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.

It could also be that there are essentially no rules questions about kow, so very little to talk about online.

Herzlos wrote:
It could also be that there are essentially no rules questions about kow, so very little to talk about online.

Rules questions have their own forums on both TGA and KoW, so no. Most discussions are about other things just like here on dakka or any other wargaming forum. Also AoS has WAY less ambiguous and/or contradictory rules than 40k, it's probably comparable to KoW on that front.

morgoth wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.

The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.

Oh, so the Generals handbook was planned all along?

That was indeed my interpretation from day one, that GW intentionally dropped an incomplete game on the market to see the reactions, community suggestions and then take their time to come up with a great, community inspired and more complete set of rules.

I think that's a bit of a leap. AoS was released at the height of Kirby telling everyone that GW made minis for collectors, and AoS was something that allowed you to put your collection on a table top. Multiple sources flat out denied that AoS would ever get points.

The Generals handbook and GW subsequently courting the tournament scene only happened after AoS flopped and Kevin Rountree was appointed

Bartali wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

morgoth wrote:
I don't think you understand the general plan behind AoS.

The idea was to release a blank game and fish for feedback, to then establish a simple core set of rules (the GHB you mention) to make the game simple yet playable.
So basically, everything is according to plan so far, even if it may seem weird that they didn't shoot for a day 1 finished product.

Oh, so the Generals handbook was planned all along?

That was indeed my interpretation from day one, that GW intentionally dropped an incomplete game on the market to see the reactions, community suggestions and then take their time to come up with a great, community inspired and more complete set of rules.

I think that's a bit of a leap. AoS was released at the height of Kirby telling everyone that GW made minis for collectors, and AoS was something that allowed you to put your collection on a table top. Multiple sources flat out denied that AoS would ever get points.

The Generals handbook and GW subsequently courting the tournament scene only happened after AoS flopped and Kevin Rountree was appointed

Omoshiro.

I would've never suspected such sheer stupidity tbh, I guess I'm still way too naive.


Still, were those multiple sources reliable ?
Because Kirby was also responsible for v7 and a bunch of 40k codexes which weren't garbage, correct ?

morgoth wrote:

Because Kirby was also responsible for v7 and a bunch of 40k codexes which weren't garbage, correct ?

Which codices were they? The first few which may have been balanced against each other but also ripped the character out like Orks and Dark Eldar? Or are we talking Scatbike Eldar, Hunter Contingent Tau, Gladius Marines etc. which massively increased the power level to make those other codices basically auto-lose against these ones?

 Mymearan wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It could also be that there are essentially no rules questions about kow, so very little to talk about online.

Rules questions have their own forums on both TGA and KoW, so no. Most discussions are about other things just like here on dakka or any other wargaming forum. Also AoS has WAY less ambiguous and/or contradictory rules than 40k, it's probably comparable to KoW on that front.

In AoS it's quite simple as there are essentially no rules and so less ambiguous or contrary rules.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Because Kirby was also responsible for v7 and a bunch of 40k codexes which weren't garbage, correct ?

Which codices were they? The first few which may have been balanced against each other but also ripped the character out like Orks and Dark Eldar? Or are we talking Scatbike Eldar, Hunter Contingent Tau, Gladius Marines etc. which massively increased the power level to make those other codices basically auto-lose against these ones?

I was thinking more along the lines of Space Wolf etc.

The Dark Eldar got royally shafted, the Orks improved slightly.
The Eldar basically stayed where they were, so did the Tau and Necrons.

I guess it's mostly the Marines that went up.

Anyway, apart from the failed codexes, the balance doesn't seem worse than it was at any prior stage, and internal balance seems to have somewhat improved.

To the OP- I don't know if they are getting better or not.

However, with the release of Blood Bowl GW has found a way to get my money for the first time since..... 6th edition 40k?

motski wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?

Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.

Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:

http://redditmetrics.com/r/ageofsigmar#compare=kingsofwar

As we can see, the AoS community is large and growing and the KoW community is small and stagnant.

