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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Citation needed.

Like, a really really good one...

GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2016/12/01/trading-update-5/

Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?

For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.

Oh yeah, i gotcha there, I think it would be more accurate or plausible to say that AoS sales would be down, But again, thats unknown until we saw actual sales figures weather they are down, or just 40k sales were kicking ass.

Which we won't likely ever see, as GW doesn't report by product line.

The most we'll likely get is some vague reference to its performance in the Chairman or CEO report, that doesn't contain enough hard info to draw an meaningful conclusions.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Citation needed.

Like, a really really good one...

GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2016/12/01/trading-update-5/

Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?

For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.

Brexit increased sales when the pound dropped dramatically making it cheaper for other countries to buy there's zero evidence to date that AoS has blown up, in fact I popped into the stoke store today and although it was busy there were no games of AoS being played only 30k.

When an independent report on sales such as icv2 comes out and shows AoS is charting well then you can say it's improved, but currently the last chart had AoS no where in sight.

As for citations about AoS supressing 40k sales look no further than dakka where multiple people have attested to exactly that, myself included.

-

 Bottle wrote:
Lol, you live in Stoke Hobo? Well that's the last time I take your "AoS is dead in my area" to be anything more than hot air.

From what i have heard its pretty popular in UK, my area its really hit or miss.

hobojebus wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Citation needed.

Like, a really really good one...

GW Trading Update wrote:Games Workshop Group PLC announces that sales and profits in the six months to 27 November 2016 are significantly ahead of those in the first half of the prior year and ahead of the Board’s original expectations. Preliminary estimates indicate an operating profit of c.£13 million for the period.

https://investor.games-workshop.com/2016/12/01/trading-update-5/

Only thing i would say to play the devils advocate would be, is that from AoS sales or 40k Sales? Because iirc, BoP and Thousand sons dropped that month right?

For his point, that's irrelevant, his whole statement is predicated on the idea that sales are down.

Brexit increased sales when the pound dropped dramatically making it cheaper for other countries to buy

Over the first half we have seen strong sales and profit growth in constant currency terms. Sales and profits have further benefitted from the favourable impact of a weaker pound. Royalty income is also expected to be ahead of the prior year.

there's zero evidence to date that AoS has blown up, in fact I popped into the stoke store today and although it was busy there were no games of AoS being played only 30k.

Other than Bottle already calling you on the AOS scene in Stoke, this is purely anecdotal and has zero value as an assessment of global sales of anything.

When an independent report on sales such as icv2 comes out and shows AoS is charting well then you can say it's improved, but currently the last chart had AoS no where in sight.

You get that icv2 isn't some sort of sales bible? It's subject to a vast array of factors which can impact on its accuracy, and, most crucially to this discussion, doesn't include any sales made through GW via any channel?

As for citations about AoS supressing 40k sales look no further than dakka where multiple people have attested to exactly that, myself included.

Again, anecdotes are meaningless. Sales will be up, this is a fact no matter how hard you might wish it away, and for every person you're citing, I'm seeing probably a dozen more hard bitten GW critics that have broken down and bought one of the recent big releases.

jreilly89 wrote:

Davor wrote:
True Jreilly89 but then we have codex creep and we are back to square one. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to see this again.

I rather see an overhaul.

So you don't want old books invalidated, but you don't want codex creep? It's one or the other, man. Either they release a new rulebook, all new codices, and invalidate all the 7th books, or they only release the main rulebook at first and we have to deal with codex creep until they update each codex.

Yeah it's really a catch 22 here. In my opinion 40K needs a reboot much like they did from second edition to third edition. Thing is the codices can still be legal and all that has to be done is update ALL the units just like they did for Age of Sigar, so like a Major FAQ for point costs and add stats if they are going to a movement stat again. It can be done to do both. Just takes time and work. This being the new GW, did they do that? Time will tell. 6 months and counting.

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

Your in a small minority sales are down in part to fears caused by AoS, for many folks aosing 40k would kill the hobby for them.

Yes many folds will leave. Thing is, many folks will come back. Question is, will it bring in new people and fresh blood instead of relying on current people and people who left to come back. GW needs to bring in fresh blood or more blood (old and new I mean) instead of just relying on who is left.

Backspacehacker wrote:
But for the most part i like 40k being the more rule heavy of the two.

