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.
Haechi wrote: I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
[spoiler]
It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,
Evidence, please.
...and ruin a good rant? Shush. Oh, and pass the popcorn.
Haechi wrote: I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
[spoiler]
It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,
Evidence, please.
GW's sales continued to decline in their last financial report. That is the only evidence we have that it isn't selling as well, but there is no evidence it is selling better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 14:45:07
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
You're more than welcome to play with our group Haechi, I live in central Wisconsin about 3-4 hours north of the Illinois border.
Hobojebus, there is no evidence of this. Blanket statements don't work and show ignorance or intolerance. Intolerance against a game system is not a basis for blanket sale statements. GW Financials show an overall decrease, but 40k is responsible for over 70% of their business, which most likely is the decrease we are seeing (formation hammer, increasing costs, other game systems, etc. My flgs is constantly running out of fantasy kits since the release of aos.
The old product sitting on his shelf now are various 40k sets that aren't part of the foration hammer metta. Fantasy stuff had been collecting dust on his shelves since around 7th esition, when fantasy died around here, but it isn't anymore. It moves quickly enough that he can't keep full sets of any army in stock either.
Aos sales and health are geographically different. Most major gaming conventions were created in Wisconsin (gencon, etc, lots of wargamers here) so I use our game store sales as a basis of the game's health for a majority of the midwest.
Your area may be different but sales don't lie around here. Overall gw is selling fantasy product, and they are producing more. 40k on the other hand.... well that's a different story. That could be fixed with removing unbalanced formations, not invalidating $50 books every other year, or making formations that require vast expensive purchases that are not necessary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 14:46:44
GW's sales continued to decline in their last financial report. That is the only evidence we have that it isn't selling as well, but there is no evidence it is selling better.
There is no evidence it is doing worse, either. GW's total sales fell.
Without actual breakdown, it's possible that AoS is actually selling better, selling exactly the same or selling worse inside that total figure.
As said above, 40K accounts for a huge proportion of GW's annual sales and these have been declining faster since 2012 than the decline since 2010 which were the watershed years for WHFB and 40K.
Personally I think AoS probably is doing OK. It at least has allowed GW to cut a massive load of old books and they are starting to eliminate armies too (Tomb Kings) while launching smaller, more expensive new kits such as Varanguards.
GW's sales continued to decline in their last financial report. That is the only evidence we have that it isn't selling as well, but there is no evidence it is selling better.
There is no evidence it is doing worse, either. GW's total sales fell.
Without actual breakdown, it's possible that AoS is actually selling better, selling exactly the same or selling worse inside that total figure.
Well that could also mean that AoS hurt peoples confidence in GW entirely and it is influencing their 40k purchases as well.
Commodus Leitdorf Paints all of the Things!! The Breaking of the Averholme: An AoS Adventure
"We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage
Either way we will probably not know for awhile. Most fantasy sales in the last 6 months might well have been driven more by people getting the minis for their fantasy armies now before they disappear.
So AoS COULD be selling badly...I mean how many of those sales are Stormcast? It's hard to say until GW finishes their cleansing of the minis and all that is left is AoS. If fantasy was only 15% of GW sales and AoS is only 15% of GW sales I would say it is very much a failure.
Commodus Leitdorf Paints all of the Things!! The Breaking of the Averholme: An AoS Adventure
"We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage
And to match this to the OP, sales -/+ won't make a change which sees AoS suddenly add points (and thus not work with the Battleplans in the campaign books).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 16:48:47
I play AoS both with and without points. I like points values so I can crunch numbers for list building, but vanilla AoS is enjoyable too.
