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.

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

In which case any fantasy game could be used - from Tunnels & Trolls to D&D to Kings of War.

Many of which are much, much better games that AoS.

For something similar to TW I would recommend Kings of War - a large unit strategic and tactical game without a cumbersome system.

I would not recommend AoS, except as a source of miniatures, and even then... I do not much like the AoS figures. (Others do, so I won't try to argue that a giant daemon/golem thing with skull zits is a terrible miniature.)

I could be more sarcastic - like how would you explain why pretending to twirl your mustache gets you a bonus, but....

The Auld Grump

Anyway, it's getting a bit off topic.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Hey, let's take a moment to appreciate the effort that must have gone into Mymerean finding a picture of someone actually playing AOS!

I know plently of people who play AOS myself.

I am going on to say if you actually want to win against someone who is good in AOS. You have to use formations and position your units correctly just like how it was displayed in the image because how you set your guys up effects how many people can get into combat and the pile in phase. Still the conversion rate for someone getting into wargaming is low. Someone can play warrior's of chaos for 6 pounds instead of 50-60+ pounds in AOS or 150+ for 8th. Now getting people to buy single models? That I could see happening and that's what GW aimed for in the advertisement.

With due acknowledgment to KK's post, this will be my last say on the topic, but, you do realise the laughing Ork meant I was joking right?

 Azreal13 wrote:
With due acknowledgment to KK's post, this will be my last say on the topic, but, you do realise the laughing Ork meant I was joking right?

Apologies I took it the wrong way considering the amount of times I have seen people mock AOS or those who play it I jumped the gun abit.

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).

 Talys wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).

That's lovely, shame you getting what you want apparently required depriving all the fans of the existing setting of their enjoyment.

It's not, however, really relevant to the point; Mymearan is talking nonsense and he fine well knows it. We're not discussing randoms, we're not discussing GW customers who didn't like Realhammer, we're discussing people who play TW:WH and like it because of what it is and whether a game that isn't anything like what it is will appeal to most of them. AoS is a streamlined, skirmish-based, fairly random ruleset with minimal structure that doesn't share a setting or aesthetic with WHF as-was, TW:WH is a complex, block-based, maneuver-dependent and extremely predictable game system that painstakingly reproduces the aesthetic and setting of WHF. When that fundamental disconnect is pointed out, the response is "here, a picture of armies deployed in a line, your argument is invalid"

Is it technically possible for people of the type described to come from TW:WH explicitly seeking to replicate that experience on the tabletop and end up as happy, enthusiastic AoS players? Sure, but it's hardly very likely - if someone comes to me and says they're a fan of dark Nordic crime TV dramas and asks me to recommend them some American shows along the same lines, it's possible I could recommend them "Psych" and they'd love it, but it's hardly likely and it's not what they asked me for.

Anyway, I've explained my point as best I can, folk with either agree or not, I'll leave you to it until we see the actual results.

 Talys wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).

Obviously there are people who spent more on fantasy than before, there are also people who spent less.
WHFB had 35 years of sales, after all.

The key point is the financial data that will be presented in a few weeks. At least we will be able to see the licensing revenue, which contains the Total War:Hammer sales.

 Talys wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

*raises hand*

I've actually spent WAY more money on Fantasy models since the rebranding. Prior to AoS, I probably bought on average 2 models a year from the Fantasy range -- I think the only model I got in 2014 was Druthu. Since the rebranding, I've gotten all the Stormcast releases, most of the non-Chaos new terrain, Silver Tower, and several other kits. I've even painted a bunch of it

Even though I've owned a lot of the Fantasy stuff, going right back to the first version of Fantasy Role-Play, I have never been enamored with the lore/setting. It was too much a mirror of the "real world" (Europe) for me, and there were other fantasy game settings I was more invested in with better fiction, in my opinion (primarily TSR game worlds). If anything, the world in which WHFB was set detracted from the models, for me. I also thought a bunch of the models were just goofy, and I never liked how the humans and their heroes never felt awe-inspiring (though I loved the elves).

I have also been buying a lot more for fantasy gaming - and none of it from GW. Mostly because people are playing more Kings of War than they had Warhammer Fantasy Battle. (It took GW getting rid of WHFB for folks to try KoW, but once they did it started getting played a lot.)

I strongly suspect that the drop in sales after getting rid of WHFB was a goodly chunk of GW's low expectations for this fiscal period - and was made up for, not by higher sales of AoS, but by higher sales of licensed product. (See, on topic!)

