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.
Lord Kragan wrote: Hastings also happens to hate the living guts of AoS. I'm not going to take the account of someone who's been confirmed to be viased at face value either.
Curiously enough, though, we had this "source" from another rumormonger on august:
AoS makes 35% or GWs Sales.
Comparing to Fantasy ?
Before it was squatted WFB was ~5% (and therefore lower than paints & tools)
This, by the way, are two different individuals and at different blogs and dates.
lol. so Hasting was a good source when you tought he was saying AOs sales were good, but since it was shown to you that he in fact claimed the oppositite, he's no longer a good source Nice logic
And no, a few random unkwon posters claiming something won't convince me, and shouldn't convince anyone who have a minimum of rationality.
No, I'm saying that if someone that doesn't like someone admits it's doing well, even when he hates the living guts of it, it is a positive sign of it. Also, Hasting's comment was around april, which I will agree with in THAT context that yes, it wasn't doing well (I mean, it was fyreslayers and Stormcast Extremis, I'll be damned if those releases spurred too many people). But if we are speaking of after the mid-year then no, that shouldn't be accounted at face value
So basically you want to make the argument of the genie then?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 18:55:23
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.
And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.
Well considering you just said why I should believe a random unknown poster on the internet why should I believe that you are a doctor in a business administration? Anyway believe what you want.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 18:56:35
WHFB had long ago left the top 5 too. This are just the year prior to the "squatting" and the last one is in full swing of End Times, when "in theory" the game should be at its strongest.
yeah but WHFB was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%. so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it's almost a 100% sure it would be on this chart.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/24 19:03:39
lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.
And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.
Well considering you just said why I should believe a random unknown poster on the internet why should I believe that you are a doctor in a business administration? Anyway believe what you want.
I can give you my name if you want to. And even a pic of me. lol. And of course I'll believe what I want. I sure as hell won't believe a few made up nonsensical comments just for the sake of it.
lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but he was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%, so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it sure as hell would be on this chart
No, according to the LAST YEARS, it wasn't more than 10-15%. Then AoS would take more of the sales as it got a huge boost in support (I mean, half a year of non-stop releases almost, of course it affected negatively the golden goose-considering that the peaks of consume happen during the release and nearby weeks).
Assuming 30 percent and 40k 60 percent, we are speaking of twice as much, and I doubt any of those games above sold half as much either. GW lost the total dominance of the market long ago.
Nevertheless, let's quit this senseless dickwaving. This thread has been derailed well enough by people wanting to be smartasses on both sides.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 19:03:47
This is a false argument. According to GW financials, WFB made up about 5% of overall GW sales before AoS was released. After the mid year financial report of 2016, AoS made up 35% of GW's total sales. 40K is such a cash cow with such a strong IP, that no mater what rules system it uses, it will sell. Having a stronger, more streamlined rules system more easily accessible to players will make 40K sales increase.
Where did you took thse figures? GW never release system specific sales, so pretty sure you're either mistaken or making them up. Not to mention that these numbers don't make any senses. If AOS numbers were that good, GW profit would have improved a lot more than it had (unless 40k sales flunked badly, which would be surprising considering the release of popular new factions, and HH).
But again, these numbers are obvously false.
Ehm... considering those were numbers given by hastings7 (which is a very reliable rumormonger) those numbers WERE real. Now, what most people have failed to notice is that said sales figures were taken in june, when AoS had received multiple releases and 40k had spent months without anything of substance. Then yes, sales tanked and that contributed to improve the ratio. Neither of you are entirely right. AoS did improve (noticeable said the report) but certainly aren't on par (yet) with 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. CyberPunk wrote: To be honest, I think there's barely anything 40K could learn from AoS (except maybe how not to ruined a fun yet flawed game). Never got the ''we need simpler rules'' crowd as 40K is a hobby that requires a lot of time and $$$. Learning about 100 pages of rules is only a minor issue in the grand scheme of things (not to say that 40K couldn't improve on making them more balanced and coherent, but that's for another discussion). 40K is a mess right now, but I still like it a lot more than AoS.
