WHFB. It derives straight from the fluff, shares most of its imagery and uses the same models. It also borrows most of its players from the former WHFB community.

Furthermore a common pro AoS stance I see is that it's the exact opposite of WHFB. A lot of former WHFB players who now love AoS call the former too competitive and WAAC. Without a supposed negative experience would they view the very casual new game with the same warmth? That's a question I simply can't answer.

 Pojko wrote:
Furthermore a common pro AoS stance I see is that it's the exact opposite of WHFB. A lot of former WHFB players who now love AoS call the former too competitive and WAAC. Without a supposed negative experience would they view the very casual new game with the same warmth? That's a question I simply can't answer.

I think just from reading these forums, saying AoS is the opposite of WFB isn't unique to the 'pros'...
Can only speak to my experience on the last point though.
It wasn't so much that I'd had negative experiences with WFB, but I'd kinda fallen out of love with it. I liked the random charges, for example, but I disliked the implications of the Horde & Steadfast rules. It just made games in the local meta bigger and bigger to accommodate bigger and bigger units.
I wanted to play, but games began feeling more and more like I was just going through the motions rather than actively enjoying the experience.
I kept in touch with people and followed gaming stuff online but with family changes and related work stuff I just went on a hiatus from gaming for about the 12 months leading up to the start of the end times.
That got my attention back, but still not quite enough to start playing again.
I followed the online rumour mill about what coming, and when the rules and the box set warscrolls leaked online a friend and I got together that night and proxied a game on his kitchen table with about 3 units a side.
It was weird, definitely different and it took us a couple of games to get the "Ah, that's what this is!" moment you get with any new game where you click with it.
But we've been sold on it ever since.

So for me I like AoS because I don't have to think about games in advance, I have a 'buzz' back that I hadn't got from WFB for quite some time. There are elements of WFB I miss, and the Old World is a loss, but AoS is the perfect fit for me. But very unlikely I would have looked at AoS initially without the Warhammer name on it.

 Haechi wrote:

Davor wrote:


Start small and work your way up to bigger and at your won pace instead of Bang huge games in WFB or smaller games with AoS. We could have had both. This way, when you want a big game you play WFB when you want a small game you play AoS. It can be done, it was done.

I don't get this recurrent argument. I play huge games in AoS, with easily 100+ minis on each side.

You're assuming everyone else is like you. According to the DakkaDakka poll you are fairly unusual. The favourite game sizes are much smaller.

 Haechi wrote:

Davor wrote:


Start small and work your way up to bigger and at your won pace instead of Bang huge games in WFB or smaller games with AoS. We could have had both. This way, when you want a big game you play WFB when you want a small game you play AoS. It can be done, it was done.

I don't get this recurrent argument. I play huge games in AoS, with easily 100+ minis on each side.

Again, different strokes for different folks. I find any game where I have to move each model individually gets boring at much over 50 models. Nothing ruins my immersion in a game more than sitting there moving 100 models one by one (or getting impatient and just shoving the little bastards across the table ).

I used to really enjoy Warhammer Warbands, where I'd typically play with only 15-30 models put in to small regiments, so I only have to move 3 to 6 entities in a given movement phase.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Haechi wrote:

Davor wrote:


Start small and work your way up to bigger and at your won pace instead of Bang huge games in WFB or smaller games with AoS. We could have had both. This way, when you want a big game you play WFB when you want a small game you play AoS. It can be done, it was done.

I don't get this recurrent argument. I play huge games in AoS, with easily 100+ minis on each side.

You're assuming everyone else is like you. According to the DakkaDakka poll you are fairly unusual. The favourite game sizes are much smaller.

Nothing stops you using nearly any rules system for nearly any scale - although the more you deviate from the standard the more you tend to find that:

1) The rules don't always work as well as they should

2) You might have to use a few house rules to make them work

3) The scale of the game might get very long winded.


Age of Sigmar is designed as a small skirmish rules set; with the casual enough rules to scale up with some house ruling. It's not really rank and file nor designed properly for large armies. Heck its design isn't really that serious. It works but its rough and ready.