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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:You play your way, I'll play mine. Mine won me plenty enough games.

Not saying you can't, and I've won my fair share of games in the 6th-7th era myself. I still stand that since 6th dropped, monsters aren't game ending, magic doesn't turn the entire game, and shooting can't do the damage that everyone touts it as doing. I'm still playing 6th on almost a monthly basis, and maneuvering is the lifeblood of the game.

Joyboozer wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

That is completely false, maneuver had EVERYTHING to do with it. You could still have a game without monsters, shooting, OR devastating magic and it would still play. Take out maneuvering and you essentially have Yahtzee while you show your models off.

Someone got a misfire on their fringe roll?

...

I don't get it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

Here is the exact moment in which I doubt that you ever played WHFB.

No, I just played a different army from you. Tell you what, we'll play under 6E rules, and I'll break out my Heavens Wizards, Empire Cannons, Crossbows, and DoW support and we'll see how much maneuver I need to beat you on a typical board with 6E levels of terrain... It won't be very much, I can tell you that. Note that 6E has no prohibitions against sniping, and I am *excellent* at "guessing" range.

I wish I was closer to SoCal, I'd take that Pepsi Challenge in a heartbeat. Cannons kill at most 5 models a turn unless you're ranking them further, spells don't automatically go off and can be dispelled, crossbows still suffer minuses to hit until you get within half range, and I've yet to find anything in the DOW army that frightens me other than pikes, and even those don't if you leave the cav at home. My Elves would be weathering the fire for two to three turns, and I'd be in. I can suffer that much damage, especially since your crossbows won't have jack for CR.

Bottle wrote:Have you guys played AoS with the GHB or just with the 4 pages of core rules? The GHB improved the game so so much. I recommend you give it another shot before dismissing it. The 4 pages serve as an introduction only in my opinion for younger wargamers.

So basically play it til you like it? Is it only GW that generates company loyalty to this level?

 Just Tony wrote:

Bottle wrote:Have you guys played AoS with the GHB or just with the 4 pages of core rules? The GHB improved the game so so much. I recommend you give it another shot before dismissing it. The 4 pages serve as an introduction only in my opinion for younger wargamers.

So basically play it til you like it? Is it only GW that generates company loyalty to this level?

Err, no. It's acknowledging that there are beginner rules and advanced rules for AoS. The GHB adds the advanced rules for competitive and tactical play. Before the GHB I played with fan comps that did the same thing (such as SCGT).

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

Here is the exact moment in which I doubt that you ever played WHFB.

My take as well.

'See this game that is nothing like the game you like? Well, Imma gonna say that it is just like that game you like!'

If the cat has kittens in the oven, it don't make them biscuits.

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can get behind a game that costs £0. I can get behind a game that costs £15. I can't get behind a game that costs £(15+x/0).

I have got no idea what point you are trying to make. Sorry. Care to enlighten me?

Most of my WHFB experience happened during 6th. 90% of a 6th game gets decided between initial deployment and the subsequent movement phases.

And this is quite well known for anyone who has ever played 6th on a relatively regular basis.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The movement phase of WHF made or lost the game for people. To say that movement had nothing to do with it is one of the largest falsehoods I've ever seen.

WHF has more tactical depth in it's Index section than AOS has in its entirety.

Really? moving a bunch of round bases in any direction with almost no coherency is now considered tactical? Flank charges? Are you joking?

Yep, some of the AOS aficionado are really stretching the elastic when they try to claim that it's a more tactical game tha WHFB. It simply ain't. Doesn't mean it's a bad game (I think it's a terrible game, but that's beside the point), but it doesn't even approach WHFB level of tactial depth.

For example, a few of the weapon options don't do any difference in AOS (3+/4+ is the same thing as 4+/3+ ....yeah, I know some character can give a boost to one or the other, but it still doesnt make much of a difference tactic wise), while the weapons options had a huge impact on the role and utility of a unit in WHFB.

If you try to sell me AOS as a cool beer and pretzel game, that's alright, but don't try to sell me a horse while claiming it is a car.

 Bottle wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can get behind a game that costs £0. I can get behind a game that costs £15. I can't get behind a game that costs £(15+x/0).

I have got no idea what point you are trying to make. Sorry. Care to enlighten me?

Loosely translated from the High Gibberish - 'I cannot get behind a free game that needs a fifteen quid supplement to fix the problems inherent in the free game'.

The Auld Grump

Given that ghb was the supposed fix for their free game it to should of been free.

After all they are a model company first right.

But no as usual GW can't even fix a game without trying to screw over their customers.

TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can get behind a game that costs £0. I can get behind a game that costs £15. I can't get behind a game that costs £(15+x/0).