The only exception could be MC effectiveness decreasing as they suffer wounds (and even then I feel it could be implemented in a better manner than it was in AoS).
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, the guy said it was in the financial, not said by Hasting.
Secondly, link please. I've never seen him said such a thing. I've seen post of him saying that AOS sales were bad and even worse than WHFB in April though, so I would be very surprised to see such a turnover in two months. If you don't manage to find the quote, I guess you'll finally admit AOS sales are poor, since you just said hasting is a credible source.
Edit. Just read the thread, and more disinformation from the AOS crowd. Hasting is not the one who made the 30% claim. Only thing he said (in July) was that AOS sales were picking up lately, but that don't mean much since they were pretty much inexistent beforehand (pretty much his words, not mine)
This post was made 9 months ago and the highest whfb has been if I recall was 15%, plus the other rumors in the post also turned out correct and if you try to discount something atia has posted on her blog? Well.....
People who work in finance who analysed the newest report on bolter and chains word said AOS was a major cause of the current growth because it's standing on its on two feet and hence why growth is not negative. Like how it was with whfb, instead of 40k covering the cost as always. Even with the shaky launch said anaylizer noted it was doing better than fantasy anyway due to the CEO's comments in a previous report. Also in the recent finance report if you actually read it GW have said all their systems are selling well. If you want I can copy and paste said analysis from the forum.
This is what he said before the analysis.
I met with a 40k friend who has even more management experience as a financial controller than I do. We both had experiences in finance and sales & marketing, but also share a love for The Hobby, like you! This is a shortened version of our lengthy discussion/fist fight, shared in normal Low Gothic.
He also noted this year would be another test and considering the tzeentch release I feel AOS will stand on it's feet.
Anyway this topic is not about how well AOS is doing.
If you believe anything that a randmon unknown poster say on the internet, contact me, I can sell you the Brooklyn bridge for not much Not to metnion that that post was made just a few days before the pictures of ALarielle and the info on the GRB started circulating. Hardly a proof of someone having contacts good enough to know informations about AOS sales. ANyway, Hasting (which is a much more credible rumourmongers) said AOS sales were bad, and in the ICV2 sales chart that was released in august, AOS failed to crack the top 5 (and WHFB was commonly on that list) . So the 35% figures is obviouslyy bogus.
And I'll trust my own anylsis, I happen to be a doctor in business administration. There's nothing to suggest that AS is a succes sale wise. Saying that it sold better than WHFB had on the last years (which is the only claim that was made in the financials) means nothing taken only in that context, since we don't know if these sales were mostly due to AOS, WHFB players completing their armies (last chance to buy), or WQ. Not to be arrogant, but taking comments made by the CEO in a financials at a face value shows an incredible naievety business-wise.
Well considering you just said why I should believe a random unknown poster on the internet why should I believe that you are a doctor in a business administration? Anyway believe what you want.
I can give you my name if you want to. And even a pic of me. lol. And of course I'll believe what I want. I sure as hell won't believe a few made up nonsensical comments just for the sake of it.
Why should I believe that's actually you or that's actually you in your picture? You could of just given me fake information? It's the internet after all. *shrugs*
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 19:05:00
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but he was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%, so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it sure as hell would be on this chart
No, according to the LAST YEARS, it wasn't more than 10-15%. Then AoS would take more of the sales as it got a huge boost in support (I mean, half a year of non-stop releases almost, of course it affected negatively the golden goose-considering that the peaks of consume happen during the release and nearby weeks).
Assuming 30 percent and 40k 60 percent, we are speaking of twice as much, and I doubt any of those games above sold half as much either. GW lost the total dominance of the market long ago.
Nevertheless, let's quit this senseless dickwaving. This thread has been derailed well enough by people wanting to be smartasses on both sides.