Yes, because Reddit is such an accurate measure... (Not.)

As pointed out on the other thread - a large quantity of salt is being taken about Reddit....

Anecdotally - the local AoS scene is quite dead.

With the worms crawling in, the worms crawling out, the worms playing pinochle in its snout....

While the local KoW scene is doing reasonably well, it is not doing as well as 5th or 6th edition Warhammer - just better than Aos - and much of that is from folks using the rules to continue playing with the armies that they created under the older editions of WHFB.

That said, if you like AoS then go ahead and play it

Just don't expect everyone to want to play.

The Auld Grump

Mario wrote:
This could also be the result of KoW having official forums (http://vb.manticforum.com/) which AoS does not have. Maybe reddit was just the simplest way for people to create a AoS discussion while Mantic actually provides a forum for people to use?

There's plenty of forums for AoS and that didn't stop people going to reddit. Funny that you mention the Mantic forums because they're a ghost town just like the KoW subsection on dakka. If anything they just prove my point that the KoW community is tiny, and not going anywhere.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Yes, because Reddit is such an accurate measure... (Not.)

As pointed out on the other thread - a large quantity of salt is being taken about Reddit....

As I said, I think the link I posted is a better reflector of actual numbers and interest than the rumors, heresay and anecodotal reports found in threads like this.
I can understand your skepticism though, as what I posted doesn't bode well for the wargame you are obviously trying so hard to promote.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
That said, if you like AoS then go ahead and play it

Just don't expect everyone to want to play.

Maybe one of the thousands and thousands of AoS players on reddit would be up for a game sometime.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

motski wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?

Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.

Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:

http://redditmetrics.com/r/ageofsigmar#compare=kingsofwar

As we can see, the AoS community is large and growing and the KoW community is small and stagnant.

Yes, because Reddit is such an accurate measure... (Not.)

Quite clearly, the reddit data, as well as any other online indicators reflect reality a lot better than "someone's point of view".

There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.

Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.

Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.

Perhaps the fanbase is quietly getting on with the business of hobby and playing.....whereas GW does tend to attract the vocal, outspoken and spleen ridden of fanbase.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.

Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.

Perhaps the fanbase is quietly getting on with the business of hobby and playing.....whereas GW does tend to attract the vocal, outspoken and spleen ridden of fanbase.

Or just, you know, if a game just works, you just sit down and play. If a game is a clunky mess, people will

- ask for lists to crush and humiliate their potential friends
- ask to counter such lists
- whine online about the above
- discuss the above in disbelief
- discuss the above in light of the dubious design of some of the units in disbelief
- discuss all of the above, look at the price, and reiterate the disbelief

and so on.

Well, if they wanna continue with a game that's as bad as the above described, then that's up to them.

Outsiders can't be blamed for puzzling why they stick with it.

morgoth wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

motski wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Other than anecdotal comments where's the proof it's more popular?

Until we get the post ghb icv2 sales figures there's no basis to declare one more popular than the other.

Here's some data from reddit which in my opinion is a much better reflector of actual player numbers than the rumor and heresay thrown around in threads like this:

http://redditmetrics.com/r/ageofsigmar#compare=kingsofwar

As we can see, the AoS community is large and growing and the KoW community is small and stagnant.

Yes, because Reddit is such an accurate measure... (Not.)

Quite clearly, the reddit data, as well as any other online indicators reflect reality a lot better than "someone's point of view".

There are times data is so meaningless that it's actually worth less than someone's point of view. This is one of those cases

Reddit data is really no better than walking in to a few local stores and counting heads because it represents such a tiny portion of the community.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
There's barely any talk online about Xwing too and that game outsells 40k in the states.

Some games are just really fun to talk about (GW games certainly, as evidenced by multiple dedicated forums that go back 10, 15 years) and some games are just fun to play but there's nothing really to talk about, KoW is great but the world is generic and not really anything you would get excited about.

Perhaps the fanbase is quietly getting on with the business of hobby and playing.....whereas GW does tend to attract the vocal, outspoken and spleen ridden of fanbase.