Thing is, being more rules heavy doesn't make it a better game. I am not saying you are wrong, just saying my opinion. I believe Age of Sigmar has more rules but they are all spread out in Warscrolls. I think where 40K fails now is we need to know how to move, but that is covered in different sections of the book that make it awkward in trying to figure out how any mini moves at any time for example.. So instead of multiple ways of doing something you just need to worry what your mini does not worrying about reading how everything works. I find that simpler and easier to learn and memorize instead of the tomb of the 40K you need to know in order to play.

I say 40K and AoS is in the same depth just done differently. Again my opinion. It may not be correct either but just how it applies to me.

Oh, AoS has definitely brought in alot of fresh blood. (Cough-praise Khorne-cough)

I see alot of "just started AoS" (easily over a dozen a week) threads on Reddit and half of those are new to the tabletop.

Simple start-up rules, fun game that grows in complexity at a reasonable pace, growing story and lore, good army deals, amazing looking models.

If that didn't work to attract new(and old) players I don't know what would.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Oh, AoS has definitely brought in alot of fresh blood. (Cough-praise Khorne-cough)

I see alot of "just started AoS" (easily over a dozen a week) threads on Reddit and half of those are new to the tabletop.

Simple start-up rules, fun game that grows in complexity at a reasonable pace, growing story and lore, good army deals, amazing looking models.

If that didn't work to attract new(and old) players I don't know what would.

There's a difference between simple and good rules, and they're not mutually exclusive. AoS's are the former, not the latter. While it attracted new people - how many will stick with Games Workshop? The only other full game to move to is a bloated mess.

True but right now GW has to walk that fine line. AoS right now has some ok rules, I would not say good rules yet but they are getting better and to the point of the op it shows games workshop is trying to make the game better.

Granted AoShad a really!! Bad start that left a really bad taste in a lot of players mouths and had put up a solid barrier between many people and AoS for good reasons.

Imo the bloating and cumbersome rules from 40k stems from many rules that either override each other or are just duplicates. For example relentless and slow and purposeful.

Now personally I love the level of complexity.

Another component that would be nice to see is the load out system of AoS. Just a base line cost for a model then equip as you want/need.

@-Loki-, Well I'm not sure why they even need to "move on" to another system if they like AoS. As I said, it has alot going for it that can continually interest players who keep playing and investing more into it.

With how the game continues to grow with rule updates, board games and story progression it can very much keep people from jumping to another game.

Of course it's inevitable not all will stick with it as their interests wander to other systems but the fact is they're in the hobby now and even if they're not playing GW's games they'll still take a look at what great models they might use for other games.

So win-win really.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Besides, AOS is an outlier. 40k is selling well, unlike WHFB was when they AOSed it.

When they made the decision it was top-3 selling game in the world(non-GW games included). Not that bad selling. Problem is it didn't sell as much as marines. GW thought everything can sell as well so unless FB sells as well as marines without losses on 40k sales(ie not FB sales eating 40k sales) something is wrong and must be changed.

Selling good is not enough. Especially for old GW for whom exceeding own sales expectations by _400%_ is not enough to keep game alive. I mean one would have to assume if they give greenlight to product they at least expects it to sell enough? So exceeding those by 400% would by any definition HAVE to mean pretty damn good sales? Yet not enough to keep game alive...

Now albeit I'm just simple guy with little inside knowledge of business so guess it's possible GW gives greenlight for game they expect to tank in sales so badly that even 400% exceeding means bad sales but...Dunno. For my logic that sounds awful business strategy. Not greenlight the game in the first place if your sale expectations are THAT bad.

 Bottle wrote:
As a massive fan of AoS I am in favour of 40K getting as much a similar treatment ruleswise as possible.

He Bottle, we know your opinion.
A simplification of 40k is a great need. Here maelstrom games take about 5 hours these days. Thats not really funny.
We played a AoS league and I must admit that the AoS general rules are sufficient to explain the game dynamics. The depth come into being with the warscrolls.

Brexit (yes it's helped local producers, like me too


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brexit (yes it's helped local producers, like me too

Brexit (yes it's helped local producers, like me too

Local producers maybe, but for global ones like GW there could be some hidrances (with no free access to the European market) next time.

 Bottle wrote:
Lol, you live in Stoke Hobo? Well that's the last time I take your "AoS is dead in my area" to be anything more than hot air.

Nope I was visiting a friend and he needed some memphiston red so we popped in, it was packed but like I said no AoS being played.

Sorry no gotcha moment for you.

-

 wuestenfux wrote:

Brexit (yes it's helped local producers, like me too

Local producers maybe, but for global ones like GW there could be some hidrances (with no free access to the European market) next time.