Sorry wasn't you that made the 15% comment
And agreed we're getting off topic.
But to be honest, I only asked the guy were that info was coming from, cause he said it was in the financials, and was genuinely interested to see if it was true (I'm actually interested in doing a case study on AOS for my job, so I want all the relvant info). You came in afterward claiming also something that was untrue (that Hasting made the claim).
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but he was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%, so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it sure as hell would be on this chart
No, according to the LAST YEARS, it wasn't more than 10-15%. Then AoS would take more of the sales as it got a huge boost in support (I mean, half a year of non-stop releases almost, of course it affected negatively the golden goose-considering that the peaks of consume happen during the release and nearby weeks).
Assuming 30 percent and 40k 60 percent, we are speaking of twice as much, and I doubt any of those games above sold half as much either. GW lost the total dominance of the market long ago.
Nevertheless, let's quit this senseless dickwaving. This thread has been derailed well enough by people wanting to be smartasses on both sides.
Right, Right, to be on topic as I said 40k could benefit from the monster rules, time and time again people always argue in my store is over vehicle rules
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, its not because I disagree with you that I haven't been paying attention. About all the things you've listed, I feel 40k could do way better than simply adopting what is done in Aos (even if in sone cases, it would be an upgrade, just not the optimal outcome). Specifically, of the things youve listed,I'd much rather have formations completely removed and replaced with a grater variety and restrictived FOC instead of adding point costs to them (and points for formations was something 40k did before AoS was even a thing). I'm not interested in getting free rules (though a free quick set would help get new players in) if the tradeoff is them not being developed to the same extent. This is definitely the case, imo, with AoS where the 4 pages feels not only incomplete but also incredibly shallow (and considering you practically need the GHB and at least a battletome to play AoS, it having free rules is highly debatable ). AoS point costing being based on fan play-testing (though highly unlikely for new releases afaik) is definitively an improvement over 40k current nonsensical approach . Still, I feel a way better altetnative would be for GW to hire a statisticians team complemented by rigorous in-house play testing (with yearly revision and maybe a army building application/software where points cost are adjusted continuously ). As for running in the movement phase and no deathstar, I don't feel it's something specific to AoS, just a major fumble that it isn't the case in 40k.
Finaly, I mostly agree with your last paragraph, I just don't feel it's as bad as you claim. I'd much rather have them hire technical writers capable of laying down a tight ruleset instead of simplifying things (and removing the thousand, all so similar,special rules provided by formations would definitely help).
AoS forces you to fit in the FOC those formations too. It's not "unique", but you nevertheless have to fit all your stuff in. You can bring in nice toys of formations to fluff your army out but you need to respect the universal boundaries. I'd not mind formations if they followed the principles of being costed and needing to fit into a standarized FOC.
40k's basic rules are 4 pages too, the complexity on both games comes from the "special" rules. This is where things start to diverge. AoS unit rules are self-contained and fairly streamlined. 40k's tend to be more byzantine. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three instances of rules overlapping with each other, having similarity but not being the exact same thing, and two where the rules "neuter" each other. That makes the game murky. I'd say we need a big overhaul to remove the overlapping rules, streamlining noticeably.
Yeah... I'm not seeing them hiring a statistician team. I seriously doubt even the other companies do it with their games. Would be optimal, certainly, but IMO we'd better go for the second best first.
Not saying it's something AoS-only, just that AoS does it and 40k could learn from it. I play orcs in AoS and I know that I'd take at least twice in 40k just by virtue of needing to move my army twice in a turn outside of assaults.
Have you payed attention to anything we've said in this thread?
Because it's that or you think that 40k shouldn't cost formations (AoS does this), that it wouldn't be interesting to get free rules, that you prefer to move your miniatures twice since running happens in the shooting phase instead of the movement phase, and it's certainly O-kay to have indestructible deathstars (age of sigmar doesn't have them). And what about playstesting? Yeah, that's a bad thing too, AoS's points system is the result of failry extensive fan-play-testing, so it's clearly a bad thing to play-test stuff, considering 40k cannot learn anything from AoS barring big-critter degradation.