Or just, you know, if a game just works, you just sit down and play. If a game is a clunky mess, people will

- ask for lists to crush and humiliate their potential friends
- ask to counter such lists
- whine online about the above
- discuss the above in disbelief
- discuss the above in light of the dubious design of some of the units in disbelief
- discuss all of the above, look at the price, and reiterate the disbelief

and so on.

You've said something I agree with!

Warhammer is good at being popular though, big flashy models do appear to be a very (if not the most) effective way to draw people in.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Well, if they wanna continue with a game that's as bad as the above described, then that's up to them.

Outsiders can't be blamed for puzzling why they stick with it.

Hope you have a ladder, wouldn't want you to hurt yourself climbing off that high horse!

One of the reasons I love the AoS community is that you don't see attitudes like this ("why do people like what I don't?"). People are positive and forward-looking and don't waste time insulting other games or gamers.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Well, if they wanna continue with a game that's as bad as the above described, then that's up to them.

Outsiders can't be blamed for puzzling why they stick with it.

Hope you have a ladder, wouldn't want you to hurt yourself climbing off that high horse!

One of the reasons I love the AoS community is that you don't see attitudes like this ("why do like what I don't?"). People are positive and forward-looking and don't waste time insulting other games or gamers.

I love AoS. Don't play 40K, not for many years.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Well, if they wanna continue with a game that's as bad as the above described, then that's up to them.

Outsiders can't be blamed for puzzling why they stick with it.

Hope you have a ladder, wouldn't want you to hurt yourself climbing off that high horse!

One of the reasons I love the AoS community is that you don't see attitudes like this ("why do like what I don't?"). People are positive and forward-looking and don't waste time insulting other games or gamers.

I love AoS. Don't play 40K, not for many years.

Well then, I guess you proved me wrong then since you would be a part of the AoS community! I agree that 40k is a mess but people like different things in games. Some people don't care much about rules but mainly models, painting, building, and fluff.

For me, the GW ship sailed a long time ago, and even if they did get better, why would I go back to GW when there is so much better and cheaper, stuff out there?

Example, where I live, it's impossible to get outdoor spraying done in winter because of the rain/cold/snow, so I'm looking to buy primer you can put on with a brush.

GW imperial primer is £3

Vallejo equivalent is cheaper, bigger, and comes in other bottle sizes that offer stonking value for money, plus a ton of different colours, and it's pretty darn good.

No brainer really.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For me, the GW ship sailed a long time ago, and even if they did get better, why would I go back to GW when there is so much better and cheaper, stuff out there?

Example, where I live, it's impossible to get outdoor spraying done in winter because of the rain/cold/snow, so I'm looking to buy primer you can put on with a brush.

GW imperial primer is £3

Vallejo equivalent is cheaper, bigger, and comes in other bottle sizes that offer stonking value for money, plus a ton of different colours, and it's pretty darn good.

No brainer really.

I think this kind of sums it up. I don't really see GW getting that much better. A lot of the things they did were simple damage control for several years of terrible decisions. Things like new box sets people are talking abut are just fething battleforces which used to exist, but were removed in favor of dumb ass web bundles. Yes it is nice they are back, but it is not a big enough change. Last I saw they were talking to their customers which is pretty nice so I will admit that.

Their rules are still pretty crappy and balance is still in the toilet. Everything is still overly expensive. I haven't heard that they are becoming more accomidating to LGS. They are releasing specialist games, but they fething changed the scale of epic and the style so it wouldn't be compatible with your old gak.

The biggest thing though is like DINLT just said, there are really a lot of other companies now that are doing what GW does only better. A significant GW advantage was that there would always be a GW game being played in a store. Now that isn't always the case because a lot of companies have come around to replace them. Lot of companies have games with better rules, prices, and community support. I might one day pull my 40k army out. Maybe even play a classic game of epic, BFG, or WFB. However, it is doubtful I will ever commit to buying an army for one of their games again.

nedTCM wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For me, the GW ship sailed a long time ago, and even if they did get better, why would I go back to GW when there is so much better and cheaper, stuff out there?