Most important thing with AoS vanilla for me is clearly defining forces (incl. summoning) before the game begins so we can make sure it starts balanced and remains balanced through-out too :-)
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
thekingofkings wrote: its a laundry list of bad. I have played about 110 games of it and was enthusiastic about it before I actually played it, now I loathe it to the point of ditching GW altogether after playing since rogue trader and old hardback warhammer, its that bad. but as for the issue around points, GW should have done their homework and tested, played, and tested again a balancing mechanism, instead they didnt bother and gave us some lame "narrative" bs. which you can do in any game out there. the bases thing is just a mess, I have seen more arguments about distances and ranges in AoS than i did in any other game, and there were only a tiny group of us even willing to try. combat, especially when you have bigger games is just an abysmal mess. the rules are basically just rehashed watered down 40k/WHFB mixed. The closest we came to games that werent either 1 sided slaughters or complete snoozefests, were the old battallion boxes against each other. the warscrolls are good (even if i personally think the name is ridiculous) they are themselves easy enough to use. but overall the game scales very poorly. was rarely any fun, which the GW staffer constantly saying "now isnt this fun" and "see this is so much better than warhammer" while we were frustratedly trying to tolerate the shoddy rules didnt help. This game should have been so much better than it is, GW had a real opportunity to send warhammer out gracefully, then make a great game, they didnt bother, and it shows in the power creep already.
Really weird you would play 110 games of something you loathe so much. I really find some of your claims to be very suspect in general.
You may hate AoS but tons of people love it and it's steadily growing and picking up steam.
If you didn't enjoy the games you did play I would recommend the SCGT pack for great missions, points and some basic house rules.
@OP not having points is the best part of this game. The player points are much better than anything GW would have published and you actually can give input. I really love this aspect of AOS.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 18:19:53
If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
hobojebus wrote: If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
Sorry I haven't seen 50% eBay stock in a very long time when lots of people reduced their WHFB stock. Since the new starter kits, book releases and models there has been a large spike of intrest in many places. Tournaments are beginning to get some good numbers I.e. SCGT has around 150 already signed up.
AOS started out on rough ground no one can deny it. The community is likely still smaller than WHFB (though likely now buying more), but there is no denying it's gaining popularity in some areas and drawing in new players. Especially for a guy in the UK you should know this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 18:28:27
GW will not release a balance mechanism. AoS has been purposefully designed without a balance mechanism to reduce the amount of effort the system takes to maintain and further open to introducing new models. What really takes time and effort in a game is balance, assuring that all players have a more or less equal chance to beat the game. By culling this part of game design, you save most of your work.
...and really, do you trust the same company that currently entertains the 40k ruleset, to come up with a half-way decent points system?
hobojebus wrote: If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
Except the physical & online retailers *I* use are doing brisk trade.
See how subjectivity can be unreliable?
hobojebus wrote: If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
Except these books are limited edition ephemera - they don't even contain stuff that is required to play the game, so aren't a measure of the system's popularity on their own like previous limited edition rulebooks, codices or army books. Total collector item.
hobojebus wrote: If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
That means they're binning GW, not just AoS. Meaning the 40k sales aren't worth it for them. Which brings me to...
hobojebus wrote: The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
No, no it isn't. It is one of a number of options. After all, if so many indie stores are binning GW completely, then that hits sales of everything.
hobojebus wrote: There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
No, there are facts that in your opinion mean AoS is doing badly, but the only actual proofs of this - GW binning AoS completely or providing sales breakdowns of each line - aren't available to us.
So until that happens, it's all hearsay really.
GW won't amend AoS beyond tweaks. If it *is* Fantasy's last roll of the dice, there are those who will enjoy going down with the ship.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/25 18:47:23
I'm sure however badly AoS might be doing -- and I think it's probably doing okay -- GW will go on with it for two years. (Another 16 months from now, really, as it launched in July last year.)
Even if AoS was a disaster it would take a year to be sure it can't be turned around, and another year to build up a replacement game.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm sure however badly AoS might be doing -- and I think it's probably doing okay -- GW will go on with it for two years. (Another 16 months from now, really, as it launched in July last year.)
Even if AoS was a disaster it would take a year to be sure it can't be turned around, and another year to build up a replacement game.