I would really doubt that. GWs main market is to English speaking nations which all sit outside the EU. Both the US and Australia will be markets GW will be really excited about as currently they are massively hampered by trade tariffs. GW should do really well from brexit if the opportunities are properly exploited.

 Bottle wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Lol, you live in Stoke Hobo? Well that's the last time I take your "AoS is dead in my area" to be anything more than hot air.

Nope I was visiting a friend and he needed some memphiston red so we popped in, it was packed but like I said no AoS being played.

Sorry no gotcha moment for you.

I don't know about GW Stoke, is that the only place you game? Within 45mins drive you have the biggest AoS club in the world (Derbywargames society) and you've had 2 major tournaments since GHB (Alliance and Blood & Glory) increase that radius to an hour and 2 even bigger events fall into place Warlords in Nottingham and Facehammer GT in Stockport. You're basically right slap bang in the middle of the biggest AoS scene in the UK - I would love to have that many massive events near where I live. (Fortunately I live near Bristol and Cardiff so still get my fair share).

I haven't played at stoke since 2004 when the manager Tim ended vets night and destroyed our group as we had zero warning and didn't have everyone's contact details.

Only went in because the friend I was visiting wanted to.

I would really doubt that. GWs main market is to English speaking nations which all sit outside the EU. Both the US and Australia will be markets GW will be really excited about as currently they are massively hampered by trade tariffs. GW should do really well from brexit if the opportunities are properly exploited.

**************** erased by Wf ****************

wuestenfux wrote:We played a AoS league and I must admit that the AoS general rules are sufficient to explain the game dynamics. The depth come into being with the warscrolls.

Exactly. This doesn't make a bad rules as someone just try to say a few posts ago. Was going to quote him but this explains it so much better. This would be perfect for the other thread of "complexity in games".

So yes, GW has gotten better in that part but still toeing the line of not "fixing" right away what is broken or not working. So on one hand GW is better in that regards but still same old GW in taking their time to fix a product that is not working properly. A lot of times when something is still "broken" or "not working" and it's not being addressed or even acknowledged it seems GW hasn't changed at all.

 auticus wrote:
GW won't get any credit until the following things occur:

* the price for a standard sized army (standard being whatever the community's default tournament size is) is roughly $250 or so.

* GW actively starts fixing their very bad balanced points.

* GW's new edition of 40k is more conducive of a static tournament game and less a narrative random dice roll game.

* GW continues to actively support tournaments (this has begun again)

Those are the things that I read pretty much on a regular basis.

Out of curiosity what is this "perfect: game you obviously play now?! I don't know of any game (that's not of a skirmish size) that you can comfortably play tournament size armies for 250. There might be something out there but that's certainly not the norm and its pointless to dream that it is.

Davor wrote:

wuestenfux wrote:We played a AoS league and I must admit that the AoS general rules are sufficient to explain the game dynamics. The depth come into being with the warscrolls.

Exactly. This doesn't make a bad rules as someone just try to say a few posts ago. Was going to quote him but this explains it so much better. This would be perfect for the other thread of "complexity in games".

So yes, GW has gotten better in that part but still toeing the line of not "fixing" right away what is broken or not working. So on one hand GW is better in that regards but still same old GW in taking their time to fix a product that is not working properly. A lot of times when something is still "broken" or "not working" and it's not being addressed or even acknowledged it seems GW hasn't changed at all.

I think that can be attributed to the fact that GW is to prideful to admit they screwed up *cough* WfB lore nuke *cough*

So instead of trying to fix a problem say, riptides, they just try to shift your attention to something else, by don't look at those OP units forget them check out this cool unit that is designed to take that unit out.

The releases this year like Magnus, Wulfen and Genestealer Cult show that GW is making more and more powerful models, units and armies. I guess the same will happen to SoB.
The point is that those new releases should be bought and this will only be the case if the customer sees some value in it (in terms of modeling, painting, game play and competition).

 Icelord wrote:

 auticus wrote:
GW won't get any credit until the following things occur:

* the price for a standard sized army (standard being whatever the community's default tournament size is) is roughly $250 or so.

* GW actively starts fixing their very bad balanced points.

* GW's new edition of 40k is more conducive of a static tournament game and less a narrative random dice roll game.

* GW continues to actively support tournaments (this has begun again)

Those are the things that I read pretty much on a regular basis.