Example, where I live, it's impossible to get outdoor spraying done in winter because of the rain/cold/snow, so I'm looking to buy primer you can put on with a brush.

GW imperial primer is £3

Vallejo equivalent is cheaper, bigger, and comes in other bottle sizes that offer stonking value for money, plus a ton of different colours, and it's pretty darn good.

No brainer really.

I think this kind of sums it up. I don't really see GW getting that much better. A lot of the things they did were simple damage control for several years of terrible decisions. Things like new box sets people are talking abut are just fething battleforces which used to exist, but were removed in favor of dumb ass web bundles. Yes it is nice they are back, but it is not a big enough change. Last I saw they were talking to their customers which is pretty nice so I will admit that.

Their rules are still pretty crappy and balance is still in the toilet. Everything is still overly expensive. I haven't heard that they are becoming more accomidating to LGS. They are releasing specialist games, but they fething changed the scale of epic and the style so it wouldn't be compatible with your old gak.

The biggest thing though is like DINLT just said, there are really a lot of other companies now that are doing what GW does only better. A significant GW advantage was that there would always be a GW game being played in a store. Now that isn't always the case because a lot of companies have come around to replace them. Lot of companies have games with better rules, prices, and community support. I might one day pull my 40k army out. Maybe even play a classic game of epic, BFG, or WFB. However, it is doubtful I will ever commit to buying an army for one of their games again.

Exactly. Have an exalt.

The bottom line is this: it's not the 1990s anymore.

Small start up companies, with kickstarter, are doing so many good things. Dakka's very own Maelstrom's Edge is a good example of this. Great to play, cheap to buy, and very professionally done.

Even if I wanted to return to GW, there is so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back.

"so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "

Very true, this.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
"so much non-GW value out there, so much good stuff, it's difficult to go back. "

Very true, this.

Apologies for banging the Vallejo drum, but I bitterly regret not making the switch over to them years ago. I love the liquid gold set, and their individual paint pots beat GW hands down IMO

Compare this (all prices from Wayland Games in British pounds)

Vallejo: 17ml, a dropper bottle (which I prefer) = £1.96

Citadel 12ml, flip lid (which I don't like) = £2.05

Quality of paint is more or less equal IMO.

As much as I like Citadel paints, the quality and the value for money is elsewhere, and not just on paints.

Army Painter brushes are very good and cheaper than the Citadel equivalent and the soft tone ink is a must buy in my book.

It might be death by a thousand cuts for GW.

Has GW changed? I would say No they haven't changed. Why? New FAQs today. So it's same old GW with how they deal with FAQs.

So it's all smoke and mirrors in appearance, but the inside workings are still the same. GW can fix 40K right now if they wanted, but they are still doing the same old same old regarding 40K. How hard is it to say, "please bear with us, we are making a new edition and we promise we will fix 40K." but of course, since GW HASN'T changed because that "could affect sales" they will not say it.

So I guess we can say, no GW hasn't changed and it is "the more things change, the more they stay the same.

So we are back to square one now.

I like smoke and mirrors. If they make me happy. Also their new box sets are great.

Oh gosh... There must be more metaphors than just "Smoke and Mirrors"...



They started uploading the errata (which are significantly smaller than the FAQ)... so what? That makes them bad?

Absolutely

I wouldn't start a new 40k Space Marine army right now with the prices - but I can easily add on to my own collection when a new edition drops. AOS was incredibly cheap to get into on the other hand with the new boxed sets.

SKR.HH wrote:
Oh gosh... There must be more metaphors than just "Smoke and Mirrors"...



They started uploading the errata (which are significantly smaller than the FAQ)... so what? That makes them bad?

Nope not at all. They are doing great, except for their prices.
It was a long time ago that there where so many boxes that I wanted to buy but could not afford. It sort of brings back childhood memories ; )