I have got no idea what point you are trying to make. Sorry. Care to enlighten me?

Loosely translated from the High Gibberish - 'I cannot get behind a free game that needs a fifteen quid supplement to fix the problems inherent in the free game'.

The Auld Grump

Thanks :-p

I wouldn't say the core game has any problems other than it doesn't cater for a competitive game imo, but the GHB does cater.

hobojebus wrote:Given that ghb was the supposed fix for their free game it to should of been free.

After all they are a model company first right.

But no as usual GW can't even fix a game without trying to screw over their customers.

You're trying too hard.

I would personally ignore that the web rules ever existed, and consider the Generals Handbook the "real" game, which is actually a pretty good deal as full-on wargames go.

If it wasn't for the hideous price of good sized armies, AoS would really not be bad in my situation. I have little to no gaming scene in my area (which really sucks) and only get to have a full, serious wargame experience of a couple hours a few times a year, when both my schedule and my buddy's match up, and we both have two kids to deal with- usually during game time, too.

I have multiple rulesets as involved as WHFB or 40k, and it's hard to get back in the swing of things that infrequently, and far, far too much time is wasted looking things up. I have grown tired of tomes of rules, so I have really grown to love rules-light wargames that achieve the same results in 30 pages or less, cover to cover.

This is why I think the comment that AoS is outselling 40k is false; there is to many gamers on forums here saying the game is dead or Almost in their area..
The sad truth is AoS took a bad step when they released it and with the strong competition of other game companies they have had to fight to get it back..

Something I thought I would never say .. but I agree with TheAuldGrump and Kilkrazy on their views of Age of Sigmar..
No one is saying it's impossible to play.. again there is to many strong competitors in the table top gaming field for do things half way
then try to patch it like a video game... Games Workshop is just now starting to return but it is just not just fixing AoS .. it is fixing the White Dwarf,
returning to social media, communicating with their customers.. Something they should have done before putting the Ax to Warhammer Fantasy.

i just can't believe AoS would be outselling 40k in any general sense or over any extended period of time. Even if it did GREAT for the past quarter or two, that would mean either AoS is outselling WFB by what... 500%? Assuming WFB made up about 15% of their revenue in the middle of 8th which is roughly the general consensus. Doubtful.

The other possibility is that 40k tanked so hard recently that AoS is roughly on par with it. Even assuming AoS is doing 2 or 3 times the sales of WFB that would be terrible. Were that the case we'd be hearing investor warnings and such I'm sure. Again, doubtful.

The truth is most likely that it's doing better than its detractors believe and worse than its fans believe it is/should be.

As someone who has been very negative towards the game for a good while personally, I will admit it has caught on more than I thought was possible. It's in bad shape around me, but clearly people are buying it Somewhere in enough quantity to justify development of future releases and to more or less replace WFB in its fading years.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not very interested by the core rules and I am doubly not very interested by the idea of buying an expensive supplement that might or might not turn them into a set of rules I would be interested in playing.

$25 USD is expensive? For 170 pages of rules? Full color print? Hardback?
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Age-of-Sigmar-Generals-Handbook-ENG

As I see it, GHB is the "real" rulebook for AoS, and the 4-pages are the quickstart summary.

£15/0 is expensive, is the point I wanted to make. I'm not interested in buying any supplements for a "free" game.

The core AoS rules are fine for what they are, apart from the lack of a point mechanism, which could easily have been included on the unit cards.

All that said, I'm not interested in AoS as a game either way.

However this is all off topic.The point about sales won't be clarified until the kind-hearted report. Even then, given GW's talent for obfuscation, we will on!y be able to see if headline figure are changing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
AoS falls down as a b&p game bexause the rules aren't actually that simple. Sure the core rules are 4 pages, but then you've got all the extra stuff like generals handbook and special rules. Then there's the cost of the minis.

Compare it to X-Wing or Tanks! You can get a good grqsp of the fules in a single read or played turn, they codt less than the pizza and have a surprisingly level if depth.

I've always interpreted "beer and pretzels" to mean "I don't actually care about the game I just want to line up my models and go pew pew pew".

That people tout 40k as a beer and pretzels game has made the term tantamount to a joke.

I always took beer & pretzels to mean a game you can pull out of the cupboard after a few beers, or something to do with your hands whilst socialising, which is how I play them. In both cases simple clear rules help. I never understood how it was twisted to mean the rules don't matter.

I'm all for putting the dollies down for some pew pew. But not with beer & pretzels to mess them up.

I guess the people that made 40k tend (still do) play huge narrative games with a GM and their own rules, and you can tell thas how Hail Caesar is written.