Learning about 100 pages of rules and how they mess with each other is the issue. This point has already been made and adressed pages ago, quite a few times in fact. It's not of difficulty, it's convultion. All too often the rules have too much overlap with each other. The solution for units not being good is to slap more and newer rules, further bloating the game.
First of all, its not because I disagree with you that I haven't been paying attention. About all the things you've listed, I feel 40k could do way better than simply adopting what is done in Aos (even if in sone cases, it would be an upgrade, just not the optimal outcome). Specifically, of the things youve listed,I'd much rather have formations completely removed and replaced with a grater variety and restrictived FOC instead of adding point costs to them (and points for formations was something 40k did before AoS was even a thing). I'm not interested in getting free rules (though a free quick set would help get new players in) if the tradeoff is them not being developed to the same extent. This is definitely the case, imo, with AoS where the 4 pages feels not only incomplete but also incredibly shallow (and considering you practically need the GHB and at least a battletome to play AoS, it having free rules is highly debatable ). AoS point costing being based on fan play-testing (though highly unlikely for new releases afaik) is definitively an improvement over 40k current nonsensical approach . Still, I feel a way better altetnative would be for GW to hire a statisticians team complemented by rigorous in-house play testing (with yearly revision and maybe a army building application/software where points cost are adjusted continuously ). As for running in the movement phase and no deathstar, I don't feel it's something specific to AoS, just a major fumble that it isn't the case in 40k.
Finaly, I mostly agree with your last paragraph, I just don't feel it's as bad as you claim. I'd much rather have them hire technical writers capable of laying down a tight ruleset instead of simplifying things (and removing the thousand, all so similar,special rules provided by formations would definitely help).
AoS forces you to fit in the FOC those formations too. It's not "unique", but you nevertheless have to fit all your stuff in. You can bring in nice toys of formations to fluff your army out but you need to respect the universal boundaries. I'd not mind formations if they followed the principles of being costed and needing to fit into a standarized FOC.
40k's basic rules are 4 pages too, the complexity on both games comes from the "special" rules. This is where things start to diverge. AoS unit rules are self-contained and fairly streamlined. 40k's tend to be more byzantine. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least three instances of rules overlapping with each other, having similarity but not being the exact same thing, and two where the rules "neuter" each other. That makes the game murky. I'd say we need a big overhaul to remove the overlapping rules, streamlining noticeably.
Yeah... I'm not seeing them hiring a statistician team. I seriously doubt even the other companies do it with their games. Would be optimal, certainly, but IMO we'd better go for the second best first.
Not saying it's something AoS-only, just that AoS does it and 40k could learn from it. I play orcs in AoS and I know that I'd take at least twice in 40k just by virtue of needing to move my army twice in a turn outside of assaults.
There's a certain logic in making your unit run in the shooting phase and not in the movement phase. It's to ensure that you don't mistakenly make them shoot after they have run. I don't think it's necessary (hell, I always make my unit run in the movement phasE) but in very large game, it might be useful
lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039
AoS's handling of formations is definitely something 40k can use. Giving them an additional cost and requiring them to fit into a FOC goes a long way towards fixing them.
Also, I've yet to encounter any horrible death stars whilst playing AoS. Every game so far has felt balanced. That's what I enjoy most about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 20:20:34
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
streetsamurai wrote: yeah but WHFB was there before. According to you, it never was at more than 15%. so if AOS is indeed at 30-35%, it's almost a 100% sure it would be on this chart.
Would it?
That ranking system doesn't include GW's own sales - only those of third parties and wholesalers who agree to take part.
Now, we can extrapolate that unknown data, after a fashion.
To do that, you need to look at GW's own financials, which breaks down their sales by territory, and from there by channel. Let's take the last half year report, purely as an example.
