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 interesting thing is that 40K's base rules on movement and combat are very similar to AoS.

Spoletta wrote:
I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.
...
I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.

I was just talking to my brother about 'Age of Horus' last night, and how extremely excited I am for GeeDub to pull that trigger. Hopefully they aren't idiots again and don't nuke the 40k universe, but even if they do my CSM will be ready to spill forth from their long hypersleep and roll many dice across whatever seething hellscape we're given in its place.

Strange as it is, as much as I have a burning desire for a balancing mechanism for my games of Fantasy Skirmish, I couldn't care less about my games of Science-Fantasy Skirmish. I legit just want to use my Chaos Dudes and Roll Dice ... as opposed to wanting to Design A List, Build To A List, Paint To A List and Roll Dice with AoS. (I blame 20+ years of playing WHFB, and just 10 of 40k )

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The interesting thing is that 40K's base rules on movement and combat are very similar to AoS.

FUNNILY ENOUGH, I made this sometime last summer:



- Salvage

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Haechi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..

I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.

if they had done that, I could have stuck with AoS despite its rules. Old World with new rules and new concepts of play while not flushing an IP that still generates revenue ( video games, card games, rpgs, etc..from FFG)

This more than points would have kept a lot of players around me interested, far more is the interest in the game lost than when players look at the current world they have to play in.
Storm cast eternals are stated as a reason some players have specifically given, don't want to give it even a try as they don't want to ever have to play against them. They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.
The dwarfs didn't go over that well ether. Khorne was barely noticed, they just feel overused in the naritives at this point.

GW needs more than anything to get all the army's they are keeping up to date In there naritives, and be honest dropping the others now. Points are he least of the issues for my groups now.

Apple fox wrote:

They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.

Having read a good chunk of the published fiction I can tell you that GW is certainly not pushing its new world - it's pushing the new heroes. The worlds themselves are barely touched in lieu of more characters. I can't agree enough with Haechi about the new lore - after so many published books it is clear as day to me that the setting will remain as it is and will not make the quality jump that is sorely needed for some people to get into AoS. Instead more and more named stormcast, banshees, world dragons and great unclean ones will pop up to have their two minute speech with the mono-grey background behind them.

What's missing is pretty simple though.. Freaking maps. Borders. Named locations and local people living there.

Realms don't mean much, and in the book they keep pushing random locations names and battles names we've never heard before and have no material to build our imagination off.

They should have kept the old world, half destroyed if they want to, remake the borders and tell us exactly where's who and what threat they face, then give a mountain to Sigmar where he's building his Stormcasts from. An Olympus of some sort.

I'm not even much of a sci-fi guy but I would be all over 40k if it got AoS style rules. I like a lot of the models but the points/rules/one look at 40k forums and the toxicity around balance is a complete turnoff.

Apple fox wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Haechi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..

I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.

if they had done that, I could have stuck with AoS despite its rules. Old World with new rules and new concepts of play while not flushing an IP that still generates revenue ( video games, card games, rpgs, etc..from FFG)

This more than points would have kept a lot of players around me interested, far more is the interest in the game lost than when players look at the current world they have to play in.
Storm cast eternals are stated as a reason some players have specifically given, don't want to give it even a try as they don't want to ever have to play against them. They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.
The dwarfs didn't go over that well ether. Khorne was barely noticed, they just feel overused in the naritives at this point.

GW needs more than anything to get all the army's they are keeping up to date In there naritives, and be honest dropping the others now. Points are he least of the issues for my groups now.

Im curious what you mean by the dwarfs didn't go over well. Thanks

 CoreCommander wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.

Having read a good chunk of the published fiction I can tell you that GW is certainly not pushing its new world - it's pushing the new heroes. The worlds themselves are barely touched in lieu of more characters. I can't agree enough with Haechi about the new lore - after so many published books it is clear as day to me that the setting will remain as it is and will not make the quality jump that is sorely needed for some people to get into AoS. Instead more and more named stormcast, banshees, world dragons and great unclean ones will pop up to have their two minute speech with the mono-grey background behind them.