Yeah GW won't turn the boat around until they give sufficient time to see how their investment plays out. AoS had a rough start mostly because vets cried out in horror....but the game was never meant for us because we were not buying enough anyway, hence the new game to draw in new blood. The free rules for our old armies were designed to pick up who they could into the system before they axed the armies (See Tomb Kings).
If that new blood means sales end up above Fantasy then mission accomplished. If it is below, failure....heck if it is the same level of sales then it's also a failure so all we can do is wait and see. If it doesn't pan out I imagine 2nd Edition AoS will put slightly more effort into the design to try and salvage what they can.
Commodus Leitdorf Paints all of the Things!! The Breaking of the Averholme: An AoS Adventure
"We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage
GW adding a point system would not be a good thing for AoS.
Those of us who play the game enjoy either just matching up forces that we gather or using one of the many good fan comps out there.I would say at this point,if for some reason they did add points ,,most all of us regular players wouldn't use them anyway.
Minijack wrote: GW adding a point system would not be a good thing for AoS.
Those of us who play the game enjoy either just matching up forces that we gather or using one of the many good fan comps out there.I would say at this point,if for some reason they did add points ,,most all of us regular players wouldn't use them anyway.
In which case, the addition of points wouldn't hurt you at all, but may help bring in other players who would prefer to be able to have roughly balanced forces for unplanned games.
Minijack wrote: GW adding a point system would not be a good thing for AoS.
Those of us who play the game enjoy either just matching up forces that we gather or using one of the many good fan comps out there.I would say at this point,if for some reason they did add points ,,most all of us regular players wouldn't use them anyway.
In which case, the addition of points wouldn't hurt you at all, but may help bring in other players who would prefer to be able to have roughly balanced forces for unplanned games.
So how would this not be a good thing for AoS?
Because it would lead to yet another b!tch fest on how GW cant set point values correctly,just like it has for both fantasy and 40k for the last 20 years or so....
If you need to have a point system for games you play,then for AoS there is several fan comps that work just fine,,if that doesn't do it,then AoS isint for you..simple as that.
GW dropping points and leaving it up to fans is one of the best moves they have made in years...look for 40k to be next..
thekingofkings wrote: its a laundry list of bad. I have played about 110 games of it and was enthusiastic about it before I actually played it, now I loathe it to the point of ditching GW altogether after playing since rogue trader and old hardback warhammer, its that bad. but as for the issue around points, GW should have done their homework and tested, played, and tested again a balancing mechanism, instead they didnt bother and gave us some lame "narrative" bs. which you can do in any game out there. the bases thing is just a mess, I have seen more arguments about distances and ranges in AoS than i did in any other game, and there were only a tiny group of us even willing to try. combat, especially when you have bigger games is just an abysmal mess. the rules are basically just rehashed watered down 40k/WHFB mixed. The closest we came to games that werent either 1 sided slaughters or complete snoozefests, were the old battallion boxes against each other. the warscrolls are good (even if i personally think the name is ridiculous) they are themselves easy enough to use. but overall the game scales very poorly. was rarely any fun, which the GW staffer constantly saying "now isnt this fun" and "see this is so much better than warhammer" while we were frustratedly trying to tolerate the shoddy rules didnt help. This game should have been so much better than it is, GW had a real opportunity to send warhammer out gracefully, then make a great game, they didnt bother, and it shows in the power creep already.
Really weird you would play 110 games of something you loathe so much. I really find some of your claims to be very suspect in general.
You may hate AoS but tons of people love it and it's steadily growing and picking up steam.
If you didn't enjoy the games you did play I would recommend the SCGT pack for great missions, points and some basic house rules.
@OP not having points is the best part of this game. The player points are much better than anything GW would have published and you actually can give input. I really love this aspect of AOS.