For the record - and this is kind of important - my yelling 'Bring Back Warhammer Fantasy Battle!!1!' is not the same as my yelling 'Get Rid Of Age Of Sigmar!!1!' - I think that getting rid of the large scale game was the mistake, not introducing a higher fantasy skirmish game.

While I have negative interest in AoS, I can say that about a lot of games.

They had an opportunity to grow the market, but instead chose to split the market. (They are not the first fantasy gaming company to do so - ask WotC or Rackham.)

If AoS had been the launch for the new/reissued Specialist Games line I very much doubt that we would have seen nearly as much hatred for the game, and it could have/would have been judged for its own merits and flaws.

For my part, I just don't like the direction the miniatures have taken since the new game launched, and Age of Sigmar holds no interest for me.

Which is kind of crappy timing - for the first time in quite a while I am seeing moves by the company that don't annoy the heck out of me - yet they have nothing that I want to buy. (Yes, I am one of those people that will stop buying from companies when I do not approve of their methods - and I have not approved of GW for a long time now.)

I am glad to see that they change in direction may be helping the company's bottom line, yet because they killed the one line that I had any interest in....

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The key point is the financial data that will be presented in a few weeks. At least we will be able to see the licensing revenue, which contains the Total War:Hammer sales.

When does GW put out their full halftime/yearly reports?

Mid-July and mid-January. I don't remember exactly.

The exact dates will be on the GW Investor Relations page.

Hmmmm.... I wonder who will be writing the preamble....

The Auld Grump

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

Yep,
Age of Sigmar is still warhammer too, whether people like it or not.
It will attract some more customers, I doubt it will be as many as space marine did though.

If TW:WH only released late May, how much of an effect could it have had given FY starts in April?

Their FYE isn't April.

Their accounting runs from the start of June.

Plus I imagine that you can never be entirely sure the specific details of when how and what GW are paid license-wise.

Anybody got any idea why their stock peaked in 2005?

MaxZ wrote:
Anybody got any idea why their stock peaked in 2005?

The "LoTR" bubble at its peak.

Regarding the whole "AoS can represent TW" and the pic posted above... seriously, if we're getting down to that, any game out there can be used to represent a TW battle if you have enough models. You can get any skirmish game like Saga, deploy a lot of models in a way that resemble the shape of regiments, and call it a day.

But for me, Total War has always been about 100-to-200 men regiments, infantry blocks and lines, cavalry looking for flanks and rears, artillery supporting from behind, etc. You need a regiment-based game in order to represent that. AoS is not.

WHFB could be experiencing a significant boost in sales right now, and instead such money is likely going straight into the competition's pockets. That's GW's fault alone. The fact that someone has been called out for actually encouraging people to represent a regiment-based videogame with regiment-based tabletop warmes just shows the GW lobotomy can always run deeper than what you expect.

 Korinov wrote:

MaxZ wrote:
Anybody got any idea why their stock peaked in 2005?

The "LoTR" bubble at its peak.

Regarding the whole "AoS can represent TW" and the pic posted above... seriously, if we're getting down to that, any game out there can be used to represent a TW battle if you have enough models. You can get any skirmish game like Saga, deploy a lot of models in a way that resemble the shape of regiments, and call it a day.

But for me, Total War has always been about 100-to-200 men regiments, infantry blocks and lines, cavalry looking for flanks and rears, artillery supporting from behind, etc. You need a regiment-based game in order to represent that. AoS is not.

WHFB could be experiencing a significant boost in sales right now, and instead such money is likely going straight into the competition's pockets. That's GW's fault alone. The fact that someone has been called out for actually encouraging people to represent a regiment-based videogame with regiment-based tabletop warmes just shows the GW lobotomy can always run deeper than what you expect.

Sad to say but I agree.

I play TW/WHFB then look at Age Of gak and think wow this is a let down.

After playing the game for a couple hours as empire I thought hell ya I need franz on deathclaw and lots more men at arms. Went to the website to be greated with a steaming pile of AoS. Been so long since I was on the website I forgot it was there, then I just closed the browser and moved on. I like some ooorrrkkuses or how ever you spell the new orc name models. But due to them being from a sifi fantasy game I have limited uses for them. I may buy a box of each then walk away never to paint of build them. Where as if they where fantasy I most likely would of bought 10+ boxes of brutes alone this month. Now I spent the money on a titan and the rest on random skins for heroes of the storm.

So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?

Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.

 Rayvon wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

Yep,
Age of Sigmar is still warhammer too, whether people like it or not.
It will attract some more customers, I doubt it will be as many as space marine did though.