Thanks for posting. You've managed to articulate one of the reasons I am most off put about the AoS fluff. I was never someone who cared for special characters or the big players of each faction - but instead enjoyed the background and world building materials - which we now get virtually nothing on it seems. Still I enjoyed all the fluff in the Grand Alliance Death (there wasn't much) precisely because it did give more background information.

the characters are just so lame in the AoS setting, so many of them couldn't even carry a story in the old world let alone the new. let the "mary sues" just go away already. Make all new characters, let the old world just die. but on the point of AoS to 40k, that would be the straw that send GW bankrupt. AoS might be selling better than fantasy, but that still makes it a loss, 15% loss in sales is pretty much unspinnable. do that to the main tourney game and their cash cow, thats corporate suicide.

So 40k is the main tourney game? Not WFB?

Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.

But, we've done this already, alas.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So 40k is the main tourney game? Not WFB?

Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.

But, we've done this already, alas.

since fantasy has tanked yeah, around here its GW's only game represented anywhere and it is the main tourney game here for GW.

 thekingofkings wrote:
the characters are just so lame in the AoS setting, so many of them couldn't even carry a story in the old world let alone the new. let the "mary sues" just go away already. Make all new characters, let the old world just die. but on the point of AoS to 40k, that would be the straw that send GW bankrupt. AoS might be selling better than fantasy, but that still makes it a loss, 15% loss in sales is pretty much unspinnable. do that to the main tourney game and their cash cow, thats corporate suicide.

"Is GW going “All-In” ?

Yes I can understand that there is a GW desire to get the fledging new system off to a strong start, and that it could take over a year just to go through and rework all the old factions. But one thing isn’t changing.

Both retailers and some insiders tell BoLS that after 8 months Age of Sigmar has not meet sales expectations. They all report the same thing, a sharp spike of interest last July followed by a quick drop off of sales that has stubbornly refused to budge. At some point financial reality has to be faced.

Something will have to de done to either fundamentally change the Age of Sigmar game to increase it’s appeal, or it will need to be cut back substantially, befitting it’s financial revenue. No company can let their cash cow languish for too long before the the cold face of reality will come knocking…

So what do you think is going on?"

According to bols sales are still dire and I'm sure they have more contacts than most individuals.

There's nothing but anecdotal hearsay to indicate the situations improved in any area of the globe.

hobojebus wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
the characters are just so lame in the AoS setting, so many of them couldn't even carry a story in the old world let alone the new. let the "mary sues" just go away already. Make all new characters, let the old world just die. but on the point of AoS to 40k, that would be the straw that send GW bankrupt. AoS might be selling better than fantasy, but that still makes it a loss, 15% loss in sales is pretty much unspinnable. do that to the main tourney game and their cash cow, thats corporate suicide.

"Is GW going “All-In” ?

Yes I can understand that there is a GW desire to get the fledging new system off to a strong start, and that it could take over a year just to go through and rework all the old factions. But one thing isn’t changing.

Both retailers and some insiders tell BoLS that after 8 months Age of Sigmar has not meet sales expectations. They all report the same thing, a sharp spike of interest last July followed by a quick drop off of sales that has stubbornly refused to budge. At some point financial reality has to be faced.

Something will have to de done to either fundamentally change the Age of Sigmar game to increase it’s appeal, or it will need to be cut back substantially, befitting it’s financial revenue. No company can let their cash cow languish for too long before the the cold face of reality will come knocking…

So what do you think is going on?"

According to bols sales are still dire and I'm sure they have more contacts than most individuals.

There's nothing but anecdotal hearsay to indicate the situations improved in any area of the globe.

I would assume it is probably doing pretty well in some areas. No game is ever universally reviled, but it wont be enough to save it, but 40k is selling still, and selling well, it would be stupid to "AoS" 40k and consign it to further diluting GW customers and make a profitable game less so.

 thekingofkings wrote:

I would assume it is probably doing pretty well in some areas. No game is ever universally reviled, but it wont be enough to save it, but 40k is selling still, and selling well, it would be stupid to "AoS" 40k and consign it to further diluting GW customers and make a profitable game less so.

I'd just like to point out that 40k is also only selling well in some areas rather than universally. It may very well be MOST areas in fact, but the decline has been very sharp here in Australia.