North America - £11,131,000.00 trade, £7,044,000.00 retail. Sadly, Mail Order, including FW only gives a total, not broken down by territory, so I shan't include it here, as there's no way to accurately extrapolate.
Total North American sales are therefore £18,174,000.00, of which around 40% is through their own stores.
Now, the competitors sales that feature in that report don't have their own stores, so already the results are heavily skewed, and to a serious analyst to the point of worthlessness - because again, we have no way of knowing how much of GW's reported (and independently verified, because laws) Trade sales are actually taken into account - nor whether those reporting to the list are just end-user sales, or overall stock spend.
So it's certainly an interesting snapshot, but far too incomplete for any pretence at accuracy.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Trust me, no matter what damage they have the potential to do, single-shot weapons always flatter to deceive in 40k.                                                                                                       Rule #1 - BBAP
I think Age Of Sigmar can teach 40k how to better handle warlord traits and unique wargear too. So far I've found everything to be nicely balanced and interesting too. Plus, no rolling to see what you get. You have the choice to pick one outright if you'd rather do that.
DarkBlack wrote: What I really appreciate about AoS is that a decision was made regarding what kind of game it would be and it was made accordingly. It's not like 40k now that tries to be a fun narrative game, a competition game, a "high resolution" squad game and a game with monsters and giant mech's simultaneously. Which makes is struggle with all of those.
It seems to me that this is correct. There are a lot of different kinds of games, and each can be really fun, but trying to make one ruleset be all things to all people seems likely to end up making everyone unhappy.
I wonder if GW would be better off making three separate games in the same universe that use mostly the same miniatures? They already do this to some extent with games like Blood Bowl, but I'm thinking more along the lines of fleshing out Kill Team and Apocalypse and making them more stand alone games.
Kill Team could be a fun, fast skirmish game that only takes about 45 minutes to play. Like AoS the basic rules could be short and free, and each unit could have a free war scroll with its specific rules and options. Have the equivalent of the General's Handbook for point values, scenarios, etc. but don't make it so individual codices are necessary for every army. This would be really good for bringing new players in terms of the amount of money and time it would take to start playing. It would also be good for more experienced players who want to spend an extraordinary amount of time painting and modeling just a few models, play really narrative games, dabble in other armies or just have a game to play during their lunch break.
Normal 40k could be much as it is now. An army game with lots of complexity that makes each unit and army feel different than others and has enough rules to represent things like cover and morale that it feels like your decisions matter and things are actually happening rather than just plopping cool models down on the table and then taking turns seeing who can roll the most sixes. To get this level of detail while keeping most games at a reasonable length it might require making things cost more points and/or put a lower points cap on most games. (See caveats below.)
Apocalypse could be where all the cool superheavies and gigantic horde armies come out. Have a set of rules that simplifies things like movement, cover, line of sight and individual model placement for the sake of speeding things up. Games would still take longer than regular 40k, but not all day. Maybe lower the bar for what is considered an "Apcalypse" level game in terms of the number of models and maybe what kinds of units, formations and allies are allowed.
Caveats: I'm just getting back into Warhammer 40k and have yet to play a game of AoS, so I'm more or less a noob.
Also, when I say that "normal" 40k could be much as it is now I'm not saying that things couldn't be rebalanced or that certain rules couldn't be simplified, I'm just saying the core way the game has been played for the last few decades could remain the same and it could continue to be an army game with a lot of detail.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/25 23:34:04
I think that is an absolutely fantastic idea! Especially making Apocalypse having a simplified rule set to speed it up. Like a spiritual successor to Epic? And this way everyone has the level of game that they're comfortable with. Someone should develop this further! Someone like me, for example. When I get the time...if ever.
Future War Cultist wrote: Especially making Apocalypse having a simplified rule set to speed it up. Like a spiritual successor to Epic?