Beer and pretzels used to mean that it was a game you could have fun playing without a lot of brainpower spent on the rules. If a game needs a public eratta put out that is more than a fixing of spelling or physical layout errors in the rulebook, then there's no way in hell it's a "beer and pretzels" game.

The problem is that in typical nerd fashion, too many gamers take the high road and denounce rules-light games as "stupid".

I love crunch in my games just fine, but I've also had tons of fun playing games that had a 20page rulebook, or even less.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Beer and pretzels used to mean that it was a game you could have fun playing without a lot of brainpower spent on the rules. If a game needs a public eratta put out that is more than a fixing of spelling or physical layout errors in the rulebook, then there's no way in hell it's a "beer and pretzels" game.

As long as people keep calling 40k beer and pretzels then beer and pretzels will continue to mean "I don't care if the rules suck"

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Beer and pretzels used to mean that it was a game you could have fun playing without a lot of brainpower spent on the rules. If a game needs a public eratta put out that is more than a fixing of spelling or physical layout errors in the rulebook, then there's no way in hell it's a "beer and pretzels" game.

The problem is that in typical nerd fashion, too many gamers take the high road and denounce rules-light games as "stupid".

I love crunch in my games just fine, but I've also had tons of fun playing games that had a 20page rulebook, or even less.

As far as I can see, most of the 'nerds' are not calling AoS stupid because of the light rules.

They are calling AoS stupid because it had no points mechanism when it was released, and the background material pisses all over the setting that AoS replaced. Then added insult with rules covering pretending to ride a horse, swilling a drink, or twirling a mustache.

I play Kings of War - rules light compared to WHFB, slightly rules heavier than AoS - but I get more of a Warhammer vibe from KoW than I do from AoS, in spite of having a completely different system.

That AoS is doing better than eighth edition is not a huge surprise - I blame eighth edition for the death of WHFB - AoS is not the game that killed Warhammer, it is just the maggot that is feasting on the corpse of the older game.

I very much doubt that you would see nearly as much rancor over AoS had it been marketed as an adjunct to WHFB - people would be calling it a cute little caterpillar, not a maggot. (Okay - I will admit, I don't like the game on its own merits, as well as for the fact that it replaced WHFB - caterpillar is about as kind as I can be. Whether I am talking about a Woolly Bear, a Cutworm, or a Gypsy Moth caterpillar... I will let the audience decide.)

The Auld Grump

I think the outselling is just a miss understanding.. Maybe Age of Sigmar has more increased sales than 40k.. I could see that from dropping very low in
sales when it was originally released and a soft reboot with the Generals Handbook, you see more players starting to show up in shops compared to a year
ago. with all games no matter what they are.. if no one is playing them.. its hard to generate interest.
Not sure if it was planned, but they destroyed most of the interest of old gamers that played Warhammer Fantasy by the way it was handled. Now it is returning
because they have always had great looking models; but its mostly newer players that are starting to bring it back.
If the sales dropped by 300% after the release of AoS and now they increased sales by 55% and 40k is still at its high level and only increasing a small percentage
based off total sales. So yes.. AoS has more increased sales based on previous sales than 40k but I still feel the divide of total sales is even larger on the 40k side
by a large margin. It wouldn't surprise me maybe even have a smaller percentage than before the end of warhammer

Also do you think Games Workshop cleaned house after such drop in sales?? Maybe this is what happen to Alan Merett.. I can only base on what I saw locally and the what
people I know saw in other areas, but the game did take a nose dive and even scared some of the 40k players of fear of doing the same to their game.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Beer and pretzels used to mean that it was a game you could have fun playing without a lot of brainpower spent on the rules. If a game needs a public eratta put out that is more than a fixing of spelling or physical layout errors in the rulebook, then there's no way in hell it's a "beer and pretzels" game.

The problem is that in typical nerd fashion, too many gamers take the high road and denounce rules-light games as "stupid".

I love crunch in my games just fine, but I've also had tons of fun playing games that had a 20page rulebook, or even less.

As far as I can see, most of the 'nerds' are not calling AoS stupid because of the light rules.

They are calling AoS stupid because it had no points mechanism when it was released, and the background material pisses all over the setting that AoS replaced. Then added insult with rules covering pretending to ride a horse, swilling a drink, or twirling a mustache.

I play Kings of War - rules light compared to WHFB, slightly rules heavier than AoS - but I get more of a Warhammer vibe from KoW than I do from AoS, in spite of having a completely different system.

That AoS is doing better than eighth edition is not a huge surprise - I blame eighth edition for the death of WHFB - AoS is not the game that killed Warhammer, it is just the maggot that is feasting on the corpse of the older game.