Fair enough,we dont actually know each other after all, but truth is, I didn't start out hating it, I really wanted to like it (except the fluff, I hated sigmar in whfb and his own novels, hate him still) ,. but the more i played the more i began to hate it to the point what i haven't traded away I threw away. as for tons loving it, may be true where you are, but definately not true here, it was the same small group of us each weekend. I still dont think "points" is the way to go forward, something else maybe. maybe pointless to say, but I make no judgment on any game until I have at least played 50 games of it. I like to try all its quirks first, but AoS really got boring fast, so fast that only carnage and leviathan could compete for most lame game I have played.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 00:48:49
What people seem to ignore with the "but you can do that in any game" stuff and also in relation to points is that direction from the top heavily influences how people use a product. Not having points, and many of the other aspects of how AoS was designed, are clearly trying to push gamers to play and think about the hobby in a different way from before. If GW adds in points, which is possible some day, that becomes the de facto standard way to play and the entire tone of the game changes. That's not to say I don't like playing with points in the fan-made systems.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.
You are misrepresenting and incorrect about my perspectives. what I said in regards to AGoT, my explanation of the results has nothing to do with cometitive gaming nor is my perspective about it. In the shows version of events which may or may not be the books intent all they needed to do was remove Stannis as a contender, killing him was not necessary, hell even destroying his army completely wasnt necessary, just breaking it, and hence removing him from contention. . as for reenacting that battle, it is a historical style battle that AoS simply could not do, sure you could try 2 brettonian armies, but you would still miss what was happening. an army of stormcast doing something similar in manuever to say skaven or what have you is a poor copy of the Bolton cavalry force moving in on an essentially Baratheon infantry force, which originally was cavalry. for finding a game, thats local, here, you wont find an AoS game unless you are extremely lucky whereas you could get a historics game with little to no effort in any of the FLGS. as for compettitve, all wargames are competitive, you are each trying to win based on your objective. AoS is competitive.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.
You are misrepresenting and incorrect about my perspectives. what I said in regards to AGoT, my explanation of the results has nothing to do with cometitive gaming nor is my perspective about it. In the shows version of events which may or may not be the books intent all they needed to do was remove Stannis as a contender, killing him was not necessary, hell even destroying his army completely wasnt necessary, just breaking it, and hence removing him from contention. . as for reenacting that battle, it is a historical style battle that AoS simply could not do, sure you could try 2 brettonian armies, but you would still miss what was happening. an army of stormcast doing something similar in manuever to say skaven or what have you is a poor copy of the Bolton cavalry force moving in on an essentially Baratheon infantry force, which originally was cavalry. for finding a game, thats local, here, you wont find an AoS game unless you are extremely lucky whereas you could get a historics game with little to no effort in any of the FLGS. as for compettitve, all wargames are competitive, you are each trying to win based on your objective. AoS is competitive.
And by stating that you are misrepresenting AoS as a whole. You talk about how it cannot be done with AoS and can be done by other systems and yet you don't produce any example that could do the exact same thing that allows both side to play a fun and balanced narrative game. In AoS, one side may overpower the other side in terms of raw power and could wipe it out, and yet, that doesn't mean they secure victory. I was using AGoT as an example of it and you missed it completely, so I guess I have to apologise for that. I'm just saying points are just to make things seem fair when they really aren't and there is no fairness in battles. And objectives are there to make things interesting and 'fair' to both sides, using Stannis' last battle as an example. Even in the main 4 pages rulebook, the battle could go as shown with Stannis having lesser troops and thus having his sudden death victory score which is to endure, and he did heroically. Therefore, in game terms for AoS, the player using his army actually won. It does not represent what have happened in the show for sure since his army is wiped out and is no longer contending for the throne, but AoS is high fantasy where a hero that is not dead can rally armies up again, or heck, just have the hero try to escape being chased and play on from there. There are battleplans in the books which allow this kind of games to be played which I can say more than any other systems out there being played right now.