That's what I was thinking. I mean, I really like the idea of an Imperial Guard army doing a massive charge of several maxed out platoons backed up by a Baneblade, but that probably doesn't belong in a game where the exact placement of each individual model matters for things like true line of sight and blast templates.
The other day I heard on a podcast that part of the reason that GW stopped supporting Epic was that they found that instead of buying both Epic models and 40k models they were spending the same amount of money and buying Epic instead of normal 40k (I don't know if this is actually true or just a rumor the hosts heard somewhere). People have been building up there collections of 28mm 40k over the years and a lot of people have amassed truly huge armies. There's also been some spill over of the smaller scale epic vehicles (like Stompas and Baneblades) into normal 40k. I think there should be a way for people to play with their gigantic armies, and maybe turning Apocalypse into a new Epic of sorts would allow people to do that without shifting money away from GW's main revenue source of 28mm 40k.
That doesn't make sense. Why would they care that customers are buying more Epic than 40k? They are still getting money for it, aren't they? If that was the case, then wouldn't GW start focusing more on Epic?
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That doesn't make sense. Why would they care that customers are buying more Epic than 40k? They are still getting money for it, aren't they? If that was the case, then wouldn't GW start focusing more on Epic?
You might be right, and the thing about Epic eating into 40k sales could be a total falsehood that I'm repeating.
I can see how it could have been a problem though, as maintaining a second rules system and product line does have a cost and so if they were selling the same amount they might actually be losing money. Using made up numbers, if the average 40k player spent $350 a year on GW stuff and they were hoping to increase that to $500 a year by introducing Epic, but if it turned out that the average customer spent $150 on Epic and decreased their 40k spending to $200 a year then it makes sense that they wouldn't want to spend more money on coming up with new rules, new models and maintaining production and inventory for Epic.
That's completely hypothetical, and I don't know the real story of what happened.
But if you did your suggestion, then wouldn't you have a situation where GW would be creating models that are mostly viable for three separate games? Would that not encourage people to buy them, and everyone can settle in to the size of game they're happy with? Maybe I'm confused. It wouldn't be the first time.
If I was doing this, I'd have the smallest game, kill team, keep the current S v T system (refined of course), then 40k would have a AoS style refined system, then apocalypse would have a AoS style system based on a unit by unit basis rather than a model by model basis. And when I say AoS style I mean something like AoS. Maybe not exactly AoS itself.
If I was doing this, I'd have the smallest game, kill team, keep the current S v T system (refined of course), then 40k would have a AoS style refined system, then apocalypse would have a AoS style system based on a unit by unit basis rather than a model by model basis. And when I say AoS style I mean something like AoS. Maybe not exactly AoS itself.
Sorry, rambling again.
I could defiantely get behind something like this.
A suggestion I saw in the 'AFTERLIFE' game system which might be an idea would be akin to condensing WS/BS/Strengh into an 'offense' stat or similar, and condensing Toughness/Armour into a 'defence' stat or similar.
Simply roll accuracy vs defense to get a to-hit/to-wound.
Alternatively you could keep armour save seperate and have cover modify the defense stat of a model, thus keeping cover relevant for armoured models.
Disadvantage though is that it closely links WS/BS/Syrength. Which normally are seperate unit/weapon profiles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/26 12:21:47
I think one thing that is becoming apparent is that we are clearly moving to a 'grand alliance' style way of organising factions. I'm not saying it will be EXACTLY like it is in AoS, however in the gathering storm series we have seen formations combining marines and adeptus sororitas in Fall of Cadia and in Fracture of Biel Tan we are seeing formations combining Craftworld and dark eldar and harlequins and dark eldar. I think that in so far as GW can do this they and to be honest it makes sense as it will sell more models as more models become viable for people to buy and use as the factions increase in scope. I can easily see factions such as 'Imperium of Man' covering all adeptus astartes, astra militarum, adeptus sororitas, Grey Knights etc and a similar one covering the 'Aelidari' for craftworld, harlequin and dark eldar forces. I admit this doesn't work quite so well for all the factions, though Genestealer Cults and Tyranids could make up another alliance and all chaos factions obviously. The difficult ones are the Tau, Necrons and Orks who don't really fit together but don't really go with anyone else either. They can then implement something similar to what they did in the Generals Handbook whereby if you run a straight up Blood Angels army for example then you get to select a warlord trait and/or get certain special abilities or rules which you don't get if you run an 'imperium of man' army consisting of blood angels, imperial guard and some grey knights. However, equally, running an imperium of man army doesn't necessarily penalise you in the way that running unbound does now in that you don't get formation bonuses/benefits.