And 4th edition was the future for Dungeons & Dragons. (*Blub, blub, blub.*)

The problem isn't that GW can't use the Warhammer name for a new property, it is that if people don't like Warhamer: Age of [Insert Humorous Name HERE] then they won't buy the game.

And if they feel that they have been done dirty by the company in the process, they are also less likely to even try the game.

I may, personally, think that the game sucks - I am allowed to do so.

And you, personally, may think that the game is perfect in every way - you are allowed to do so.

But neither changes the fact that GW fumbled the roll out for the game.

In pretty much the exact same way that WotC fumbled the roll out of D&D 4e (which was also a game that I, personally, thought sucked).

They lost market share - and in a market that is currently growing.

Shouting that it's still Warhammer!!1! does not help in any way regarding that fumbled roll out.

Honestly, the previous edition failing so hard was a signal to the company that they needed to do the market research that Kirby found to be so otiose in a niche market.

Instead they rolled out a new game, with no reason to expect the game to be well received, yet, going by the Golden Sigmarine Statue, they were obviously expecting W:AoS to be the Next Big Thing.

The Auld Grump - and W:AoS, like D&D 4e... may have the same name as the old game - but it is not the same game.

*EDIT* I rather expect that Rountree is investing in market research.

*EDIT 2* I have no shame at all in saying that Rountree has not been what I had expected, and that is a good thing.

So we're probably going to see:

Core business of miniatures: level or maybe slightly down

Video game licensing revenue: up quite a bit

The real question will be whether or not the core business is down more than expected while the video game revenue pushes the total higher than expected. It would be very bad if the video game revenue is basically hiding a steep decline in their core business. After all, their video game revenue seems to be quite inconsistent with spikes and drops as a given project either succeeds or tanks.

GW still report licensing income separately, so we will be able to see if table top games are up, down or static. We won't be able to tell what is selling well or badly the two (three?) core systems and the various boxed games. They have released several boxed games in the past year.

The video game business is like the film business. Most games and films make no money or even lose it. A reasonable number make their money back and an okay profit. But the industry really depends on a fairly small number of massive hits. In the film industry you have a long tail of sales from DVDs and TV releases, but this doesn't really exist in the game industry.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?

Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.

Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?

Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.

Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!

I think you missed what was written between the lines.

 MattofWar wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?

Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.

Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!

I think you missed what was written between the lines.

I think you may have done as well.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 MattofWar wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So you spent your money on a different GW product - the titan?

Not a GW or FW model titan...... A different one lol. I have not bought direct from gamesworkshop store since the AoS release.

Buying their product from a different channel. Yeah, that'll learn 'em!

I think you missed what was written between the lines.

I think you may have done as well.

You mean 'Not a GW or FW model titan'?

Now how could somebody miss a direct statement?

No reading between the lines needed.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

In which case any fantasy game could be used - from Tunnels & Trolls to D&D to Kings of War.

Many of which are much, much better games that AoS.

For something similar to TW I would recommend Kings of War - a large unit strategic and tactical game without a cumbersome system.

I would not recommend AoS, except as a source of miniatures, and even then... I do not much like the AoS figures. (Others do, so I won't try to argue that a giant daemon/golem thing with skull zits is a terrible miniature.)

I could be more sarcastic - like how would you explain why pretending to twirl your mustache gets you a bonus, but....

The Auld Grump

I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.

 Pacific wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think people are reading a bit much into my comments, but that's fine. I maintain that as a non-Warhammer fan you wouldn't care about the fluff differences between Total War and AoS, and as I said you can use the same models in AoS that are in TW... To an outsider who doesn't know the entire family history of the Von Carsteins or can recite Lord Dwarfington's Book of Grudges word for word they're both just wacky fantasy worlds anyway and the important thing is that both have the same races, units and characters.

In which case any fantasy game could be used - from Tunnels & Trolls to D&D to Kings of War.

Many of which are much, much better games that AoS.

For something similar to TW I would recommend Kings of War - a large unit strategic and tactical game without a cumbersome system.

I would not recommend AoS, except as a source of miniatures, and even then... I do not much like the AoS figures. (Others do, so I won't try to argue that a giant daemon/golem thing with skull zits is a terrible miniature.)

I could be more sarcastic - like how would you explain why pretending to twirl your mustache gets you a bonus, but....

The Auld Grump

I would probably have recommended 9th age actually, as the closest war game to TW. Although really anything with rank and file mechanics (take your pick from historical rule sets) would suffice also.

I have not played 9th Age - KoW is scratching that itch.

But I am very glad that it exists, and I hope that it does very, very well.

The Auld Grump