Out of curiosity what is this "perfect: game you obviously play now?! I don't know of any game (that's not of a skirmish size) that you can comfortably play tournament size armies for 250. There might be something out there but that's certainly not the norm and its pointless to dream that it is.

Kings of War.

Flames of War.

Dropzone Commander.

Pretty much any 15mm historical war game.

Many 25mm historical wargames. (Including, but not limited to, Kings of War Historical - using figures from Perry Brothers and others.)

Just out of curiosity - have you played any non GW wargames? Because getting under $250 for tournament play is not all that uncommon.

The Auld Grump

Oh ok you meant games with relatively hideous models.

Flames is actually in trouble. The repointing system is basically killing it.

Historicals are hardly worth discussing as a.VAST majority oftheir players aren't playing the games for tournament play.

We can talk only 28mm or larger. Of course smaller games are cheaper.

 Icelord wrote:
Oh ok you meant games with relatively hideous models.

Hideous models all right, from Perry's and others


Not at all like these jewel like objects of wonder



I take it the answer to Auld Grump's question is no then. No games played outside the GW bubble. Historicals are often sold in 28mm scale. It's GW, War machine etc that has gone far beyond that scale with their rampant scale creep. Having models be slightly larger is in no-way a reason to have higher prices BTW. The increased material cost is negligible and miniscule compared to the costs of sculpting, manufacturing, shipping, storage etc. So you're obviously just looking for excuses here.

Hahah I didn't say all of Gw's are perfect but they are arguably one of the best on the market. You used mantic as an example and the quality of them is pretty bad. (Getting better)


They don't do nearly the scale gw does either. Hard to compare any company to the giant of GW. It's like Walmart to your local store.

Also there is no serious tournament scene for any perry game that I know. Yes you could play them as an event but you and I know it's not the same. Warmahordes is easily over 250 and they are a tournament game. Last I checked flames largest event got about 70 people this year. GTs get hundreds.

Only people thoroughly insulated in the GW bubble believe a game must be played only with a series of official models from the same company publishing the rules.

Scale of models mean little to nothing for the cost of the end product.

 Icelord wrote:
Hahah I didn't say all of Gw's are perfect but they are arguably one of the best on the market. You used mantic as an example and the quality of them is pretty bad. (Getting better)


They don't do nearly the scale gw does either. Hard to compare any company to the giant of GW. It's like Walmart to your local store.

Also there is no serious tournament scene for any perry game that I know. Yes you could play them as an event but you and I know it's not the same. Warmahordes is easily over 250 and they are a tournament game. Last I checked flames largest event got about 70 people this year. GTs get hundreds.

You have done a better job of proving my point than your own.

You have grabbed the goal post, carried it into the parking lot, loaded it into a trailer, and headed for the high chaparral.

The question that you asked was - Are there any games where $250 is enough for tournament play?

The answer was - Yes, there are many games where $250 is a reasonable price.

My question was whether you had played any non-GW games, and your reply pretty much gave up that point. You are looking at only GW games, using GW figures, and probably rolling GW dice.

I actually like Mantic's style better than the one that GW currently uses. (While preferring older GW styles over Mantic's, in many cases. GW's current style is too cluttered and wildly over the top for my tastes. But I have a boatload of their older plastics and metals.) I consider many of the current GW figures to be 'hideous'.

So, if we throw out hideous miniatures, then GW is gone too. Because that is a matter of opinion, and there are folks that dislike very different things.

Then you shifted to 'GW has more players!!!1!' - which is true, that is kind of what being the leader in the market means.

And why GW started to work on improving tournament play for AoS - the game was being dropped from tournaments and conventions in the US. Which meant that the games that were getting exposure at tourneys in the US were not the games from GW. Last year it was easier to find Kings of War tournaments at conventions than AoS tournaments - the largest organizer of fantasy gaming tournaments in the US had switched to KoW, and abandoned GW.

Historical games, even at tournaments, generally do not much care where the miniatures come from. If you pop open the rulebook for Kings of War Historical, as an example that I have to hand, you will find miniatures by at least eight different companies - not just figures by Mantic, but from Gripping Beast, Warlord, the Perry Brothers, and others.

Mantic has carried that same PoV into fantasy wargaming tournaments - they went so far as to create armies to allow folks that had WHFB armies to port their armies over to KoW, in spite of not producing similar miniatures themselves.

Many companies play nicely with others, unlike GW which has never met a competitor that they did not wish that they could sue. (Honest! We own Roman numerals!!1! Oh, and grenade launchers!)

The Auld Grump