I very much doubt that you would see nearly as much rancor over AoS had it been marketed as an adjunct to WHFB - people would be calling it a cute little caterpillar, not a maggot. (Okay - I will admit, I don't like the game on its own merits, as well as for the fact that it replaced WHFB - caterpillar is about as kind as I can be. Whether I am talking about a Woolly Bear, a Cutworm, or a Gypsy Moth caterpillar... I will let the audience decide.)

The Auld Grump

I agree with nearly all you just said, (other than I meant my nerd comment to mean that every one of us is a nerd- the gamer version of jocks, for good or ill). I personally have all my animosity towards the AoS rules because of how the changeover was implemented (and the strange acted out special rules that are funny among close friends, but dumb everywhere else), but I've heard many, many occurrances, especially during the change time, that people called the rules and their internal mechanics stupid, for stupid people, just to insult anyone who was giving AoS an honest try

Now, with some of the new skirmish rules implemented by fans, and a personally invented setting to use them with to reconcile things in my own head so I don't feel like I am playing in some strange, crazy Magic: The Gathering planeswalker card block, I am starting (emphasis on starting) to feel warmer towards the AoS rules. Unfortunately almost none of this is due to GW effort. Most of what I am doing could just use the AoS and WHFB models I like with several other skirmish rulesets. I mean, really, AoS could just as easily, with some of the lingering WHFB material dropped, just be "Magic: the Gathering Wars", especially to an outside observer with no Warhammer history.

Back on topic, I do honestly think any apparent increase in sales of aos over 40k is in good part due to the typical GW "new blood turnover" theory, where they depend on totally new players discovering the hobby every year or so having to buy into the games from scratch, rather than return clients expanding armies, because it's been just over that since the WHFB players finally gave up and left for 9th Age or Kings of War.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Beer and pretzels used to mean that it was a game you could have fun playing without a lot of brainpower spent on the rules.

Tactically, 40k is still a beer & pretzels game.

The problem is that 40k has increased the resolution effort several-fold from what one would deem reasonable for a B&P game.

Blood bowl is a beer and pretzels game, including set up time I'd be hammered by turn two trying to beer and pretzels 40k.
Hammered? I was expecting gakfaced!

Someone needs to change the title of this thread.... This is pure FB bs...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tactically, 40k is still a beer & pretzels game.

Yeah, run forward shooting isn't a big mental stretch. But the half hour set up time and all the cross referencing kill it as a B&P game. Unless, of course, you have someone GM it or ignore most of the rules. I'm not sure we ever actually played full-40k after 2nd Ed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Beer and pretzels used to mean that it was a game you could have fun playing without a lot of brainpower spent on the rules.

Tactically, 40k is still a beer & pretzels game.

The problem is that 40k has increased the resolution effort several-fold from what one would deem reasonable for a B&P game.

40k has never, ever been a beer & pretzels game.

Rogue Trader was a fairly complex hybrid of RPG and skirmish wargame, intended to be played with a GM, with a fairly thick rulebook. 2nd edition became a proper wargame of sorts if you want to call it that way, but still complex, with a lot of charts and special rules. Then came the simplification that was 3rd, but from then on each new codex, supplement and rulebook has been adding more and more special rules and unit types to the mix.

"Beer & pretzels" is just the excuse some GW lobotomites came up with to justify them playing a game with terrible rules. "Well I still have fun out of this game, regardless of its quality" would have been enough, but we humans just need to always staunchily defend and justify anything we like, and we end up believing it ourselves in the end.

Herzlos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Tactically, 40k is still a beer & pretzels game.

Yeah, run forward shooting isn't a big mental stretch. But the half hour set up time and all the cross referencing kill it as a B&P game. Unless, of course, you have someone GM it or ignore most of the rules. I'm not sure we ever actually played full-40k after 2nd Ed.

I understand that 40k is not necessarily the deepest of tabletop strategy games, but honestly, even Necrons aren't guaranteed victory with "run forward shooting", and they're pretty much one of the few armies who can win with those tactics.

As if Line of Sight, cover, distances, multi turn planning and movement were just irrelevant in 40k ... people who played like you say would think the best armies in the game are all assault based.




I have no problem being told that 40k "sucks" on those aspects, but I'd rather hear it from a good 40k player than some guy who doesn't really like the game or play it competitively.

 Capamaru wrote:
Someone needs to change the title of this thread.... This is pure FB bs...

Fantasy Battle? Its about 40K

perhaps this should mean FanBoy bs ? its just a guess

Or Facebook.

seems like a few posters didn't turned their sarcasm detector on.