I'd also comment that if GW don't know what went wrong with Fantasy to begin with, and don't know what went wrong with AoS, they might make the same mistake thinking they are helping. They seem to have that kind of corporate culture, where nothing is ever the fault of the managers, the reason they are losing sales can't possibly be poor decisions on their part. It's those damn dirty front line storemen, they clearly ruined the AoS launch by not pushing it hard enough. Better AoSify 40k and have them push it even harder!

definately the corporate culture at GW is seriously bad, but 40k overall is doing well still, on average, Australia is not unique in seeing GW go down, you guys are likely just as much victims of the currency problem.

I think AoS made alot of people skittish and adopt a wait and see approach.

Why spend money if they are going to do the same to 40k? I've heard from plenty of people if it goes that way they are out forever.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'd also comment that if GW don't know what went wrong with Fantasy to begin with, and don't know what went wrong with AoS, they might make the same mistake thinking they are helping. They seem to have that kind of corporate culture, where nothing is ever the fault of the managers, the reason they are losing sales can't possibly be poor decisions on their part. It's those damn dirty front line storemen, they clearly ruined the AoS launch by not pushing it hard enough. Better AoSify 40k and have them push it even harder!

That has so much potential to be true, it's not even funny.

Yeah, I'm going with sales vary place to place. I've personally not be in a place where it's plunged but obviously there are PLENTY places out there It's been interesting to hear store owners in different regions talk to one another where it is an extreme on both sides: massive boost vs. sharp decline. As for online articles, I'll just say, news is rarely good news, but bad news "sells" Take a look at these sites and see how many articles announce increases in play or sales. These are separate from hobby posts, product reviews, etc. Not many, eh?

What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.

Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.

 thekingofkings wrote:
definately the corporate culture at GW is seriously bad, but 40k overall is doing well still, on average, Australia is not unique in seeing GW go down, you guys are likely just as much victims of the currency problem.

Total annual sales by GW are significantly down from 10 years ago. It's true that GW dropped all the SGs and bitz, (because they weren't selling enough) but the bulk of the decline must have come from the three core games.

Since LoTR had already experienced a very serious decline between 2003 and 2006, it seems like that the declines between 2007 and 2015 must have come mainly from WHFB and 40K. As the population is not declining, surely this shows that GW are losing players, attracting fewer new starters, and selling less active players?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So 40k is the main tourney game? Not WFB?

Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.

But, we've done this already, alas.

since fantasy has tanked yeah, around here its GW's only game represented anywhere and it is the main tourney game here for GW.

That doesn't mean its designed as a tournament game. Or sold as one.

GW games have as many individual ideas about what they are, as there are individual players.

Could easily see GW doing a AoS to 40K. No points as well. It encourages casual play and purchases over intense frowning over an army book "I fancy buying X model, but I need the rest of the army to go with it"

Not any more, you don't. £££

 Boss Salvage wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.
...
I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.

I was just talking to my brother about 'Age of Horus' last night, and how extremely excited I am for GeeDub to pull that trigger. Hopefully they aren't idiots again and don't nuke the 40k universe, but even if they do my CSM will be ready to spill forth from their long hypersleep and roll many dice across whatever seething hellscape we're given in its place.

- Salvage

You raise an interesting point here. I've been thinking about it. I feel the same way - ie. that if they AoS-ified 40K but kept the background, I'd be much more amenable to it.

I think this is because the 40K background has so many more possibilities for scenarios and narrative play due to it's nature as a fairly broad Sci Fantasy game. I can think of a pile of scenarios off the top of my head that I would have fun playing out. And the game itself has lots of stories of small engagements that could play out in a very enjoyable way with a light set of rules. I think a light, fun set of rules could get me back into 40K.

Funnily enough though I probably wouldn't feel the same way about Fantasy. With 40K I've always enjoyed the background and imagery more, but Fantasy was a better game, for me. I am a lot more enthusiastic about fantasy as a genre, and have a lot more of my own ideas for it, but somehow that leads me to want a bit more structure in my fantasy rules sets. Weird. Probably should think on that some more.

 Nordicus wrote:
What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.

Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.

Fantasy wargaming for grown ups...

 Nordicus wrote:
What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.

Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.