While nobody played AoS when I went back to the hobby at my local GW store, the manager, who is now my friend, told me right away he's out of Stormcasts every week and has to order new starter boxes every two weeks.
I loved AoS right from my first demo game, which I played with my friend who had a poor opinion on it. I pointed out the potential of the system and pushed him to start playing with me. Now 5 months later we have 6 armies, and with our joyful attitude and entertaining games we've swayed half of the store's core members into AoS.
coldgaming wrote: What people seem to ignore with the "but you can do that in any game" stuff and also in relation to points is that direction from the top heavily influences how people use a product. Not having points, and many of the other aspects of how AoS was designed, are clearly trying to push gamers to play and think about the hobby in a different way from before. If GW adds in points, which is possible some day, that becomes the de facto standard way to play and the entire tone of the game changes. That's not to say I don't like playing with points in the fan-made systems.
I don't think this so much at all, players don't really seem to be playing in a difernt way.
The lack of points hasn't really made the missions and more naritive driven, watching YouTube it looks almost standward. (Short of no points given)
Points can be used to great effect in naritive campaigns, I have played 2 for Warmachine and run 1 myself.
What has always been the issue with GW games has been poor rules for naritive games, which I think all age of sigmar really did was drop points..
Lack of points hasn't changed how people think so much, as force people to come up with creative solutions to play like they did before :(
Setting a standard for ease of play isn't bad, but GW isn't doing anything with its standard.
hobojebus wrote: If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
Exactly.
Pretty much all evidence suggest that this joke of a system is a commercial failure. Some refuse to acknowledge it, but personally, I think a few of them are plants or alias.
Not to mention that the numerous polls on the major wargaming forums have shown that the large majority of WHFB players are not playing AOS
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/26 06:38:49
lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039
I don't think this so much at all, players don't really seem to be playing in a difernt way.
The lack of points hasn't really made the missions and more naritive driven, watching YouTube it looks almost standward. (Short of no points given)
Points can be used to great effect in naritive campaigns, I have played 2 for Warmachine and run 1 myself.
What has always been the issue with GW games has been poor rules for naritive games, which I think all age of sigmar really did was drop points..
Lack of points hasn't changed how people think so much, as force people to come up with creative solutions to play like they did before :(
Setting a standard for ease of play isn't bad, but GW isn't doing anything with its standard.
The narrative strength of AoS is in the army compositions. Point systems come with restrictions and requirements. Here are a few examples, from my armies, armies of friends, and projects.
-Bat themed VC army with fell bats, bats swarms, varghiests, terrogheists, etc.
-Skinks only Seraphon army with monsters that carries them.
-Witch cult only Dark Elves.
-Chariots only Tomb Kings (I just took the last chance opportunity to buy this army entirely from scratch. 240 euros of chariots xD)
-Savage Orcs.
-Empire Griffons. Griff-hounds, Demi-Griffs, Griffon mages, Griffon lord.
-Spirits VC. Spirits, Archais, Mortarghs, Covent Throne, etc
-Minotaurs army.
-Winged Stormcasts.
None of those would we viable in a game with points, and all of them would be crushed by net comps. In my local store, when we bring armies like this, everybody comes around the table to see how it will fair, and we build the opposing army accordingly.
Take my Chariot TK army. I haven't played with it yet (hell I haven't even took them out of the box yet), but I have no doubt it would get crushed by everything. Thankfully in my store, most people play AoS for the fun and narrative they can create, so when I'll bring it out, it will result in games of epic charges against equally interesting themed armies. Games I absolutely do not care if I win or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/26 06:42:02
I guess points could be a good thing, alot of people in 9th said the no points was the main reason they didn't like AoS.
The problems with putting in points now would be that it might make a divide in the AoS fanbase between those who want non-point games and those who will only play with points.
I prefer using scenarios and narrative battles rather than lists but point systems like the Azyr system come in really handy with general battles. That's a comp, though. An official point system runs the risk of being abused by cheese players who take advantage of it.