I certainly hope that the unit dataslates go the same way as the warscrolls from AoS because I simultaneously love how the warscrolls tell you pretty much everything you need to know about the unit in terms of rules and abilities whereas the dataslates tell you SOME of what you need to know in terms of rules and abilities. For others you either need to check their unit type in the BRB to see if that gives them any special rules (jet pack infantry getting deepstrike for example) or elsewhere in the codex or the special rules section of the BRB. There is so much flicking through different books to do and/or so much to remember about units that is not explicitly stated on their dataslate and that is a real annoyance for me because something inevitably gets forgotten. The dataslate should be a one stop shop for everything you need to know about that unit.
Finally, i can absolutely see them introducing the mechanic where monsters and machines get less effective as they suffer wounds/damage and i actually think that is a pretty cool mechanic!
The difficult ones are the Tau, Necrons and Orks who don't really fit together but don't really go with anyone else either.
If they continue along the lines of AoS, we would see smaller factions being introduced that they can make models for.
For example Tau would get their allied races. In the best case scenario we would see the reintroduction of the Kroot hive stuff, expanded Vespids, and introduction of Gue'va stuff. With further allied species like the Psyker race, the Demi-urg and the like.
Orks.. Bit trickier, but I believe we could get some more feral boyz stuff, Squiggs, maybe grot stuff reintroduced fully as an army (like Grot tanks!)
Necrons would be MUCH trickier to do so aside from fancier stuff from each of the necron tomb's, though maybe we could see a mechanic or warscroll type that allows them to take mind-scarab "slaves" from other alliances (Several battalions allow for you to take other army units so long as they had the proper keyword)
Necrons would be MUCH trickier to do so aside from fancier stuff from each of the necron tomb's, though maybe we could see a mechanic or warscroll type that allows them to take mind-scarab "slaves" from other alliances (Several battalions allow for you to take other army units so long as they had the proper keyword)
I for one would be thrilled if they paid homage to the 3rd ed codex and introduced Necron worshipping techpriests. And Pariahs. And Tomb Worlds still under the control of C'tan / genocidal AI. Give me back my Silver Legions, GW.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/26 16:22:36
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
Future War Cultist wrote: But if you did your suggestion, then wouldn't you have a situation where GW would be creating models that are mostly viable for three separate games? Would that not encourage people to buy them, and everyone can settle in to the size of game they're happy with? Maybe I'm confused. It wouldn't be the first time.
If I was doing this, I'd have the smallest game, kill team, keep the current S v T system (refined of course), then 40k would have a AoS style refined system, then apocalypse would have a AoS style system based on a unit by unit basis rather than a model by model basis. And when I say AoS style I mean something like AoS. Maybe not exactly AoS itself.
Sorry, rambling again.
Yes, if they used mostly the same model range it seems like it would be cheaper to support three separate games, especially if two of the three primarily used one book. (Unless I'm confused about what we're talking about as well.)
I think your way of separating the games word work well too, as Kill Team lends itself to more detailed play.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:Necrons would be MUCH trickier to do so aside from fancier stuff from each of the necron tomb's, though maybe we could see a mechanic or warscroll type that allows them to take mind-scarab "slaves" from other alliances (Several battalions allow for you to take other army units so long as they had the proper keyword)
Nice logic 
~4100
~1660