Going by my own experience playing GW games, and the very clear trends visible in my local area, 40k was the kids game, Fantasy the grown up game

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Nordicus wrote:
What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.

Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.

Going by my own experience playing GW games, and the very clear trends visible in my local area, 40k was the kids game, Fantasy the grown up game

That is my point though - They took the "mature" game and turned it on it's head, instead of making two versions of it and try to get both target groups attention. AoS is in bad standing because of both the rules but also the massive mentality change in the game, as I see it anyhow.

Mind you, this is from the perspective of someone who watched battlereports on Fantasy but never played it myself.

 monders wrote:
Fantasy wargaming for grown ups...

Right there on the shelf, next to the latex masks, troll ears and boardgames for grown ups - It's a wonderful world we live in

 Da Boss wrote:

 Boss Salvage wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.
...
I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.

I was just talking to my brother about 'Age of Horus' last night, and how extremely excited I am for GeeDub to pull that trigger. Hopefully they aren't idiots again and don't nuke the 40k universe, but even if they do my CSM will be ready to spill forth from their long hypersleep and roll many dice across whatever seething hellscape we're given in its place.

- Salvage

You raise an interesting point here. I've been thinking about it. I feel the same way - ie. that if they AoS-ified 40K but kept the background, I'd be much more amenable to it.

I think this is because the 40K background has so many more possibilities for scenarios and narrative play due to it's nature as a fairly broad Sci Fantasy game. I can think of a pile of scenarios off the top of my head that I would have fun playing out. And the game itself has lots of stories of small engagements that could play out in a very enjoyable way with a light set of rules. I think a light, fun set of rules could get me back into 40K.

Funnily enough though I probably wouldn't feel the same way about Fantasy. With 40K I've always enjoyed the background and imagery more, but Fantasy was a better game, for me. I am a lot more enthusiastic about fantasy as a genre, and have a lot more of my own ideas for it, but somehow that leads me to want a bit more structure in my fantasy rules sets. Weird. Probably should think on that some more.

Yes, I can really agree with a lot of this. In my opinion it shows the strength of the 40k world building and shows the value of detailed world building for a miniatures game universe. If GW spent more time on the AoS universe to really make it captivating and multi-faceted the narrative gaming would come out naturally as a consequence in my eyes.

Chapter house broke them it made them incredibly paranoid because they can't enforce copyright through the courts.

Let's not even mention dot the space marine.

So now nothing gets released in advance so third parties can't beat them to the punch, which in turn means the world does not get developed.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So 40k is the main tourney game? Not WFB?

Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.

But, we've done this already, alas.

since fantasy has tanked yeah, around here its GW's only game represented anywhere and it is the main tourney game here for GW.

That doesn't mean its designed as a tournament game. Or sold as one.

GW games have as many individual ideas about what they are, as there are individual players.

Could easily see GW doing a AoS to 40K. No points as well. It encourages casual play and purchases over intense frowning over an army book "I fancy buying X model, but I need the rest of the army to go with it"

Not any more, you don't. £££

I have seen nothing to indicate encouraging casual play by not having points, this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them. and GW runs 40k tourneys at their stores, so yeah that does make it a tourney game, or they wouldnt do that.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Nordicus wrote:
What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.

Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.

Going by my own experience playing GW games, and the very clear trends visible in my local area, 40k was the kids game, Fantasy the grown up game

Yep, definitely. 40k for fun, WHFB for srs bsnss.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So 40k is the main tourney game? Not WFB?

Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.

But, we've done this already, alas.

since fantasy has tanked yeah, around here its GW's only game represented anywhere and it is the main tourney game here for GW.

That doesn't mean its designed as a tournament game. Or sold as one.

GW games have as many individual ideas about what they are, as there are individual players.

Could easily see GW doing a AoS to 40K. No points as well. It encourages casual play and purchases over intense frowning over an army book "I fancy buying X model, but I need the rest of the army to go with it"

Not any more, you don't. £££

I have seen nothing to indicate encouraging casual play by not having points, this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them. and GW runs 40k tourneys at their stores, so yeah that does make it a tourney game, or they wouldnt do that.

They also run campaign days and casual events, so it must be a casual game, right? Or they wouldn't do that.